On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote: > My personal opinion is that measured values are constrained to be > rational
If that is true (and it may be) and if mathematics is a language and the irrational numbers play no role in physics then perhaps they are a fantasy, the equivalent of a Harry Potter novel. Or perhaps not, there are lots of ways to write a sequel to a Harry Potter novel but only one way a new story about the irrationals could go. A story about the irrational numbers is unique, a story about Harry Potter is not, would that be enough to say the irrationals are not a fantasy? I don't know. > there can only ever be a countable number of distinct observer moments. I wonder if countable is good enough, I wonder if it must also be finite. > Yet this down not imply space is "quantised" or discrete in any way. It > is quite possible there is no lower bound to the difference between two > measurements. So it doesn't surprise me that space ends up being smooth at > scales far smaller than the planck length. I would be more suprised at the > opposite conclusion, as it implies a lack of symmetry (grids are not > rotationally symmetric, except at specific angles). > I don't think that by itself would necessarily be a deal breaker, electric, magnetic and gravitational fields need not be rotationally symmetric. And lots of interesting stuff happens when symmetry is broken, water is rotationally symmetric but ice is not, and most (but not all) lifeforms on this planet have no rotational symmetry. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
