Is the fundamental nature of reality discrete or a continuum?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
mjrpes3

mjrpes3

Golden Member
Oct 2, 2004
1,876
1
0
NOTE: This topic has been brought back from a 2 year death, to reflect the fact that lots of smart people made an attempt to answer this question here:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/essay/winners/2011.1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Inquiring minds want to know.

When answering, please also comment on the idea of potential infinity versus actual infinity, and the statement .9999... = 1.

Your insight is much appreciated in this important matter. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Zebo

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Try the Hawaiian red bro, it's real sticky this time a year but totally worth it.
 
T

totalnoob

Golden Member
Jul 17, 2009
1,389
1
81
Time is made of discrete units. The smallest unit of time is planck time..so technically it's not "smooth".
 
M

Matthiasa

Diamond Member
May 4, 2009
5,755
23
81
Discrete... :p

Eh not the smallest possible just smallest meaningful anything.
Something to do with the uncertainty principle. :eek:
Oh yeah and fvck quantum mechanics. :(
 
destrekor

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Do you think that the Universe is really as old as the amount of time it would take light to travel1.32447398 × 1023 kilometers?

Or, is our perception of time, and thus the concept of the past, all misguided simply based on how we perceive reality today?

If time is a measurement unit and a particle (of which helps make up what could be called the dimension of time), that really throws the head for a spin when thinking about the passing of time for the universe, in relation to the passing of time for species who perceive very limited amounts of knowledge of the world their inhabit.

gasp.
I must go now. I fear damage to the brain. Finals are next week, must preserve what little I have left.
 
C

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,502
136
destrekor said:
Do you think that the Universe is really as old as the amount of time it would take light to travel1.32447398 × 1023 kilometers?
Click to expand...

From a Creationist (insert your lol here) perspective, the Universe was created fully pretty much instantly, such that everything was pretty much in place and that the universe did not have to expand from a single point to where it is now over billions of years.

But in any case, when you get right down to it, time means nothing unless there is a sentient observer (or billions of them...). There is no way to verify anything regarding time unless there is someone present to verify the motions of the universe and everything therein.
 
mjrpes3

mjrpes3

Golden Member
Oct 2, 2004
1,876
1
0
Although you guys point out the plank unit as evidence that the universe is discrete, keep in mind that string theory presumes a continuum.

Meanwhile, this guy says that the universe could be both continuous AND discrete:

http://www.physorg.com/news180203376.html

Another way you could answer this question, besides hard evidence which we don't (and possibly) never will have, is to see if you can come up with a mind experience, presuming either a discrete or continuous reality, where just the presumption creates a logical contradiction that forces you to side with one or the other. For instance, you might find some way to attack the continuum by showing how its dependence on the concept of infinity leads to logical contradiction (you would need to show how infinity is not compatible with reality). etc etc
 
destrekor

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Crono said:
From a Creationist (insert your lol here) perspective, the Universe was created fully pretty much instantly, such that everything was pretty much in place and that the universe did not have to expand from a single point to where it is now over billions of years.

But in any case, when you get right down to it, time means nothing unless there is a sentient observer (or billions of them...). There is no way to verify anything regarding time unless there is someone present to verify the motions of the universe and everything therein.
Click to expand...

iohshit.gif
 
JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Actually you all are wrong. If we examine the pleathora of obviousious prefundicitiary evidence it becomes very clear that it is none of the above.
In fact if we examine the broader question - What is the fundamental nature of the universe?
You are forced to come to the obficiary conclusion that the lowest common denominator is sereptitiously protagonistic at best. Which leads to the conclusion that precipitiously gregarious conclusions just have no place in the obfuecence nature of the orationary tribulatiortory amino acids of the universe.
 
The Boston Dangler

The Boston Dangler

Lifer
Mar 10, 2005
14,647
2
0
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom