Alex_Arendar comments on Causal Universes - LessWrong

60 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 November 2012 04:08AM

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

Comments (385)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Alex_Arendar 19 March 2014 08:49:02PM 0 points [-]

Guys, I am not a physicist but I have problems with understanding this:

There would be no hypothesis in your hypothesis-space to describe the standard model of physics, where space is continuous, indefinitely divisible, and has complex amplitude assignments over uncountable cardinalities of points.

Is that a proven known thing that space is really continuous and indefinitely divisible?

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 19 March 2014 08:53:51PM 0 points [-]

It's empirically unproveable, but it is an assumption of standard QM and standard relativity.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 19 March 2014 09:26:39PM -2 points [-]

(Another non-physicist here) I thought quanta were the living proof that on a fundamental level the universe was discontinuous.

Comment author: shminux 19 March 2014 10:13:56PM *  5 points [-]

(An ex-physicist here) Quantization of measured energy levels in a bound system has nothing to do with the potential discontinuity of spacetime. The latter is hypothesized, but by no means proven or even tested. As for the original quote, it states that one has to leave room for models other than "a discrete causal graph".

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 March 2014 10:51:32AM 2 points [-]

The position operator has a real valued spectrum.