this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
966 points (100.0% liked)

196

16591 readers
1907 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what you mean by finite granularity.

Are you aware of the plank length? It's the distance less than which which we can no longer determine if 2 things are any closer.

Not quoting you with the reference to a grid.

Don't worry, I understand.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but distance is still continuous, a minimum measurable distance (between stuff) doesn't make space granular. I suppose there might be a minimum measurably meaningful number of configurations, but I'm not super convinced.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

My claim accounts for the possibility that the distances of particles may physically differ by amounts more granular than a plank length. My statement was that they are indiscernable. There are infinite copys of every person more closely identical than the two most similar identical twins. So closely identical that no physically possible device could ever distinguish between them. We cannot know if space is continuous. We simply know that if it is not continuous, it is of granularity as fine or finer than the plank length. So there is a meaningful sense in which there are finitely many macroscopic objects.