Space will be found out to be discrete.

Space will be found out to be discrete.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >You can measure something continuous discreetly (with finite memory)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/f79kENH.gif

      reality is neither a machine nor does it compute

      keep coping morons

      space is discrete

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    reality is neither a machine nor does it compute

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      sorry chud, not only is reality a machine, its a Turing machine with knowable states and transitions.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, but you can represent it as such up to the point described in OP. Map, territory, etc

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Funny how every single physical law we know of is computable. I guess you must just posess some secret knowledge of the universe that disproves this, lucky you!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if I call the big black box a television then that means reality calls it a television

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          that doesnt refute what he said dumbass

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I speak English
            >that means the universe speaks English!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is an impressively stupid take.

        The "laws" as you describe them are inferential models written by humans which describe the behavior of material objects to the best of our ability. Of course the "laws" as we write them will be computable, we are intentionally modeling the state transitions of objects via the best computable approximations we have.

        You might as well write a sentence saying "Of course all of the words in English use Latin letters." Yes, of course this is true because we wrote English to be a language which is formed of Latin symbols!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          An incredible number of people can be fooled with sentences such as: A ball is called a ball because it looks like a ball.

          You're arguing with a low-IQ specimen who cannot properly process sentences written in the conjunctive whose premise rests on a hypothetical as opposed to real scenario.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >reality is neither a machine nor does it compute
      what the frick did the processor in your device do, when you posted this? what do you mean? it's literally fricking nature, atoms bunched together, computing shit.
      what
      the
      frick

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        "reality contains machines that compute" does not imply "reality is a machine that computes."

        Computation is a human construction for problem solving. It has intention, parameters for success and failure.

        When we model the state evolution of a continuous time system (e.g., current on a wire), we need to compute the charge density or the potential on through the circuit if we want to model its behavior. The universe doesn't need to "compute" the behavior of the current in the wire anymore than the molecules of air need to compute their state before they are blown by the wind.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          that's how an analog computer works, it effortlessly computes shit. like addition. join two wires together and it automatically sums the current. that's literally computation anon. it just happens

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Join two wires together and it automatically sums the current. That's literally computation.

            What you are describing is missing the intentionality part of computation. A human who joins two wires together in an adding junction can use the material mechanism of current addition to compute.

            The wires don't need to compute to handle the interaction. They do it naturally without the "problem" to which the "computation" is the solution.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            does your brain always naturally compute without having a problem to which that computation is the solution? as far as we know we're from here, we're the products of this universe, and hence "nature". our brains seem to compute shit, how to avoid things, how to get to others.
            inb4
            >yeah I am here but I'm not from here

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your inb4 reminded me of flagpole sitta for some reason.

            As for your question, which is essentially "Is consciousness a computer?" My answer would be, I'm not sure. It seems like many parts of the experience of sentience and sensory perception are computational.

            However, I don't think that the answer to your question means much in terms of the real question you are asking, namely, "is the material universe a computer?"

            If you believe the universe is itself sentient/conscious in some fashion, then it would make sense to look at the material universe computationally if you view sentience as computational. I'm not sure I believe that the universe itself requires sentience or something akin to the neural computations your brain performs in order to function.

            If you pour water from a glass into your sink, your brain will do computations to turn the signals your eyes observe into something your sentience can process. This doesn't imply that the water itself is dependent on a computational process to fall.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you pour water from a glass into your sink
            that's exactly computation. if you break the glass that's a computation, and the shards of glass on the floor store the resulting information. weird innit

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > That's exactly computation.

            No, it isn't. You are again confusing "the material world contains computers" with "the material world is a computer." There's nothing inherently computational about water falling due to gravity.

            A sentient being could use water falling to develop a computer of some form, but the water falling itself isn't a computer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you just don't get it do you?

            "Water can be used as a computer" != "Water is a computer."

            Water itself is a not a machine which is programmed to carry out sequences of arithmetic. You can make a machine (i.e., an analog computer) which uses water and its weight to perform computation.

            The water itself is the medium by which the machine uses to produce computation. The water is not a computer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            all the universe is a computer. a computer does shit based on imposed programming (natural laws of universe). it constantly performs math and logic operations. most of its computation is irrelevant for us. and human brains are running on bare metal.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            if it can compute somehow then its a computer

            simple as

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So, by your thinking, any portable rigid object is a hammer, because it can hit a nail if you try hard enough.

            Do you not see this as a bit strange?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ?t=249
            a fricking spoon is a computer. you midwits just don't understand it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you just don't get it do you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            "Water can be used as a computer" != "Water is a computer."

