[mb7733]

> In a way, anything discrete is a logical assertion that exists purely in imagination. Base reality is continuous in every way.

This is a strong statement. What about any thing that can be counted? Apples, sheep, atoms in a molecule, permutations of objects? Certainly these are discrete quantities?

[pdpi]

It’s also an assertion that defies quantum physics as we know it. The whole point is that things are discrete at the smallest levels.

[dfischer]

Just because you can recognize something as a unit doesn’t mean that it isn’t continuous fundamentally.

If you look at your hand you may count your fingers but they’re still part of your body as a whole. Any “border” is an arbitrary limit that is fully in the domain of human imagination. Our senses of the world allow us to conceptualize arbitrary borders and units of a continuum.

Base reality is continuous, absolutely nothing exists without the whole. That is to say, only the whole exists. Anything in the finite will never be adequate to describe true reality.

Physics actually does understand this quite a bit. Much of theoretical physics is divorced from reality to the point where quantum physics itself is nowhere near describing reality. It may help describe certain properties based on our observations but many postulations are dependent on phenomena that are entirely non physical.

There are factions within physics and the “atomic mathematical model centric” faction has the popular voice. There exists within physics those who do not see the universe as atomic. You don’t hear much about them today because information is gated.

[drdeca]

Even if something is continuous, that doesn’t imply that all borders within it are arbitrary. And even among borders that are somewhat arbitrary, not all of them are equally arbitrary. Whether a metal is iron or lead is a kind of question that aligns more with the workings of the universe than the question of whether the current month is September or October.

The goal of cleaving reality at the joints is not entirely hopeless.

In a bimodal distribution, there is a point which is a local minimum for the probability density which lies between two local maxima of probability density.

As to whether an infinite amount of classical information is needed to perfectly describe the behavior of physical objects, I am agnostic. As to whether a bounded-in-size physical object can be used to store an unbounded amount of classical information, I’m fairly confident that this is not possible (as a thing that happens to be true of the universe, not something required by logic alone).

(I am not arguing that “whether a sample is entirely lead” is a perfectly discrete question, as, I hear that it is thought that on extremely extremely long time scales that quantum tunneling may cause collections of lighter-than-iron elements to combine and form iron, and so even in a sample of “pure” [some element lighter than iron], maybe there might basically immediately be some minuscule component of the wave function in the “these atoms combined into some heavier element” direction? I’m not sure. I don’t know whether that would decohere or whatever immediately and therefore with high probability go back to a state of purely the one element? Idk. What I am claiming is that even if there is a continuous path connecting states we would call element A with those we would call element Z, it is nonetheless natural and _Correct_ to make a distinction between different elements, and these distinctions are more natural and less arbitrary than other distinctions we might make.)

[dfischer]

Yeah I appreciate your thoughts in this realm. It’s balanced. Good to think about. I am of the perspective that it’s all a whole and interactions within a whole create observational effects. I don’t think there’s an absolute answer as much as the consideration of being able to maintain multiple perspectives of thought as equally valid depending on the need.

Distinction is almost strictly a utility of communication. But that could be expanded into language and mind itself and gets meta quickly.

Maybe my poking is more related to an irk that language itself being used is in the context of finality and truth. Every sentence is a statement of absolute truth. No wonder everyone argues endlessly over what is.

Again. Appreciate the reply.