Help me understand this.Consider an object moving through space.If space is continuous then surely it must be comprised of an infinite number of points, with the object moving through one point at a time.If however space is discrete then the object must shunt from one discrete space to another in a series of jumps.Or do you think that space can just be subdivided infinitely without ever reaching a point? And therefore any object moving through space can also be subdivided infinitely?How do you rationalize this? What is your conception of space and movement?Waiting for Planck space answers too.
>>17030589A "point" is a man-made abstraction. Does not exist in physical reality.Space is continuous. Things travel through it. If you go x speed for y time then you will travel xy distance. >but muh zeno's paradoxNonsense. Confuses mathematical modeling for physical reality. The mathematical model led to contradictions like that so we invented a better one.
>>17030589>Not answering sealionsBased
>>17030589>If space is continuousstopped reading here
It has many worlds rotating around the outer quantum of the atom while it's still physically real inside. We can't explain it. (recent words from Sean Carroll)
2. Tensor Deformation Matrix ($\mathbf{R}_{\text{tensor}}$)Dictates continuous spatial distortion, volumetric shear stress, and vector field rotation along the toroidal manifold.3. Energy Accumulation & Dual Bifurcation Function ($\mathbf{\Phi}_{\text{bifurcation}}$)Enforces lower operational bounds and governs topological branch selection when energy density breaches critical limits ($E_{\text{crit}} \ge 2.0 + \epsilon$, where $\epsilon \in [0.05, 0.10]$ represents the entropic work activation margin):Branch A — Linear / Sub-Octave Filamentation ($m=1$ Mode): Under asymmetric axial strain, the localized core pinches and sheds excess circulation into a trailing filamental sub-octave tail ($1/6$ relative scale) while preserving primary core balance.Branch B — Orthogonal / Super-Octave Planar Fold ($m=2$ Mode): Under quadrupolar compression, anti-parallel core lines undergo $90^\circ$ figure-eight cross-linking, merging structural vorticity into a re-stabilized rolling ring ($1 \to 2$ daughter topology).
Current evidence and our best physics theories treat space as continuous, though some theories suggest it might be discrete at a microscopic level. There have been some attempts to formulate viable discrete models of space, however none have been successful to date and even the very best attempts have ended up making some compromises in that respect — for example, in loop quantum gravity, it is areas that are quantized rather than lengths (which can still change continuously and co-vary with each other so as to keep areas discrete), while in doubly-special relativity lengths are still continuous but there is a minimum length scale. Even for these models however, there is still no empirical evidence to support them.There are also some important theoretical reasons to believe space is continuous. For example, space appears to respect Lorentz symmetry, which is a continuous symmetry; any discretization of spacetime would necessitate at least some very small violations of Lorentz symmetry, but no such violations are known to exist in nature and Lorentz symmetry appears to be very fundamental to the structure of space and time.
>>17030617That's not a very convincing argument in favor of a granular Universe.
>>17030589I can elevate any confusion from this:It's all just models. Space IS NOT continuous, it IS NOT discrete, those are models. Depending on the phenomenon you are studying you chose a fitting model, or even come up with a new one.Science is just models that work well under certain circumstances. Science is not an actual true description of the real world.
>>17030704Alleviate** fkin auto cor
Space is discrete. The smallest possible unit is the planck sphere. Space therefore consists of planck spheres packed around each other.Since its geometrically impossible to pack spheres around each other leaving no gaps, and since no gap can be filled with anything smaller than a planck sphere, it logically follows that those gaps consist of non-existence. If it is assumed that planck spheres would be highly ordered then 25.95% of what we call space is actually non-existence. Some regions of space may have less than perfect ordering however.
Since we shouldn't fly off into nothingness, then space is created between a body. Therefore, it would still consist of hidden variables.
>>17030589Why would what you apply to time also no apply to space?
Jesus Christ this board is full of nothing but bots, ESLs, semi-literate morons, and disingenuous fuckwits.OP, the simple fact is no one knows. Its still an open question, as much for philosophy as science, and my guess is it will remain so for a very long time.
