>irrational numbers don't exist in reali-ACK
>>16906988I began to find that in calculating the ship’s white wake I was dealing in quintillions to the fourth power times quintillions to the fourth power or some such fantastically absurd number of bubbles. And nature was making those bubbles in sublimely swift ease!‘Any time one looks carefully at a bubble, one is impressed with the beauty of its structure, its beautiful sphereicity glinting with the colors of the spectrum. It is ephemeral—elegantly conceived, beautifully manufactured and easily broken.‘Inasmuch as the kind of mathematics I had learned of in school required the use of the XYZ coordinate system and the necessity of placing π in calculating the spheres, I wondered, “to how many decimal places does nature carry out π before she decides that the computation can’t be concluded?” Next I wondered, “to how many aribtrary decimal places does nature carry out the transcendental irrational before she decides to say it’s a bad job and call it off?” If nature uses π she has to do what we call fudging of her design which means improvising, compromisingly. I thought sympathetically of nature’s having to make all those myriad frustrated decisions each time she made a bubble. I didn’t see how she managed to formulate the wake of every ship while managing the rest of the universe if she had to make all those decisions. So I said to myself, “I don’t think nature uses π. I think she has some other mathematical way of coordinating her undertakings.””— Buckminster Fuller, Your Private Sky, p.457
>>16906988Actually it is the rational numbers that don't exist for anything except counting whole units. Realistically there is a vanishingly small likelihood that any measurement coincidentally lands exactly at the end of a whole unit boundary, or a precise metric fraction of a whole unit.
>>16906997The likelihood for that to happen is exactly 0 since there are infinite decimals. Ergo, God.
>>16907002In practice there is no meaningful unit of space below the planck length.
>>16907016That means you would get rational numbers every time you measure Planck lengths
whole numbers*
In practice, numbers beyond/below present measurement capabilities are meaningless.
meaningless, to us
>>16906988great idea anonnow make the sales pitchwho the hell would be willing to buy "3 apples and (some) leftovers of an apple"?
>>16906988pi is not a numberit is the leachate from anumerical divisions.
>>16907045Unless you use a base that's a mutliple of the planck length
>>16907108right
>>16906988If the universe has a "coding" it certainly isn't digital. It's analog.
>>16910933spacetime is digital, not analog, and it is made up of discreet planck units. "Analog" is just your brain guessing and summarizing, your entire cerebral cortex is basically like, anti-aliasing.
>>16910970Yes there are units out there and there's a finite amount. But to express them with "numbers" is a human invention. A useful fiction.
>>16906988Aren't irrational numbers, say, the mess that remains on the knife after chopping one of the apples like in OP?
Dividing circumference by diameter is a human thing.
>>16910970What does a Planck volume look like? It cant be a sphere of one Planck diameter because then you would have gaps between adjoining Planck spheres. Think of trying to pack bubbles in together. Yet any polyhedron constructed using a Planck unit will have some dimensions which are either slightly more or less than the Planck length.
>>16910970>spacetime is digitalHallucinated bioGPT opinion. Literally nothing in the world is digital.
>>16913362From the point of view of a 4 dimensional being the Planck sphere would be a polygon with internal dimensions all of exactly one Planck unit.
>>16913362I refuse to believe /sci/ is this retarded
>>16910981who said anything about numbers
>>16913362Its more likely to be a polyhedron with tessellation approaching that of infinity. That's the only way to keep all the distances at the Planck length. The result is the fundamental "atom" in the original sense. The smallest volume of space that can exist, can not be divided, and which provides granular building blocks of reality.
>>16913419>sleep is like... a continuum, dude>digital is just all ones and zeros bro
Ok smear the last piece so it goes off the page
>>16907817You've never been to a market in your entire life?
>>16913362When you think of a discrete Universe made up from discrete units ( whether they be Planck volumes or whatever ) you have to stop and consider what the boundary conditions of these units would be. Imagine zooming in on the boundary with the idea that the boundary must be discrete. Take a moment to think about it and then surely you will understand that the idea is pure nonsense. The Universe is continuous and can be divided to infinity.
>>16906989>‘Any time one looks carefully at a bubble, one is impressed with the beauty of its structure, its beautiful sphereicity glinting with the colors of the spectrum.That nigga never saw a bubble in his life
