Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by enkid 598 days ago
Just because you can't record something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
3 comments

This brings to mind one of my favorite quotes:

The Schrödinger wave-function is expressed in a unit which is the square root of an inverse cubic meter. This fact alone makes clear that the wave-function is an abstraction, forever hidden from our view. Nobody will ever measure directly the square root of an inverse cubic meter.

Freeman Dyson, Why is Maxwell’s Theory so hard to understand?

https://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/DysonFreemanArticle.p...

Sure but i can invent infinitely many unfalsifiable claims that mean nothing
Who said anything about recording? What would the subjective experience of measuring something with infinite precision possibly be like?
> would require somehow recording an infinite amount of information...

>> Just because you can't record something...

>>> Who said anything about recording?

Sorry, my mistake, I was distracted when I wrote that reply. Yes, I did write that, but it's not actually essential to the point I was trying to make, which was: what could the result of measuring anything to an infinite precision possibly look like?
> what could the result of measuring anything to an infinite precision possibly look like?

Depends on what you're measuring. To illustrate why that isn't a facetious response, consider the difference between 'measuring' pi, 'measuring' a meter and 'measuring' the mass of a proton. (Or, for that matter, the relative mass of three of something to one of it.)

You'd need to somehow record refinements endlessly? I don't get what you're getting at.
How do you measure pi?
By repeatedly throwing a needle on a striped pattern: [1]. Obviously, you will need an infinite number of throws for an infinitely precise measurement of pi.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffon%27s_needle_problem

> How do you measure pi?

Pick your method. It’s the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.