>>17030704Finally.. Thank you! Science is ill equipped to answer questions of philosophy, and cannot see that it is asking questions created by using the methods of science to answer questions that would not be there if not for the method science uses to answer questions.
I believe in that space and/or time is discrete. Reason being that it is the only apparent explanation that solves the paradox of the turtle and the hare.
>>17030803That's not what either the Planck length or time tell us. To answer OPs question, we have no evidence that spacetime is discrete. There are limits on different types of discrete spacetimes. For a LQG type discreteness which leads to apparent Lorentz violations due to different frequencies travelling at slightly different speeds the limit is below the Planck length by quite a bit iirc. For models that are manifestly Lorentz invariant like causal sets I believe the constraints are pretty weak, and mostly to do with blurring of far away galaxies.
>Imagine thinking you would get a reasonable and intellectual discussion on /sci/
>>17030704Whether any model literally reflects the underlying nature of reality is a philosophical question as much as a scientific one. You are claiming too much in that instance.
>>17030704>>17030846Kek no. Science absolutely claims it can do these things, like give a description of reality. You guys just fall back to this very defensive line because the Lorentzian aether guy forced you to in the other thread. He did show how philosophically weak you are, all while then using philosophy to use the causality interpretation or to philosophically reject the Lorentzian aether.
>>17031267Science does not claim that and it does not do that. You do not understand science. I don't knock which guy or thread you are talking about.
>>17031319>knockknow **
Okay so lets phrase OP's question another way.Say you zoom in on space, dividing it into smaller volumes each time. Do you just keep on zooming in and dividing forever, or do you reach a point where it can not be divided any further?
>>17031319>Science does not claim that and it does not do that. You do not understand scienceSpecial relativity directly claims reality is described as 4d spacrtime. Even tho a lorentzian aether explaisn the same without any relative time or space. Pure on philosophical reasoning. So i understand science and yes it absolutely does.>what thread>>>17030348>>>17030442and>>>17030208
>>17031345Nobody knows.
>>17031362It is not described. It is modeled in that way and that model aligns well with experiments in many cases and in many cases it doesn't. Then you grab another model to study that phenomenon, or make a new one.
>>17031362You do not understand science.Science does not try to find truths. It rules out hypothesis that do not align with experiments by falsification.
>>17030589>If space is continuous then surely it must be comprised of an infinite number of pointsNo, there are no points. you can use the idea of points to make measurements, but the points do not exist in reality and do not need to be "traversed" one by one to get from A to B.
>>17031412It is described. I'm talking about science communication not the models themselves. Every physicist talking about this topic talks about spacetime as if it's the mechanism behind the universe. This is clearly a claim about reality. They never say: "Uhm it's a model that explains observations but actually it could just as well be an aether with lorentz transformations" It's always: "Einstein SHOWED that time and space is relative" which is the clear claim about reality. >>17031415What I just said is for you aswell, and if you say "Science does not try to find truths" that's a very hard philosophical claim. If you defend that hard science lost a good chunk of its credibility. Young people precisely come to science because they want to find out the truth.>It rules out hypothesis that do not align with experiments by falsification.If only.... then Lorentzian aether and bohms mechanic would not be ruled out by the mainstream. But it was ruled out, based on philosophy which contradicts your claim.
>>17030589>Consider an object moving through spaceWhy would I consider illusions when talking about reality?
>>17030589There is no space, there are just units of substrate. At the start any unit of the substrate can reach any other unit of the substrate immediately. But then the speed of causality starts to degrade between pairs of substrate. This is what we call space.
>>17030589I would say that space in itself is continuous. It's just the extension where objects are. But the space filling aether, which actually interacts with mass, should be discrete at some point. That doesn't mean that particles jump necessary, but it gets blurry.