            Water itself is a not a machine which is programmed to carry out sequences of arithmetic. You can make a machine (i.e., an analog computer) which uses water and its weight to perform computation.

            The water itself is the medium by which the machine uses to produce computation. The water is not a computer.

            "reality contains machines that compute" does not imply "reality is a machine that computes."

            Computation is a human construction for problem solving. It has intention, parameters for success and failure.

            When we model the state evolution of a continuous time system (e.g., current on a wire), we need to compute the charge density or the potential on through the circuit if we want to model its behavior. The universe doesn't need to "compute" the behavior of the current in the wire anymore than the molecules of air need to compute their state before they are blown by the wind.

            you are pretty smart
            these morons don't understand that science is our attempt to model the universe (computationally). that is only a descriptive constraint on its observed behavior, not an intrinsic description of its mechanism (which a finite human theory cannot fully explain)

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Based

      [...]
      keep coping morons

      space is discrete

      frick off reddit spacing imbecile

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      In the case of discrete vs continuous, the discrete alternative is the less complex one and thus more likely to be true. Infinite detail at all points is waaaaaay more absurd.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        discrete space can be disproven with 15 seconds of thought. If space were a rectangular lattice of discrete locations like a chessboard, then 3 steps east and 3 steps northeast would have both the same displacement from the starting point and the same displacement eastwards, despite the 2nd trip ending 3 steps north of the first. Pythagorean fails, circles have circumference 2*D, all geometry goes out the window. Not a lot of regular polyhedra that tesselate 3-space, and they'd obviously all have the same problem

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Space doesn't have to be a grid tho. And by the way, all the circles and triangles you do math on are discrete (molecules of graphite and pixels on a screen) and yet you still conclude that the pythagorean theorem is correct because you're zoomed out enough.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            breh

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the discrete alternative is the less complex one and thus more likely to be true
        And you make this claim based on what?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          A bunch of little space atoms is less complex than some sort of recurrent infinity in every single cubic nanometer of space, wouldn't you agree?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A bunch of little space atoms is less complex than some sort of recurrent infinity in every single cubic nanometer of space
            And? A single solid form is less complex than a bunch of little space atoms, that doesn't mean reality is any less complex, your argument makes no sense and is a completely baseless assumption.

          • 1 month ago
            AIFag

            that's a moronic take
            the function f(x) = x is "recurrent infinity"
            do you think it's more complex than something discrete like the piecewise linear function?

          • 1 month ago
            AIFag

            piecewise step* function

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No. Only the dots you calculate on your computer or by hand is actually part of that function graph, zoom in enough and there will be gaps between the graphite molecules or the screen pixels where the graph isn't defined.

            So even f(x) = x is not continuous.

          • 1 month ago
            AIFag

            >even f(x) = x is not continuous
            you are confusing human's ablility to implement an function in a device with the function itself.
            please stop showing your stupidity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Other way around, YOU are the one who can't let go of the human bias to percieve things as continuous.

            Is a banana discrete? Yes. Is a body of water discrete? Also yes. But we are animals programmed to assume continuousness.

            There are no current proof for anything being continuous, but many things have been proven to be discrete as we've gained more knowledge (matter, light, energy and more).

          • 1 month ago
            AIFag

            you're going in another direction after being btfo by smarter people here.
            I don't know whether space is continuous or not. have no preference in them.
            but your take that discrete less complex than continuous is simply moronic high schooler tier.
            maybe you should read more before mouthing off on the internet?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Whatever continuous function you point to is a pure math abstraction and not representative of anything in reality. It's pure imagination and doesn't have an equivalent in reality. It's like infinity, pure fantasy.

            Show me a single thing in nature that is an example of continuousness. Made up things do not count.

          • 1 month ago
            AIFag

            again, you are going in tangent direction here cause you were btfo.
            >Whatever continuous function you point to is a pure math abstraction and not representative of anything in reality. It's pure imagination and doesn't have an equivalent in reality
            citation needed, we don't even know if space is continuous or discrete.
            is time continuous or discrete?
            is your mom continuous or discrete if you zoom in infinitely?
            see? we don't know shit and I accept that we don't know for shit. that's why I don't jump into conclusion like you. you have already made up your mind that everything is discrete, that's why you are making stupid arguments.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We're talking about the probability of either option being correct. The least complex alternative is likely the best bet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Reality does not operate on probabilities

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We don't have perfect information and infinite computing power so we operate on probabilities.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This has absolutely no bearing on the nature of reality

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Work on your english reading comprehension

          • 1 month ago
            AIFag

            >least complex alternative is likely the best bet
            citation needed for this. why should I bet on this? it's not a betting game. there isn't a proability in the truth nature of reality. there is only one truth.
            define least complex.
            discrete is not neccessary be less complex than continuous.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >there isn't a proability in the truth nature of reality
            There is probability involved when humans don't know exactly, do you follow?

