Re: f**king mouse

In article <1kqqvb868mimp$.22tjmr559gqc$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx>,
watercress@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:04:53 -0000, Dave Budd wrote:

<snip>

I thought she was talking about granularity, and how if our base unit
was 1 Planck length (or whatever the granularity size is these days)
then you could never have a <1 (or, possibly, a non-integer) length at
all.

I've been thinking about this for half an hour - it just seems "wrong"
somehow, and I wasn't sure if this was mathematically of philosophically.
Then I remembered what Niels Bohr said - "if you think that you understand
quantum mechanics, then you don't really understand it."

Well. It's a toughie. Maybe there is a minimum size below which nothing
we can concieve of as having physical substance can exit - below which
you can't even subdivide empty space (which is after all only a way of
defining separation between objects). Or maybe the granularity size is
merely the point at which we need to change model (again) - like the
step from atoms to the sub-atominc particles.


<snip>

That doesn't preclude the idea that the universe is simply an expression
of mathematics in what we perceive as a physical form.

But even mathematics is man made.

The way we formulate it is, but essentially we discover it, not make it.

reality. For example, I can say that I don't have any apples in the flat -
however that is based on a certain view of time. I have had apples in the
flat, and may have again, so for someone who experienced time differently,
there would not be an absence of apples, but possibly a probability of
apples, or a concept that we cannot even attempt to understand.

But time doesn't exist!

--
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.
.

Loading