🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov7.214329.24552@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>
>The main point is that "there is no such thing as infinity" is an
>extremely vague and misleading statement.  Is there such a thing as a
>universal Turing machine?  (I've never seen one.)  Is there such a thing
>as the square root of minus 1?  All these things are mathematical
>constructs which can play an important role in modeling reality - all
>three can also be misused.  
>

Our current theories say that spacetime is infinitely subdivisable. This is
a fundamental part of our model of reality. The other two examples you
quote are imaginary mathematical concepts, but they are not part of the
physical model itself.

>Secretly, my theory about computer scientists' love of discrete physics
>is that it's a still poorly-understood side-effect of staring at pixels
>all day.  I have long had a humorous battle with Nate Osgood over this
>issue, replete with such slogans as "Wreck the rectangle!" (which I
>stole from Zippy the Pinhead), "Crush the continuum!" and "Death to the
>discrete!"  
>

After a while, the implications of working with zeros and ones just start
to sink in. The digitization of life has been proceeding so gradually that
maybe you don't realize what a revolution we are going through. Music is now
nearly all digital and most of us can't tell the difference. Occams razor
might suggest that there are _no_ continuums out there. We can get by OK
without 'em.

Now you might argue that computers are just a tool, no big deal. But
I would say that technology leading to digitization is no coincidence,
rather the digitization of life _reflects_ the underlying nature of reality.

Nature is trying to give us a hint.

Poor old physics is still stuck in the analog nineteenth century. The whole
mighty edifice has been built on sand and the tide is coming in...

;-)

Dave Griffiths