Re: [ANN] SR/InertialFrames v2.2.1

Am Sonntag000001, 01.06.2025 um 09:45 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:

On 6/1/2025 9:12 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Samstag000031, 31.05.2025 um 09:09 schrieb Maciej Woźniak:
...

>
The measurement of a quantity isn't that quantity, but a different thing.
>
You should regard measurements as human artifacts and totally irrelevant for nature.

>
So are "quantities", unfortunately.

>
Actually I make the distinction between measurement and quantity.

 So do I, both are human concepts, however.
 

So: we have, say, a stick of e.g. wood. This has a certain form, which we measure in -say- meters.
>
Now the real thing 'stick' has an attribute, which we call 'length' (or 'form' or whatever you like).
>
But this stick has this attribute without human intervention and whether we measure it or not.

 Well, wrong. It's us who assigned this attribute
to this stick.
 

sure, since sticks don't measure themselves.
But I wanted to express, that the attributes belong to the object, which has that particular feature, and not to the measuring device.
The object 'stick', for instance, takes therefore it's length with it, once it moves away.
So: the attribute is 'glued' to the object, while the observer is 'glued' to the measuring device.
These are two different realms and only the measuring device belongs to our realm.
(The attribute of an object belongs to that object.)

>
The measure 'meters' however and the measuring device are human artifacts and belong into our own realm and would not exist without us.
>
Therefore the measurement is an artifact, while the quantity is a real attribute of something we measure.
>
The 'cut', however, between the stick of the example above and the tree it still belongs to, is an artifact again.
>

>

We can measure something, however, and did so since ancient times.
>
But the measurement belongs to us as human beings, while the things we measure belong to nature.

>
Nope. "length", "time", "energy", anything -
are human developed abstracts.
>

>
If you say essentially the same, you should not write 'nope'.

 But I write the opposite. The things we measure -
"length", "time", "energy", anything - are human
developed abstracts.

You are correct, but I see no difference to what I have written.
TH