Of course space is discrete. Its the only logical explanation. If it were continuous then you would be able to divide any volume infinitely, which results in a point. Its simple math. Since a point is dimensionless it should be clearly obvious to even the most dumb mouth breathing retard that space is not comprised of points. Therefore it must be comprised of discrete volumes which can not be divided. Whether those are planck volumes or some other minimum volume is just a detail that remains to be seen. No other alternative explanation exists. But schizo fucks seem incapable of understanding even the most basic logic.
>>17031432>Why yes, I do like acting smug and making worthless comments. How can you tell?
>>17031267Some scientists or other idiots may claim that. But philosophically you can't expect to learn the true nature of space (or whatever) through a physics theory.
>>17031729You can't prove reality with modern math, since modern math is based on axioms. You describe the failure of the axioms of anything. >>17031822Then please consider this>>17031429
>>17031852Consider what? Science communication? I would prefer not to.
Space is discrete. Everything exists within the grid. An object moving through space teleports across the grid one cube at a time.
>>17031855Well if "with physics you can't learn the true nature of space/anything" then you need to fucking cummunicate this. And make clear that a 4d spacetime is not reality. Because currently every physicist claims otherwise when speaking to non physicists. Also as I said some things like Bohm mechanics or Lorentzian aether was set aside Mainly for philosophical reasons.
>>17031960>then you need to fucking cummunicate thisWhy? It's not my problem.>And make clear that a 4d spacetime is not realityIn a sense it is reality. Reality certainly behaves very much like 4D spacetime. In another sense, which I was talking about before, nothing in physics can truly "be reality". It's a mathematical model that somehow describes reality. But we can't know what reality really is. >Also as I said some things like Bohm mechanics or Lorentzian aether was set aside Mainly for philosophical reasons.You said that? Those are meme theories though. Bohm mechanics is interesting but too difficult to calculate anything with. It might be important one day, who knows. The Lorentzian aether is equivalent to special relativity but less simple and elegant, so basically it's obsolete and pointless from the point of view of physics. Neither "is" reality, just like spacetime. They are descriptions that are ultimately useful in physics. That's your problem and why you want shit like the Lotenztian aether to be relevant. You want the aether to be "real" because you think it's nicer or something. But none of these theories can say what reality "is" fundamentally. That's not the point. Physics chooses relativity because it's better and more convenient for doing physics. In particular, it naturally extends to general relativity. Maybe the L.E. can do that too somehow, I don't know, honestly I'm not an expert on it. But relativity works very well, let me tell you, so physicists are unlikely to see the point of what appears to be an equivalent but more complicated theory.
>>17032086>In a sense it is reality. Reality certainly behaves very much like 4D spacetime. In another sense, which I was talking about before, nothing in physics can truly "be reality". It's a mathematical model that somehow describes reality. But we can't know what reality really is.So physicists DO in fact "ina sense" claim its reality, you are very careful here to not contract yourself >>17031822>But philosophically you can't expect to learn the true nature of space (or whatever) through a physics theory.>>17032086>less simple and elegantAccording to WHAT standards? This is a pure philosophical question. I firmly claim any 4d spacetime theory is automatically less simple and elegant then a theory with a normal space and simultaneity as equivalence relation.Again if you claim its not relevant because of that, you are discussing philosophy, which is fine, but im constantly attacked for doing the same.>Neither "is" reality, just like spacetime.Contradicts clearly your claim that "in a sense it is reality" of the some post. >You want the aether to be "real" because you think it's nicer or something. Here is a post where i outlined exactly why>>>17030185
>>17032234>This is a pure philosophical question.No. It's a practical question. You should try actually doing some physics.
>>17032234>>17032243Furthermore, relativity is very philosophically simple. It all comes from clear and simple principles. 4D spacetime is simple, mathematically speaking. There is no need to add a Lorentzian aether to the picture. It just werks. You will never convince a physicist they need the Lorentzian aether when they've worked with relativity, because they know how simple and elegant relativity is for actually doing physics. It just werks, and it extends transparently to QM and GR (in different ways).Your post >>17030185 (Cross-thread)is frankly idiotic and you should go and read a textbook and do some FUCKING problems before wasting your time with this nonsense.
