/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15250675
>and nowhere does that imply that space is discrete
True, I didn't say it does. I said the TREND is towards physicality being quantized. And there ARE reasons for believing that the rest will be, pic and link related. There are ZERO reasons for thinking it is continuous and plenty of LOGICAL reasons why it could never be PROVED otherwise, for instance the one about how you can't ever observe infinite divisibility. So asserting is will only ever be metaphysical conjecture. And the rendering engine doesn't even have to render the planck scale resolution by the way. It renders what the specs of the observer or the observers instruments require. So if it's just human consciousness, It renders resolution based on the specs of your eyesight. As the consciousnesses immersed in the VR develop tech that demands finer resolution data, the system will oblige in rendering what would be probable at that scale, all of the way down to the pixel scale and the finest definable resolution, ie there's no such thing as a half pixel. See how my view doesn't involve illogical ideas like 'infinitely divisible' things?
>You can keep sending that link but its not going to support your argument
Yes, it is. My argument is that the physical world is discrete, digital, computable, and computed. The observed data is 100% in my favor, not yours. You can only appeal to continuous ABSTRACT MODELS conceived in MINDS.
>Now if you are implying "if we cant measure it then it doesnt exist"
It's not that you just can't at the moment measure something continuous to infinite precision or measure to arbitrary precision, it's that the idea itself is meaningless.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.1205.pdf
>as no matter how many times you observe something you can't ever actually confirm it
Yeah, I read hume.

>>15045988
whoops, forgot picrel here
>>15046066