Many standard physical measurements, like height and volume,
are human conceptions. There are a nearing infinite ways to measure
water and land objects. None are intrinsically better or lesser
than the other possible measurements. Picking the 'best' measuring
method for water is like picking the most accurate identity in
a cloud-you might see a castle in the design of cloud, while
your friend might see a princess. For easy understanding and
practical convenience humans chose volume as the key measure
of water, height as a key measure of trees and weight as a key
measure of rocks. Most lay humans and even scientists see volume
as something intrinsic to liquid, but it's just an idiosyncratic
humans conception. Volume as a measurement has as much to do
with the way the human mind operates as it does to do with orange
juice. Just as your friend seeing a princess in the cloud is
more a reflection of your friend than the cloud.
Humans have developed a great bias towards their pet measuring
methods, treating them as the gold standard. There's nothing
wrong with having convenient measuring methods, but the gold
standard status sometimes leads to interesting results.
Take mountains for example. The number one way to measure
a mountain of course its it's height. The Guinness Book of World's
Records doesn't have entries for the heaviest mountain or the
bluest or the smoothest. They list the tallest and the highest.
I mean who cares which is the bluest?
It should be of no surprise that special attention is given
to Mt. Everest, the tallest and highest mountain. Amongst the
general public, the apex of mountain climbing is scaling Mt.
Everest. Most just assume its also the most difficult to scale.
Expert climbers will tell you that K2 is significantly more difficult
to climb due to the angles and remoteness. However, K2 doesn't
have the formidable reputation with the public as it's only the
second tallest mountain. To the public, tallest means toughest
to climb.
* * * *
Notice how the mainstream press measures motion pictures.
They rank them by their box-office sales, something that that
has little to do with art. They measure art as business transactions.
What is humorous about box office receipts as measurement
of art is that the viewers purchase the ticket before they see
the movie. Many people buy a ticket, then hate the movie.
Of course, CNN and MSNBC use box office receipts as measurement
as they are convenient, seemingly concrete. They have a financial
section staff that knows how to deal with financial statements.
Objectively measuring and ranking by artistic merit would be
great, but no one knows how to do that.
* * * *
Assorted interesting measuring tidbits:
You likely find it easier to judge the length of a pole if
it vertical or horizontal than at an unorthodox angle. If the
pole is at 73 degree angle, you might tilt your head to judge
its length.
There are problems in communication between folks who measure
in Celsius versus Fahrenheit, yards versus millimeters. An American
may find it hard to impossible to conceptualize temperatures
quoted in degree Celsius.
Scientists have yet to find the perfect way to represent light.
In some ways light is like a wave, but in others it is like particles.
These conceptions conflict.
Meteorologists added wind chill factor and humidity to their
descriptive repertoire, as they found temperature alone was unable
to accurately describe conditions.
Measuring can change the subject being measured. Methods of
measuring running computer programs can slow or otherwise alter
the program. In nuclear physics, measuring the location of an
atomic particle change's the particle's speed. Runners run a
shorter mile since the Olympics switched to metric.
Measurements are never exact. There are always is a margin
of error.
We can order and categorize information for our purposes,
but not beyond that. We don't know how things are ordered beyond
our us.
