E=M&Mc^2
Indeterminacy from infinite re(...) 12/22/25(Mon)18:06:23 No.16876213

File: maxresdefault.jpg (301 KB, 1280x720)

301 KB JPG

Indeterminacy from infinite resolution rather than randomness? E=M&Mc^2 12/22/25(Mon)18:06:23 No.16876213

A proposal: Indeterminacy from infinite resolution, not randomness

I’ve been thinking about why the universe cannot be truly deterministic, and I think the key issue is often missed.

Determinism requires exact states. But exactness does not exist in physics — only precision, which is always scale-dependent.

There is no absolute minimum resolution. Every structure is composed of smaller structures, and those of smaller ones, indefinitely. Because of this, the full state of any system can never be completely closed — not even in principle.

As a result, absolute determinism is impossible. Not because of randomness, but because exact definition is structurally unattainable.

What we call “determinism” emerges only when the observer and the system operate at compatible temporal and spatial resolutions. When changes occur much slower than our resolution, systems appear stable and predictable. When they occur much faster, they appear as noise or probability.

This is similar to watching a movie:

Very slow frame changes maximal apparent determinism

Human-scale frame changes coherent patterns

Extremely fast frame changes white noise
With better instruments, patterns re-emerge — but never a final, exact state.

This is not saying the universe is random. It’s saying:

Exact states do not exist

Only approximations exist, valid at a given scale

Indeterminacy arises from infinite refinability of resolution

Like π: it is not random, but it is not exactly knowable. Questions that depend on its “last digit” are not false — they are ill-defined.

I think many foundational problems come from assuming exactness where only scale-relative precision is physically meaningful.

Curious if this resonates with anyone, or if there are known frameworks that already formalize this idea.