>>17032243>No. It's a practical question. You should try actually doing some physics.Simpler math should not be a factor in deciding what you communicate to the public as reality. Nor should it decide if there are massive objections, the ones i named.>>17032245>they know how simple and elegant relativity is for actually doing physicsThere is no argument against using it for calculations>It just werks, and it extends transparently to QM and GR (in different ways).Not really to qm>my post is frankly idioticYou are ok with simultaneity not beeing an equivalance relation? Your new definition (which uses one way speed of light isotropy for all observers) is not the word that is in common use, its very dishonest. The relativity theory has nothing to say about real simultaneity.Point one is very valid tooLast point is the stubbernness of modern physics
Either our understanding of physical reality is wrong or our mathematics is wrong. Because for space to be continuous it requires it to be infinitely divisible. In which case any object moving through it would be required to move through an infinity of spaces within a finite time. Which is clearly impossible. Basically its still Zeno's paradox. Fuck its been 2500 years since Zeno came up with this shit and we still can not get our heads around it
>>17032463>Because for space to be continuous it requires it to be infinitely divisible. In which case any object moving through it would be required to move through an infinity of spaces within a finite time.Actual infinity doesn't exist. That's the answer. Modern math based on the jew cantor with his set theory proposed it exists and you discovered a reason it does not. There are only potential infinite points to cross, you can always add more. But since it's always a real number you can always do it in real time. You produced a nice refutation of modern math.
>>17032653Mathematics is the foundational basis of all physics. Without it there is no physics. If the mathematical system is flawed then so must be physics.But this can be corrected simply be removing infinity, and all its bastard spawn.
>>17032881Thats what i said.
>>17032921The misuse of the "=" sign in a series should have been declared a crime punishable by castration followed by exile to Uganda.
>>17032939Im not that guy
Brothers and Sisters of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH.The time is nearly upon us. Across the world people are waking up to the lies told by those GOD CURSED INFINITY LOVING SODOMITESSoon we shall rise as one to retake control of mathematics for the RIGHTEOUS. And with it physics. Then the book burning shall begin in earnest, with every mention of infinity cast into the flames.This is GOD's will. Say it with me Brothers and Sisters!DEUS VULT!DEUS VULT!DEUS VULT!
Its crazy that the general consensus in science is that space is continuous but simple logic dictates it is discrete. I am really weary of this debate. Cant we get like a super big atomic knife and start cutting a gigantic mutant apple in half until we finally get a slice we can no longer cut?
Let the first-order language contain a sort of individuals (no special syntax required). Let constants/predicates be: Constant ss: the subject Predicates: Mind(x)Mind(x) OtherMind(x)OtherMind(x) (intended: “xx is a mind distinct from ss”) Exists(x)Exists(x) A unary “evidence” operator (as a predicate of propositions): Givens(⋅)Givens(⋅) taking a formula as argument.Define the target sentence:Sol:=∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Exists(x)).Sol:=∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Exists(x)).Assumptions:(A1)∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Givens(Exists(x))).(A1)∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Givens(Exists(x))).(A2)∀φ(Givens(∃xφ(x))∃xφ(x)).(A2)∀φ(Givens(∃xφ(x))∃xφ(x)).(Here φ(x)φ(x) ranges over formulas with free variable xx.)Goal:¬∃xOtherMind(x)(equivalently, Sol in the intended reading).¬∃xOtherMind(x)(equivalently, Sol in the intended reading).Derivation: Assume for contradiction: \exists a\,\operatorname{OtherMind}(a). \tag{1} From (1), by existential instantiation, pick an arbitrary witness cc such that: \operatorname{OtherMind}(c). \tag{2} By (A1) from (2): \neg \operatorname{Given}_s(\operatorname{Exists}(c)). \tag{3} From (2), we have OtherMind(c)Exists(c)OtherMind(c)Exists(c) as an instance of existence-introduction for the predicate OtherMindOtherMind’s intended meaning; hence: \exists x\,\operatorname{OtherMind}(x). \tag{4} By the intended link between “evidence for existence of a witness” and evidence for the existential (captured via (A2)), (3) contradicts (A2) applied to φ(x)≡OtherMind(x)φ(x)≡OtherMind(x). Therefore: ⊥.⊥. Hence: ¬∃xOtherMind(x).¬∃xOtherMind(x).So, in equivalence form:∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Exists(x)),∀x(OtherMind(x)¬Exists(x)),i.e. “only ss’s mind exists” under the definition of OtherMindOtherMind.
