Philosophy Now Forum

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:59 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:33 am This is believed to be the shortest distance between two points in space so-called Plank length. What is between two points? It cannot be nothing since otherwise two points obviously coincide. Therefore, there is something between the two points. This means that space is a substance. Following the same logic, it follows that time also is a substance.

Plank length is NOT a literal quantizable 'minimum'. It is defined in a way that others can determine a unit without a particular 'standard', like the original 'meter' being defined by a particular bar's length, for instance. When using literal standards of length, it is hard to use macro-objects (relative to quantum sizes) given they can be affected by temperature differences, material used, etc. It may also be the present smallest agreed to unit (conventional minimum), but it doesn't mean that there is some actual smallest interval greater than zero other than AT an interval of zero size, which would just be a point. But there are still paradoxes about spacial measures; just not related to the Plank length.

I understand that this measure is a 'limit' of practical means of measuring. For instance, our fingers are of such a size that there is a limit to what we can use fingers. Plank is a limit based on the smallest means of measuring a specific unit size. The same goes with 0K, a measure that can only be inferred (as a singularity) but not something you can measure because at that temperature, no movement exists. So you cannot 'measure' it without CAUSING such points in space being measured to have some minimum limit.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 7:27 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:34 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:39 pm Not sure why you are insisting that it remains a theoretical conclusion. A conclusion in my book IS something observed.

In other words, what are you receiving sensory data from? (What are you looking at?)

The same tool you are looking at right now, technology.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:48 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 7:27 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:34 pm

In other words, what are you receiving sensory data from? (What are you looking at?)

The same tool you are looking at right now, technology.

Right. So that's what you're actually observing.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 7:17 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:48 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 7:27 pm


The same tool you are looking at right now, technology.

Right. So that's what you're actually observing.

So to you it's just a theory that you are staring at words on a screen?

charlie bravo foxtrot

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:38 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:59 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:33 am This is believed to be the shortest distance between two points in space so-called Plank length. What is between two points? It cannot be nothing since otherwise two points obviously coincide. Therefore, there is something between the two points. This means that space is a substance. Following the same logic, it follows that time also is a substance.

Plank length is NOT a literal quantizable 'minimum'. It is defined in a way that others can determine a unit without a particular 'standard', like the original 'meter' being defined by a particular bar's length, for instance. When using literal standards of length, it is hard to use macro-objects (relative to quantum sizes) given they can be affected by temperature differences, material used, etc. It may also be the present smallest agreed to unit (conventional minimum), but it doesn't mean that there is some actual smallest interval greater than zero other than AT an interval of zero size, which would just be a point. But there are still paradoxes about spacial measures; just not related to the Plank length.

I understand that this measure is a 'limit' of practical means of measuring. For instance, our fingers are of such a size that there is a limit to what we can use fingers. Plank is a limit based on the smallest means of measuring a specific unit size. The same goes with 0K, a measure that can only be inferred (as a singularity) but not something you can measure because at that temperature, no movement exists. So you cannot 'measure' it without CAUSING such points in space being measured to have some minimum limit.

I don't think so. The existence of physical constants like hbar, G and c, means that space is a substance rather than a pure vacuum.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:27 am It is not as much about the accuracy nor about the means of measurement, but about the time required for measurement. We would need more/slower time for more accurate measurements. Matter changes / grows "under hands" faster than we would need for measure it more accurately, simply put ...

Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 2:12 pm Of course it has to do with "uncertainty relations". Please consider too, that "amorphous yet" matter condenses / "snows" from the "future" and creates new sediments / Planck’s (crystal) layers of the past ... Not only matter but also the order condenses from the "future". That is why to understand the past as "crystal". Things / layers must stick together to Universe can exist and gives a sense. By the way, life / mercy is coming from the future too...

see eg https://www.yourgemologist.com/FlameFus ... neuil.html

Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:41 am As for the "block universe," perhaps better, the "block of the past," we can think of it as a ball of water in space far from gravity.

https://youtu.be/H_qPWZbxFl8

Such a ball constantly condenses from the surroundings (from the future), grows, its surface grows. Now we need add one dimension. Then rhe 3-D surface is our current (borderless but limited) universe (time right now) and all our hyper ball is the 4-D “block” of history of the universe. We also need to replace water with a “dirty" crystal. The elementary particles are defects (dirtyness) in the (crystal) structure of Univese, which are permanently replicating, rise into the new time layers (Planck’s), into the “Future”. At the beginning, there was no “big bang”, but only a tin crystal grain, a cold germ of causality.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:41 am As for the "block universe," perhaps better, the "block of the past," ...
...
At the beginning, there was no “big bang”, but only a tin crystal grain, a cold germ of causality.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:49 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:38 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:59 pm
Plank length is NOT a literal quantizable 'minimum'. It is defined in a way that others can determine a unit without a particular 'standard', like the original 'meter' being defined by a particular bar's length, for instance. When using literal standards of length, it is hard to use macro-objects (relative to quantum sizes) given they can be affected by temperature differences, material used, etc. It may also be the present smallest agreed to unit (conventional minimum), but it doesn't mean that there is some actual smallest interval greater than zero other than AT an interval of zero size, which would just be a point. But there are still paradoxes about spacial measures; just not related to the Plank length.

I understand that this measure is a 'limit' of practical means of measuring. For instance, our fingers are of such a size that there is a limit to what we can use fingers. Plank is a limit based on the smallest means of measuring a specific unit size. The same goes with 0K, a measure that can only be inferred (as a singularity) but not something you can measure because at that temperature, no movement exists. So you cannot 'measure' it without CAUSING such points in space being measured to have some minimum limit.

I don't think so. The existence of physical constants like hbar, G and c, means that space is a substance rather than a pure vacuum.

This is a question related to measurement limits, not about what an actual smallest measure can be. It relates to the same issue between continuous versus discrete math and, where physics is concerned, the continuity that Einstein's Relativity theories prioritize versus Quantum Mechanics' choice to prioritize quantized (discrete) concepts. The planck length is a point where the QM side interprets physics breaks down. I think it is just due to the limitations of measure. Proposals of various 'theories' (conjectures may be more accurate) depend on the limits. [I hapen to be watching a doc on it now on BBC Earth called, Horizon of "How Small is the Universe". Maybe I can add more on this later after watching.]

Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:23 pm

Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:41 am As for the "block universe," perhaps better, the "block of the past," ...
...
At the beginning, there was no “big bang”, but only a tin crystal grain, a cold germ of causality.

at the beginning was a word:) that means a limited, ordered set of defined elements... Certain DNA of the Universe...