• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is the fundamental nature of reality discrete or a continuum?

mjrpes3

mjrpes3

Golden Member
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:
Discrete... 😛

Eh not the smallest possible just smallest meaningful anything.
Something to do with the uncertainty principle. 😱
Oh yeah and fvck quantum mechanics. 🙁
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top