Would you agree that something empirical would have to be measurable.?

Question

In the sense that our sense receptors give us measurements of the world around us and define them as at a certain place in sense 'spectrums?'

Thanks for some cracking answers so far. It's going a long way toward a paper I'm writing on the distinction between empirical sense and transcendental schemas. Ta!

Surely to have a notion of the concept of infinity we must first grasp the concept of measurement, to be infinite must by definition be measurable.

I would also posit that quantum mechanics and their studies are in effect metaphysical. This is certainlt true of string theory.

Answer 1

how do you measure something that is not detectable by any of our senses, either directly or via a measuring instrument???

Answer 2

Yes it is true that if it is empirical,any epistemoly we have of an object wold have to be measureable.Regardless of its size.Because it is empirical it would have to have at least length,width,and height.How we do the measuring may be a problem,but it can be determined dimensionally.Objects we can see with our eyes are easier to measure than small particles in which we would need specail lighting to view or some means other than conventional methods.
But logic and definition demands that those objects are measureable.To make it appear simple any concrete noun has measureable dimensions.Concepts like Freedom,truth,love ,etc,or any state-of-being lack dimensions to measure.That is also why they are so impossible to define.Remember Plato's Dialogues?Did he ever ask What is a stone or what is a shoe?No he stuck to questions of human emotion,impossible to reach a common definition for.Yes Dave I see no way to get by the Truth that if it is empirical it is measureable.I would surely love to see something empirical that in theory immeasureable.It is as true as saying that every event has a cause.An a priori statemant that is empirical.Also Dave Kant set out to prove that synthetic a priori prositions are possible.When we next chat try to remember are all analytic a priori proposions rational and none empirical.Your Always Pal larry m

Answer 3

I don't think so. There is the phenomenon of contrast. A level of light which looks black in particular lighting conditions will look grey or even white in others, which is due to the relationship between the tone and the tones next to it. The same would apply to colours, sounds and tastes. An apple might taste sour after a bar of chocolate but sweet after vinegar, but sour taste alone is an indication of acid pH. The pH could be measured but it wouldn't tell you how sour the apple would taste on a particular occasion.

There is also the issue of perceptions like purpleness and violetness. To us they look similar, because violet light stimulates the red-perceiving cone cells as well as the blue ones, but to an animal which can see ultraviolet light as a colour, they would look completely different. Similarly, there are substances that can only be tasted by some people, and one can imagine that whereas humans might find both ginger and Cayenne pepper to be hot because they are local circulatory stimulants and set off pain receptors, another species with a different physiology might not find this.

Answer 4

Empirical acquisition of knowledge is based upon systematically planned experiences for a physical world. Whereas, the state of affairs at a quantum level are very different for the logic of an ordinary observers, as there is possibility for the same state to be visible entirely differently at different place in time to two different observers. We could never measure anything at that level with conventional empirical methods of reckoning all things solid in state.

The concept of infinity is not a concept of a number beyond the greatest number on the number line. Infinity is not a quantity or an amount measurable, as one might like to imagine, but it is a characteristic. The progression of natural numbers on a number line, with zeros as a start, only tend to reach infinity, but never reaches the ultimate and none of its number can ever be infinite.

The fact is that each number has empirical significance and therefore value great than infinity. As infinity is but a characteristic of a nature number sequence, as in a simple number line, and certainly not an amount, then each number in the domain of its main group, the sequence, inherits the same characteristic. In this sense each number has an element of infinity incorporated in its value. Infinity therefore is characteristically part of each number as each number is in place as a part of an endless sequence of number – it would not be possible to have a number just by it own: two has to have one in its preceding, and three in its proceeding.

Answer 5

I'm glad you include sense receptors as measuring instruments.

This means that memories, dreams, reflections, emotions, would be included in the empirical world. Even if only one person has ever had a particular thought/feeling, that thought/feeling is part of the empirical world because it's theoretically measurable.

Answer 6

No we can understand the concept off infinity even if we do not understand the quantum algorithms at the subatomic level logic and understanding breaks down at the sub atomic level ,so as Dirac proved with Einstein measurement is relative in a 3 dimensional space 3 points for a location one for a point of origin and 5 destination that my friend is is time travel .if you work that one out let me know.

Answer 7

By definition, "empirical" is built of Greek "en," "in," and "peira," "trial," "experiment."

A legal trial and an scientific trial entail two types of "measurement," i.e. two recognized standards of "truth."

In either mode, a "ratio" or measurement obtains.

An example of legally acceptable measurement is the Host of Light miracle at Garabandal, Spain, in 1962-63. Numerous sceptics filmed the coalescence of a perfectly formed Host of Light in thin air, as predicted by an Angel to a child.

The scientific empirical measurement of the Host would be limited to analysis of the film, etc. The additional requirement of scientific empiricism is the replicability, when possible, of the phenomenon.

"Climb the Highest Mountain," Mark Prophet, and "Men in White Apparel," Ann Ree Colton, might be interesting; also, http://www.tiller.org http://www.integralscience.org http://www.quantumbrain.org and http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
are of interest.

cordially,

j.

Answer 8

Wow, the first 2 answers are way off. The first answer makes "unobservable" out of empirical, which means, phenomenal, which means "observable."
The second answer has never heard of philosophical "measurements."
Read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Rand if you want to learn how to "measure" them with philosophy.
But empirically, yes, all things are measurable. We need only learn the means to measure them, if we do not already.

Answer 9

Yes, by some criterion. If something can be sensed by one of the 5 senses, it can be measured in some way. A 'spectrum' is simply a range of measurement, yes?

Answer 10

Perhaps observable would be a better description than measurable. The word 'measurable' tends to point towards the quantitative, whereas qualitative observations are just as valid.