Eugine_Nier comments on Buridan's ass and the psychological origins of objective probability - Less Wrong

1 Post author: common_law 30 March 2013 09:43AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (54)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 02 April 2013 05:01:37AM 2 points [-]

The second objection is that our world is, in fact, not continuous (with the Planck length and whatnot).

I'm not really sure where that idea came from. Quantum physics is continuous. In fact, derivatives are vital to it, and you need continuity to have them. The position of an object is spread out over a waveform instead of being at a specific spot like a billiard ball, but the waveform is a continuous function of position. The waveform has a center of mass that can be specified however much you want. Also, the Planck length seems kind of arbitrary. It means something if you have an object with size one Planck mass (about the size of a small flea), but a smaller object would have a more spread out waveform, and a larger object would have a tighter one.

The Plank length is irrelevant but quantization isn't. Specifically, with with quantum mechanics it's possible to get the ass to be in a superposition of eating from one or the other (but not in the middle) in bounded time.