Re: Perfect clocks

J. J. Lodder wrote:

>
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

>
W dniu 26.04.2024 o 21:09, J. J. Lodder pisze:

>
Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:

>
More stable, more independent on the environment
and its fancies a device is - better it is.
Perfect clocks would ignore the nature completely.

A very strange assertion since clocks are supposed to
measure something that is at the very basis of reality.

Au contraire, perfect clocks are perfect nature,

 What is "perfect nature", Lod?

>
There is only one 'Nature',
>
Jan

Perhaps there is only one nature, but it has many parts.
The discussion seems to be about the part of nature called
"time" ... but what is "time"?  Does it have one, or more,
parts?  What is "now"?  Clocks are supposed to model time,
so what what do we assume "time" is?
At present, we assume the duration of a second of time is
described by 9,192, 631,770 cycles of the standard Cs-133
hyper-fine transition.  Since that's a part of nature, Woz's
assertion makes no sense.  OTOH, do we count anything built
by humans as a part of nature, too?
That fact appears to be that there is "something" that rules
the passage of time, but we have no clue as to what that is.
One guy with whom I had a discussion about that:  it's a
quantum action effect.  Maybe we'll find it someday, 'way
down there at the Planck time level?  Could be, I dunno.