←back to thread

God created the real numbers

(www.ethanheilman.com)
136 points Bogdanp | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.231s | source
Show context
andrewla ◴[] No.45067770[source]
I'm an enthusiastic Cantor skeptic, I lean very heavily constructivist to the point of almost being a finitist, but nonetheless I think the thesis of this article is basically correct.

Nature and the universe is all about continuous quantities; integral quantities and whole numbers represent an abstraction. At a micro level this is less true -- elementary particles specifically are a (mostly) discrete phenomenon, but representing the state even of a very simple system involves continuous quantities.

But the Cantor vision of the real numbers is just wrong and completely unphysical. The idea of arbitrary precision is intrinsically broken in physical reality. Instead I am off the opinion that computation is the relevant process in the physical universe, so approximations to continuous quantities are where the "Eternal Nature" line lies, and the abstraction of the continuum is just that -- an abstraction of the idea of having perfect knowledge of the state of anything in the universe.

replies(10): >>45067843 #>>45068041 #>>45068086 #>>45068269 #>>45068318 #>>45068389 #>>45069577 #>>45070658 #>>45071417 #>>45075257 #
alphazard ◴[] No.45068318[source]
> Nature and the universe is all about continuous quantities

One could argue that nature always deals in discrete quantities and we have models that accurately predict these quantities. Then we use math that humans clearly created (limits) to produce similar models, except they imagine continuous inputs.

replies(1): >>45068573 #
adrian_b ◴[] No.45068573[source]
The quantity of matter and the quantity of electricity are discrete, but work, time and space are continuous, like also any quantities derived from them.

There have been attempts to create discrete models of time and space, but nothing useful has resulted from those attempts.

Most quantities encountered in nature include some dependency on work/energy, time or space, so nature deals mostly in continuous quantities, or more precisely the models that we can use to predict what happens in nature are still based mostly on continuous quantities, despite the fact that about a century and a half have passed since the discreteness of matter and electricity has been confirmed.

replies(2): >>45070139 #>>45071474 #
gpm ◴[] No.45070139[source]
> but work, time and space are continuous

I'm under the impression that all our theories of time and space (and thus work) break down at the scale of 1 plank unit and smaller. Which isn't proof that they aren't continuous, but I don't see how you could assert that they are either.

replies(3): >>45071253 #>>45072067 #>>45072116 #
dhosek ◴[] No.45071253[source]
Matter and energy are discrete. The continuity or discreteness of time and space are unknown. There are arguments for both cases, but nobody really knows for sure.

It’s fairly easy to go from integers to many subsets of the reals (rationals are straightforward, constructible numbers not too hard, algebraic numbers more of a challenge), but the idea that the reals are, well real, depends on a continuity of spacetime that we can’t prove exists.

replies(1): >>45074273 #
adrian_b ◴[] No.45074273[source]
Energy is continuous, not discrete.

Because energy is action per time, it inherits the continuity of time. Action is also continuous, though its nature is much less well understood. (Many people make confusions between action and angular momentum, speaking about a "quantum of action". There is no such thing as a quantum of action, because action is a quantity that increases monotonically in time for any physical system, so it cannot have constant values, much less quantized values. Angular momentum, which is the ratio of action per phase in a rotation motion, is frequently a constant quantity and a quantized quantity. In more than 99% of the cases when people write Planck's constant, they mean an angular momentum, but there are also a few cases when people write Planck's constant meaning an action, typically in relation with some magnetic fluxes, e.g. in the formula of the magnetic flux quantum.)

Perhaps when you said that energy is discrete you thought about light being discrete, but light is not energy. Energy is a property of light, like also momentum, frequency, wavenumber and others.

Moreover, the nature of the photon is still debated. Some people are not convinced yet that light travels in discrete packets, instead of the alternative where only the exchange of energy and momentum between light and electrons or other leptons and quarks is quantized.

There are certain stationary systems, like isolated atoms or molecules, which may have a discrete set of states, where each state has a certain energy.

Unlike for a discrete quantity like the electric charge, such sets of energy values can contain arbitrary values of energy and between the sets of different systems there are no rational relationships between the energy values. Moreover, all such systems have not only discrete energy values but also continuous intervals of possible energies, usually towards higher energies, e.g. corresponding to high temperatures or to the ionization of atoms or molecules.

replies(1): >>45074644 #
1. ◴[] No.45074644[source]