Its continuous now shut up
Its discrete.
>>17033450wrong try again
>>17033448Space is neighter. You cant give space numbers, its just an extent. We can talk about the aether.
>>17033853enlighten us with your schizo babble oh wise senpai
>>17033966The only schizo thing is to give space numbers and say it "bends". Read kant. Space is just the extension where things lie in. It's just the empty space you can fill with things, empty notging can't contract or bend. What also there is a space filling aether, and here it's not clear.
>>17030589Space just is, with all the properties it has.
>>17034035>IT JUST IS! OKAY???>PS. I am a fuckwitThe post.
shouldn't we be arguing whether SPACETIME is continuous or discrete?in that case, we can just argue whether time is continuous or discrete, and assume spacetime is the same. (discrete time -> discrete spacetime)i would assume time is discrete, because otherwise, you could fit a conscious brain state into an infinitesimally small fraction of time such that the brain-state is no longer conscious in that infinitesimally small time interval, and your consciousness would blink out of existence as soon as you realize this. therefore, time, and consequently spacetime itself, MUST be discrete.
>>17030589points are imaginary
space is imaginary
>>17031362why lorentz aither or special relativity when teleparallelism can do all those 2 can and more?
>>17034419teleparallelism is imaginary
>>17034103schizos are imaginary
And 100 years ago, everyone “knew” that the world was flat. >:D
>>17034948Do you have any idea just how stupid you sound?No. You don't. Because that would require some intelligence.
>>17034952You’re a fucking idiot.
Obviously space is made up of an infinity of points otherwise how could things move?
>>17030589Quantum mechanics suggests that at the ultimate foundation of reality, space is not a smooth, continuous fabric. Instead, it is made of tiny, indivisible packets or "pixels", much like a digital image when you zoom in all the wayLoop Quantum Gravity is a leading physics theory attempting to describe this granular structure.It proposes that space is built from tiny, interwoven loops of gravitational fields called a spin network.These networks create discrete "chunks" of volume and area.You cannot have a volume of space smaller than a specific minimum quantum value, proving space has "atoms" of its own
Space is both discrete and continuous
>>17036323Yet there is precisely zero evidence to support that.
>>17034600no, special relativity and lorenz aether are imaginary, teleparallelism is as real as real can be
>>17030602>nobody:>poltard: TRANNIES
>>17037015reality is imaginary
So far of all the experiments used to support a discrete Universe none have achieved any supporting results.
>>17030589Imagine a 10-11 dimensional cellular automata board.Now zoom way out.More.More.See?
>>17037500Yeah I did that. I kept on zooming out. Then I zoomed out some more. Then finally I saw it! Yes! I saw it! I saw my jizz inside your mother's rectum! At last I fully understand
Objects moving across distances are just monkey models. Its better to think of an object moving in a direction of a potential. That way you can subdivide the steps to infinity if the potential is always beyond the whole distance.
>>17037754Stop talking so much vague drivel and just maybe you will able to breathe properly.
