= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on P(X = exact value) = 0: Is it really counterintuitive? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (49)
You are the one claiming that "the crushing majority of evidence" opposes discrete theories.
My position is more that we can barely see anything down that far, and so we have very little experimental evidence about whether the universe is continuous or discrete.
In the absence of evidence, assuming uncomputable physics seems to be counter-intuitive to me. We don't know of anything else that is uncomputable.
We're talking about the entire universe here, so it would be just as valid to say we don't know of anything else that is (discretely) computable.
And yeah, there is always some level of discreteness that would have no impact on our observations, just like there is some level of teapots in the asteroid belt that would have no impact on our observations. You're right that that sort of thing isn't ruled out by the evidence, so my statement was wrong.
Teapots in the asteroid belt are contrary to Occam's razor. The situation with discrete physics is very different. Science has a long history of showing that apparently-continuous phenomena actually turn out to be grainy on a smaller scale.