My theory on infinite conprehension in measurement.

if an eggtimer set for ten minutes goes off in the woods and no one is around to hear it...

does it make a sound?

What if a wolf is around?

Um.....Yeah?

there is a limit to how accurate we can measure things due to the uncertainty principle. some more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420ultimatesmokage

there is a limit to how accurate we can measure things due to the uncertainty principle. some more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

---

totally. so what you're saying is, we have the potential to change the value of a second when we fire an electron at it?

or that we can never know both the location and the velocity of a measurement of time? Totally.

but still...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

totally. so what you're saying is, we have the potential to change the value of a second when we fire an electron at it?

or that we can never know both the location and the velocity of a measurement of time? Totally.

but still...

---

uncertainty principle also includes ideas that at the quantum level things are constantly turning to and from energy. time and space in the sense of what we experience is completely backwards. There are no definite measurements at the smallest scales everything is based on probability.

Beam me up scotty,,,these people are nutz...

Really? I was actually kinda making fun of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420ultimatesmokage

uncertainty principle also includes ideas that at the quantum level things are constantly turning to and from energy. time and space in the sense of what we experience is completely backwards. There are no definite measurements at the smallest scales everything is based on probability.

---

That seems to go far beyond Heisenburg. Are you sure you're not equating the uncertainty principle with uncertainty in general?

Anyway, I'll bite. Quantum mechanics or any modern physics seems to make space for the subjectivity of an individual perspective. Which seems to threaten the very concept of an objective "real" time.

Since wayoftheleaf's entire dilemna is based upon an equivocation between a subjective and an objective understanding of time, not to mention measurement, I think his paradox dissolves quite nicely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

Really? I was actually kinda making fun of you.

---

your condescending attitude was all to apparent but i was just trying to give a little bit of info without getting into a big argument. the point im trying to make is we can't know everything because at the most basic level, nothing is certain nothing can be known for sure.

well I'm glad it wasn't lost on you. I don't see why you think quantum theory is even at all relevant in this case? It just adds another level of complication that does nothing for the clarity of the original problem.

quantum theory deals with reality. A very dynamic and yet rigidly defined concept of reality.

Time however isn't very real. You could make arguments about spacetime but it doesn't address the fact that a second is a second. Maybe always relative to a particular frame of reference, but a second nonetheless.

I still think this all boils down to Zeno's paradox. And despite the fact that you can always cut a second in half, and then half again, and half again ad infinium; that divisibility doesn't address the second as a unit itself.

Time is a concept that we apply to the world, much as quantum theory is a concept we apply to the world. But to apply one concept to another concept seems redundant.

There are no second particles. When 60 seconds come together they don't form a minute molecule. These are ideas, not components of physical reality. So why quantum theory?