The mensura Christi provides insights into the making of modern measurement—and how the history of metrology created our modern world, subdivided into arbitrary units that define and shape our lives.
Brian, as you alluded to me a while back, you would get to this! Pun intended, it is a measure above! The history is great at showing the folly of measurement as being untethered to human choices and decisions. But the punchline you deliver at the end is the lesson we should take away. Some really import at things cannot be measured: motives, emotions, psychology, preferences (ordinal yes, cardinal no). Data is just a collection of measurement in which the measurement has been agreed upon by those using it. Big data is just a larger set of measurements. But data itself does not tell us anything about linkages or causality, though we can find correlations. The big mystery in the world is how do these data fit together? That is where data and empirical observation (if this, then that) come together to build models of the things we want to understand in the world. Economic phenomena, weather, physics, chemistry stem from observation and then we use data to build models to replicate what we observe. But in the end we need an agreed upon base by which comparisons (the measurement) can be made.
Still, data cannot explain human behavior, decision making, or personality traits like the dark triad. Those come from classification of observations. And even if data are available, we all interpret data differently based on our own experience.
We omit measuring things like “home production” as having value in GDP. Why? There is no money changing hands. If I pay somebody to do it, it counts in GDP. If I do it myself, no transaction occurs and it is not counted. In both cases the service gets done, but the measure is quite different. What is my value of happiness from reading your Substack? Certainly more than what I pay, but does that get measured? No. Why? Can’t measure something without a transaction and we do not transact intrinsic happiness.
Hope this finds all who read this happy in the most immeasurable ways so they do not become shackled to a spreadsheet!
What a lovely reply - and very glad that you derive more value than is measured from the newsletter! I have a habit of previewing future work in my replies to you, because you often anticipate where I’m going with something, but I’ll be announcing my next book in a few weeks and it has a chapter that deals with some of these issues (and won’t make me many new friends in the social sciences). Thanks as always for reading!
Your opening is so British! You passed your citizenship test yet again! I look forward to seeing the next book. Social scientists are becoming more beholden to data and numerical methods these days. It is a blessing and curse. The curse part is that we use data and forget how to logic our way through a problem and look patterns that are in front of us and ignore hard to measure factors. Egad! They are all becoming economists! (I am an Economist, and there is a reason I left the academy)
Measurement and convention are like peas in a pod, right?
I appreciate you calling out GDP failing to account for the less tangible economic exchanges. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and its often arbitrarily based on what is easy/concrete to measure consistently. But then distortions and misunderstandings arise of course. The economic value of information exchange is becoming more and more significant in our information age, and economic measures need some updating seems to me.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, I found them both valuable and enjoyable, lol
A really intriguing post. It reminds me of Wordsworth's "we murder to dissect" (though I don't agree with him about books! Nor that we should stop thinking and just "immerse."). I've noticed that things like unemployment figures or inflation have a gazillion [note the precise measurement figure] different definitions. No wonder we talk past each other so much.
Obviously those varying measure are created for different purposes. But those are not clearly defined in most reporting.
I've been reading several books on "predictive brain" theory which says (much over simplified) that our own reality is shaped by the predictions the brain makes to fill in the gaps in perception. Most of the neuroscience supporting it seems to deal with things like pain perception and the effect of predicted assumptions on the kind of arousal that leads to trigger-happy cops.--this is an unconscious process: the cops may truly believe they are not prejudiced. So it helps explain the underpinnings of systemic racism.
And it does seem to explain confirmation bias, amongst other things. The same can be said about the "tech bros" reliance on data as the be all and end all capable of explaining the world. We need a lot less hubris and closer attention to the way we parcel out "reality." Thinking about measurement and its attempts to corral reality is a good place to start.
That's a very interesting hypothesis - and I think there's a lot of truth to it. Have you read Donald Hoffman's The Case Against Reality? I recommend it, though it does get technical in a few places.
Thanks for the recommendation: I've added it to my TBR pile of pixels (at my age I need to read on kindle.) I've read Seth Anil's Being You and and am almost done with Andy Clark's The Experience Machine. Both make sense to me, particularly Clark on pain perception as my daughter is a chronic pain patient. Plus articles when I can find them. Always scouting for more sources.
