🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov8.154955.15938@prim> dave@prim.demon.co.uk (Dave
Griffiths) writes:

>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.

Since things like sqrt(-1) are used in QM, they *are* a part of the
model.  Nor can I see the difference between an imaginary mathematical
concept and any other kind.  Including the kinds used in mathematical
physics.

>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.

We can also get by with 'em.  If the simplest idea is the best, it
follows that if continuums are simplest, they are best.

Of course, if you want some of the advantages of discreteness as well
as some of the advantages of having a continuum, you can replace R
with R*, where R* is an ultrapower of R.  A discrete in R*^n is then a
continuum which works like your digitized model.

>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.

I would say you've been staring at the monitor too long.  Life is not the
game of life.

>Nature is trying to give us a hint.

Your computer is an artifact.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de