Many human procedures are based on reliably identifying points in space and time. Points are specified directly, as in ten miles north of here, or at 15:00 hours, or indirectly, as in where the electron is found, or as soon as the cage is opened. Either way, the mind assumes these points to be useful markers or measures of reality. But does this idea stack up as anything more than a cognitive convenience? What can be learned about the mind’s identification of such points, plus its use of them to map out reality?
Physics relies heavily on measuring some aspect or behavior of whatever is studied. But the accuracy and authenticity involved are more dubious than commonly recognized – with consequences for the trustworthiness of everyday ideas.