Wow, this essay on measurement is really thought provoking and a beautiful read. Thanks!!
I appreciate the suggestion those ancient, dogmatic Christian views are similar to some modern ‘tech-bro’ sentiments. I see things very much the same way. That sort of know-it-all, dismissive-of-everything-else thinking leads to nihilistic and/or apocalyptic nonsense, as far as I can tell. I am also a firm believer in science, a scientist, but 100% agree, the Universe is not entirely observable or material.
We humans have a tendency to believe we understand the world more completely than we do. It gives us a sense of security I guess. But even many of Einstein’s most famous theories have not been tested, cannot be tested. People tend to think the more we learn about the universe, the more things are settled. But as far as I can tell, the more we learn, the more questions pop up. And science can only answer the ones where we can consistently measure things - that is not nearly everything that is important. So science cannot possibly give us all the answers - philosophy and spirituality - mythos - must necessarily fill the gap. Its better it is filled consciously and rationally than allowed to be filled with whatever nonsense conveniently ends up there due to disrespect and neglect for the spiritual/philosophical, imo. Cheers and thank you again for a fascinating piece.
Please check out my piece on a similar subject, with a little dive into the philosophical implications of the “measurement problem” of quantum physics:
Thanks, Ed! Of course, with quantum effects, it depends on the interpretation. You’re absolutely right about the prevailing interpretation (Copenhagen) but there are others such as Many Worlds that don’t hold quite the same view re: measurement. Nonetheless, I wholeheartedly agree about uncertainty. Paradoxically, as the world has become more complex and therefore more impossible to understand, we have immense hubris in our ability to control the future or at least predict it. We are always -- and will always be -- disappointed.
Thanks for the reply Brian! For sure, interpretation is very tricky with quantum physics, such weird, counterintuitive phenomena that we cannot sense with our own faculties.
Excellent point regarding the uncertainty of the Copenhagen interpretation - perhaps I’ve overstated my case. I guess I’m dismissive of Many Worlds theory and place a whole lot of importance on observations which confirm wave particle duality exist in this universe, the double slit experiment for instance. With Many Worlds, one for each quantum outcome, we should not be able to observe wave particle duality at all, just one or the other, depending on which universe we ended up in. But we consistently see evidence of wave particle duality experimentally but just one or the other whenever we try to pin down anything quantum scale. So, there must necessarily be collapse of the wave function with observation as far as I can tell. Its just a logical trick to theorize otherwise, like this Many Worlds theory, given these observations, imo.
I find Many Worlds to be problematic for many reasons but one huge red flag is that it exists only to solve this measurement problem without any supporting data. Moreover, it offers no theory as to the mechanisms of how the universe could be split, so its not even really a wholistic theory. It seems just a way to blow off the measurement problem by putting things we should be able to observe into universes we can’t observe… and brushing hands, calling it a day.
Imagine conjuring alternative universes to explain any other inconsistency of science. Not saying its impossible, but it seems all too convenient
I am not a quantum physicist obviously, rather my grad education was in Food Science, so take with a grain of salt. Thanks again for all this fascinating research and information! Much appreciated
That was amazing. To be honest, I never thought about. Thank you for this. When I realize this was going to veer off, I thought of the way Rachel Maddow starts her show and most of her stories. Fantastic job.
“And, most importantly, we should recognize that measurement doesn’t just categorize the world, it always creates something new, by making us think differently about the world and our place within it.”
Regarding those closing remarks, I agree 100% and would maybe even go a step further. Recent experiments to do with the famous thought experiment ‘Schroedingers Cat’ and Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ fairly conclusively prove that measurement (or rather observation by conscious observer) can in fact change the nature of what is being observed. The famous “measurement problem” of quantum physics makes my brain hurt!
Brian, as you alluded to me a while back, you would get to this! Pun intended, it is a measure above! The history is great at showing the folly of measurement as being untethered to human choices and decisions. But the punchline you deliver at the end is the lesson we should take away. Some really import at things cannot be measured: motives, emotions, psychology, preferences (ordinal yes, cardinal no). Data is just a collection of measurement in which the measurement has been agreed upon by those using it. Big data is just a larger set of measurements. But data itself does not tell us anything about linkages or causality, though we can find correlations. The big mystery in the world is how do these data fit together? That is where data and empirical observation (if this, then that) come together to build models of the things we want to understand in the world. Economic phenomena, weather, physics, chemistry stem from observation and then we use data to build models to replicate what we observe. But in the end we need an agreed upon base by which comparisons (the measurement) can be made.
Still, data cannot explain human behavior, decision making, or personality traits like the dark triad. Those come from classification of observations. And even if data are available, we all interpret data differently based on our own experience.
We omit measuring things like “home production” as having value in GDP. Why? There is no money changing hands. If I pay somebody to do it, it counts in GDP. If I do it myself, no transaction occurs and it is not counted. In both cases the service gets done, but the measure is quite different. What is my value of happiness from reading your Substack? Certainly more than what I pay, but does that get measured? No. Why? Can’t measure something without a transaction and we do not transact intrinsic happiness.
Hope this finds all who read this happy in the most immeasurable ways so they do not become shackled to a spreadsheet!
What a lovely reply - and very glad that you derive more value than is measured from the newsletter! I have a habit of previewing future work in my replies to you, because you often anticipate where I’m going with something, but I’ll be announcing my next book in a few weeks and it has a chapter that deals with some of these issues (and won’t make me many new friends in the social sciences). Thanks as always for reading!
Your opening is so British! You passed your citizenship test yet again! I look forward to seeing the next book. Social scientists are becoming more beholden to data and numerical methods these days. It is a blessing and curse. The curse part is that we use data and forget how to logic our way through a problem and look patterns that are in front of us and ignore hard to measure factors. Egad! They are all becoming economists! (I am an Economist, and there is a reason I left the academy)
Measurement and convention are like peas in a pod, right?
I appreciate you calling out GDP failing to account for the less tangible economic exchanges. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and its often arbitrarily based on what is easy/concrete to measure consistently. But then distortions and misunderstandings arise of course. The economic value of information exchange is becoming more and more significant in our information age, and economic measures need some updating seems to me.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, I found them both valuable and enjoyable, lol
Thank you for your reply! Glad it could give you enjoyment, albeit in ways that cannot be measured.
A really intriguing post. It reminds me of Wordsworth's "we murder to dissect" (though I don't agree with him about books! Nor that we should stop thinking and just "immerse."). I've noticed that things like unemployment figures or inflation have a gazillion [note the precise measurement figure] different definitions. No wonder we talk past each other so much.
Obviously those varying measure are created for different purposes. But those are not clearly defined in most reporting.
I've been reading several books on "predictive brain" theory which says (much over simplified) that our own reality is shaped by the predictions the brain makes to fill in the gaps in perception. Most of the neuroscience supporting it seems to deal with things like pain perception and the effect of predicted assumptions on the kind of arousal that leads to trigger-happy cops.--this is an unconscious process: the cops may truly believe they are not prejudiced. So it helps explain the underpinnings of systemic racism.
And it does seem to explain confirmation bias, amongst other things. The same can be said about the "tech bros" reliance on data as the be all and end all capable of explaining the world. We need a lot less hubris and closer attention to the way we parcel out "reality." Thinking about measurement and its attempts to corral reality is a good place to start.
That's a very interesting hypothesis - and I think there's a lot of truth to it. Have you read Donald Hoffman's The Case Against Reality? I recommend it, though it does get technical in a few places.
Thanks for the recommendation: I've added it to my TBR pile of pixels (at my age I need to read on kindle.) I've read Seth Anil's Being You and and am almost done with Andy Clark's The Experience Machine. Both make sense to me, particularly Clark on pain perception as my daughter is a chronic pain patient. Plus articles when I can find them. Always scouting for more sources.
In that vein, I really enjoyed From Bacteria to Bach and Back by Daniel C Dennett. He’s a very interesting thinker.
there you go, decimating my kindle budget.
Wow, this essay on measurement is really thought provoking and a beautiful read. Thanks!!
I appreciate the suggestion those ancient, dogmatic Christian views are similar to some modern ‘tech-bro’ sentiments. I see things very much the same way. That sort of know-it-all, dismissive-of-everything-else thinking leads to nihilistic and/or apocalyptic nonsense, as far as I can tell. I am also a firm believer in science, a scientist, but 100% agree, the Universe is not entirely observable or material.
We humans have a tendency to believe we understand the world more completely than we do. It gives us a sense of security I guess. But even many of Einstein’s most famous theories have not been tested, cannot be tested. People tend to think the more we learn about the universe, the more things are settled. But as far as I can tell, the more we learn, the more questions pop up. And science can only answer the ones where we can consistently measure things - that is not nearly everything that is important. So science cannot possibly give us all the answers - philosophy and spirituality - mythos - must necessarily fill the gap. Its better it is filled consciously and rationally than allowed to be filled with whatever nonsense conveniently ends up there due to disrespect and neglect for the spiritual/philosophical, imo. Cheers and thank you again for a fascinating piece.
Please check out my piece on a similar subject, with a little dive into the philosophical implications of the “measurement problem” of quantum physics:
https://radmod.substack.com/p/schrodingers-cat-fatalism-and-faith?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Thanks, Ed! Of course, with quantum effects, it depends on the interpretation. You’re absolutely right about the prevailing interpretation (Copenhagen) but there are others such as Many Worlds that don’t hold quite the same view re: measurement. Nonetheless, I wholeheartedly agree about uncertainty. Paradoxically, as the world has become more complex and therefore more impossible to understand, we have immense hubris in our ability to control the future or at least predict it. We are always -- and will always be -- disappointed.
Thanks for the reply Brian! For sure, interpretation is very tricky with quantum physics, such weird, counterintuitive phenomena that we cannot sense with our own faculties.
Excellent point regarding the uncertainty of the Copenhagen interpretation - perhaps I’ve overstated my case. I guess I’m dismissive of Many Worlds theory and place a whole lot of importance on observations which confirm wave particle duality exist in this universe, the double slit experiment for instance. With Many Worlds, one for each quantum outcome, we should not be able to observe wave particle duality at all, just one or the other, depending on which universe we ended up in. But we consistently see evidence of wave particle duality experimentally but just one or the other whenever we try to pin down anything quantum scale. So, there must necessarily be collapse of the wave function with observation as far as I can tell. Its just a logical trick to theorize otherwise, like this Many Worlds theory, given these observations, imo.
I find Many Worlds to be problematic for many reasons but one huge red flag is that it exists only to solve this measurement problem without any supporting data. Moreover, it offers no theory as to the mechanisms of how the universe could be split, so its not even really a wholistic theory. It seems just a way to blow off the measurement problem by putting things we should be able to observe into universes we can’t observe… and brushing hands, calling it a day.
Imagine conjuring alternative universes to explain any other inconsistency of science. Not saying its impossible, but it seems all too convenient
I am not a quantum physicist obviously, rather my grad education was in Food Science, so take with a grain of salt. Thanks again for all this fascinating research and information! Much appreciated
One of your best issues ever. But, how do we measure ever and forever? :-)
Incredible and little known facts (at least by me)! Thanks for a great read!
That was amazing. To be honest, I never thought about. Thank you for this. When I realize this was going to veer off, I thought of the way Rachel Maddow starts her show and most of her stories. Fantastic job.
Informative and interesting. We seem to be doing well at the DI, but the KW seems to be a bit more problematic.
“And, most importantly, we should recognize that measurement doesn’t just categorize the world, it always creates something new, by making us think differently about the world and our place within it.”
Regarding those closing remarks, I agree 100% and would maybe even go a step further. Recent experiments to do with the famous thought experiment ‘Schroedingers Cat’ and Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ fairly conclusively prove that measurement (or rather observation by conscious observer) can in fact change the nature of what is being observed. The famous “measurement problem” of quantum physics makes my brain hurt!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/05/26/observing-the-universe-really-does-change-the-outcome-and-this-experiment-shows-how/amp/