            >discrete is not neccessary be less complex than continuous.
            A finite amount of "space dots" is less complex than infinities everywhere. Just 1 single infinity in nature is pure fantasy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A finite amount of "space dots" is less complex than infinities everywhere
            and nothing is less complex than something, yet something exists and nothing does not, you are jumping to conclusions without any arguments to back it up, what physical mechanism would cause reality choose to be more simple over more complex?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and nothing is less complex than something
            But we observe something, so we can rule out nothing. Simplicity over complexity is not a hard law of nature, it's just trend.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Simplicity over complexity is not a hard law of nature, it's just trend.
            1. reality does not operate on trends
            2. every step up in information processing has revealed that everything we observe is composed of more complex things than we could previously observe
            Your appeal to simplicity is fallacious and has no backbone, you assume it to be true just because you say so without providing a shred of evidence as to why it should be true

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, but the evidence for continuousness is a big fat 0. So I'll take the side that has even the slightest evidence going for it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the evidence for continuousness is a big fat 0
            lol, it is directly observable that there are no gaps between things, there is no observable or experimental evidence to suggest things operate in discrete increments, try again

          • 1 month ago
            AIFag

            >There is probability involved when humans don't know exactly
            and why should it affect the truth nature of reality? humans not knowing doesn't mean the world should change.
            you don't understand probablity here.

            >some bullshit
            again, you are being purely stupid here. I think you don't have enough brain juice to understand or follow this kind of conversation. read more, dumbass.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and why should it affect the truth nature of reality?
            Do you have trouble reading? When you and I talk and we lack perfect information, the only thing we can do is discuss probabilities.

          • 1 month ago
            AIFag

            ok, I'll stop. simply a waste of time. I need to go biking.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe you'll stop writing like some terminally antagonistic IQfy brain the next time. To think an adult man gets this agitated over chatting online.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A finite amount of "space dots" is less complex than infinities everywhere
            False. An infinite grid is actually more complex (more structure) than a smooth continuum

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            nta but why should I believe it's continuous instead of discrete? there's no other example in nature for this continuity. is it just because it "seems" to you it's continuous?

          • 1 month ago
            AIFag

            >why should I believe it's continuous instead of discrete?
            there isn't any evidence either way, why should strongly believe in either direction?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >there isn't any evidence either way,
            >evidence
            throwing away math anon? really?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >zoom in enough and there will be gaps between the graphite molecules
            And those gaps are filled with matter, there is no such thing as empty space or absence of matter, we're all full

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why, is this a simulation or something?

    Also how would you prove discreteness, especially before a unified theory?

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If space is discrete, what are those discrete unit made of?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > What are those discrete units made of

      Autism. The pixels of space-time are constructed of pure unadulterated autism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >what are those discrete unit made of?
      Bits of RAM in the machine that is running our simulation.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if there is something that can't be said about finitists, is them being discrete
    also due to godel and from reality being able to support arithmetic, reality is either incomplete or inconsistent

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What is your answer to Weyl's tyle argument?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just zoom out and the pythagorean theorem holds true for any human size observer. Imagine a space "unit" is 10^-100 cubic metres. At the scale of human engineering measurements, that space will appear perfectly smooth.

      Just like how your computer screen appears smooth, or how a body of water appears smooth despite being made up of discrete atoms. Just zoom out.

  7. 1 month ago
    AIFag

    if space is discrete, why is my vision continuous, check mate atheists.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      8K resolution at high fps

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wouldn't it take a computing machine an infinite amount of time to find the sine of some angle, since the only way we have to compute it is the infinite series?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >everything in the universe is computation
    >okay, here’s a list of things that have been proven to be impossible to compute
    >shut up!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >okay, here’s a list of things that have been proven to be impossible to compute
      Such as?

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    give one fricking example of this continuity in nature, of any kind, proven by science.
    there's also math which acurately predicts shit, that has been verified, and it also predicts quantized space and time.
    so, with no fricking scientific example for any of this imaginary soul-like continuity, you suppose it's continuous? take your fricking meds

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >soul-like continuity
      what do melons have to do with aeronautics?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Have anybody seen Pierre Noyes' discrete physics hypothesis? Apart from going full schizo over the fine structure constant some ideas from his works are pretty nice.

    inb4 everyone who makes serious claims about discrete space within current physics framework is clinically moronic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i whould not call him clinicaly moronic, just garden variety moronic

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >BTFO thousands of years ago
    >still arguing it's true

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *