This seems problematic (for me) because how do we know the vibrations of the atom used to define a second is regular? To me the only way we can decide this is by using another process or phenomenon we know to be regular but then how do we know that particular process or phenomenon is regular? And so on... — TheMadFool
Because you get the exact same result from countless repeatings of the experiment.This seems problematic (for me) because how do we know the vibrations of the atom used to define a second is regular? — TheMadFool
Now let's see how we measure time. Time is measured in seconds, its multiples or subdivisions. The second, today, is defined in terms of how long it takes for a specific atom to vibrate some number of times. — TheMadFool
This seems problematic (for me) because how do we know the vibrations of the atom used to define a second is regular? To me the only way we can decide this is by using another process or phenomenon we know to be regular but then how do we know that particular process or phenomenon is regular? And so on... — TheMadFool
Because you get the exact same result from countless repeatings of the experiment. — noAxioms
Er, all you need are two measures you think are regular in relation to each other. — StreetlightX
However, the so-called "constants" are not absolutely constant, so this produces the need to make slight adjustments now and then. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, that doesn't solve the problem does it? The phenomenon itself must be regular. — TheMadFool
How do we know that? By using, a supposedly accurate, time piece. And how do we know that that's accurate? — TheMadFool
What 'phenomenon'? All you want after is regularity. If two measures are in sync, they're regular. — StreetlightX
By ''in sync'' you mean they move to-and-fro at regular intervals. — TheMadFool
Taking two faulty rulers to countercheck each other doesn't solve the problem of whether we have the right measurement. — TheMadFool
Since 1967, the International System of Units (SI) has defined the second as the duration of 9192631770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom. In 1997, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) added that the preceding definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.[15] — wiki
How would we know 'officially' if the transitions were slowing down or speeding up? — t0m
And we have quantum theory to tell us that radioactive decay is an intrinsically independent process. — apokrisis
So in principle, the "clock of the universe" could speed up or slow down and we couldn't notice it. But it is the fact itself that we couldn't notice a difference that then means there ain't anything to worry about - except people's metaphysical hankering for externalist accounts of reality. — apokrisis
I don't expect to be suddenly wiped out by a change in the 'laws' of nature, but I have yet to see a way around Hume's 'problem.' — t0m
So the problem of induction isn't really a problem. If we couldn't doubt, how could we say we believed? — apokrisis
it's easy to imagine a 'smug quietism' misreading genuine logical tensions as language on holiday, complacently waiting for the acknowledgement of such tensions to become conventional, respectable. — t0m
Is this relativity itself relative? Or understood as an absolute? — t0m
And was it not established on an assumption of the uniformity of nature? — t0m
So the Planck constant is a social construction and not a part of nature? -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time — apokrisis
Doubts of the uniformity of nature are theoretical. They are 'silly.' But they are fascinating. — t0m
As I understand it, the Planck constant is defined in terms of meters^2 per kilogram per second. — fishfry
So we can simply take two objects that are ''in sync'' and take that as a measure of regularity? How do we check for synchronization? I think it'll be imprecise. — TheMadFool
The same is the case if the two clocks keep perfect synchrony. It could be that one is being accelerated, and yet also it is faulty to exactly the degree needed to compensate. — apokrisis
That's why we need numerous different types of clocks. Each has its own peculiarities. — Metaphysician Undercover
And the principle is what matters. — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.