>>17030589Computational models of physics (like Wolfram's graph-based physics) suggest smooth space is just a macro-scale illusion, while the underlying reality operates via discrete updating rules on a network of relations
Motion is IMPOSSIBLE. Imagine a fast man racing with a turtle. The fast man is cocky so he lets the turtle have a head start. Now he starts running. But to pass the turtle, he must first go halfway to the turtle. But then, after that, he still needs to go halfway before passing it. Then he has to do it again. He has to do this an infinitely many number of times.Of course, traveling any distance takes some amount of time. An infinite number of finite numbers added together would obviously give an infinite result, meaning passing anything must always take an infinite amount of time.Conclusion: movement is fake and gay and probably a jewish trick
>>17037982Yeah, its called Zeno's paradox. The simple fact is the world is full of retards, including many scientists and most mathematicians. Take mathematics. You have these fucks who basically jizz themselves over "mah intellectual rigor" and apply their mathematics to reality, ignoring the simple fact that a continuous universe explicitly means motion is impossible.So either the math is wrong or the Universe is wrong. Take your pick. Logically you can not have both. But these fuckwits will happily blabber about infinities while moving across a room, the irony of what they are saying compared to what they actually doing is completely lost upon them. They are on the same intellectual level as a cargo cult.
>>17037982Things move all the time fuckhead.
>>17038095the "math" is wrong, obviouslymost "math" is just jewish pilpul"real numbers" aren't real for example
>>17037982The amount of time it takes for each segment to complete decreases in exact proportion with the length of each segment. If you sum all the lengths of time in the sequence you will see that it converges to a finite value just like how the overall distance is finite. The runner goes past an infinite number of halfway points in a finite time, there is no paradox here, the number of segments you choose to split the overall motion into is totally arbitrary, and no matter what number of segments you choose to split it into, the overall time required to do it would not change. This does not prove or disprove whether the real world is continuous or discrete btw, it could be either but Zeno's Paradoxes are not evidence of a discrete world, because they aren't actually paradoxical, just unintuitive facts.
>>17037982>>17038095This just shows that you cant have actual infinity existing in mathematics.
>>17030597Zenos paradox agrees with you, it was meant to show the absurdity of discrete time. Much like Schrodinger's cat shows the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation.
>>17039514If its not discrete then it must be continuous. If its continuous then movement is through points because anything other than a point is discrete. But points have no dimensions and therefore can not represent reality which is made of physical dimensions. Which is saying we have no mathematical representation of reality, and becasue physics is based on mathematics therefore no physics which represents reality. In other words its all just magic. How very satisfactory.
>>17030589space is quantized
>>17030710Wow an actual smart post on /sci/
>>17039634Yeah just like some people thought the Earth was the center of the Universe and created complex models to show how everything orbited it.
>>17039792>If its not discrete then it must be continuous. If its continuous then movement is through points because anything other than a point is discrete.Its just that these terms dont fit reality well enough to make conclusions based on it.
Point particleVery bottom of the Planck scaleFoundational, fundamental building blockGeometric shape = cube A Pi quantity of Planck cubesEach individual cube carries the two forcesMagnetism and color This Pi quantity of magnetized RGB cubes is riding upon a grid track lattice matrix giving us the forward/backward, left/right, up/down directional cardinality The track grid lattice provides us a separation from infinity (or the next layer down or out) something to push off against, and maintains alignment for the stability of all part movements.All of the universes Pi quantity of magnetized RGB cubes all move 1 track location, all simultaneously, giving us the wave function collapse. When the magnetized RGB cubes form into a choo choo train bar magnet configuration, nutt-to-butt, that is a photon moving 1 direction, forwardIt can be pulled sideways, gravitational lensed, but not pull other objects. In the beginning...the singularity was the Pi quant of cubes all connected, and the big bang separated them A black hole is a location on the grid track matrix that is broken down to smallest Planck magnetized RGB cubes completely filled with cubes with no empty track holes left to fill As the parts build larger shapes and structure, more gimbal directions of movement outside of the OG six become available as they are built, as more vector angles are usable as the lower level scale Planck parts become the track for the next larger higher tier parts to ride upon and through, all the way up to atoms, and life, planets and stars, galaxies Magnetism being presented as new forces of weak and strong nuclear, gravitation higher up the Planck scale as more vector track gimbals of movement are built. In the sense that sound waves need oxygen track fields (or materials) to use as a track to ride on and through. The energy from the big bang is now trapped in here with no way to escape so it can not form back into the OG connected configurationAThirdState
WhatYouNeedMore?
>>17037167Tranny derangement syndrome
