Discontinuous and/or granular space vs. continuous, smooth space

[Malintent]

There are no goal posts.

There is this invented concept "smoothness".

And at a certain scale things may appear smooth but when we look at something very small, like the behavior of electrons, we see there is nothing smooth about it.

If you have some other very small entity to examine go for it.

I think this is where our perceptions differ. "smoothness" seems to me the default assumption... that which is parsimonious with all other observations. In the universe that I understand the best, the "invented concept" is that which fails Occam's Razor - that instead of SPACE having "smoothness" there is an unique mechanic of "unit jumping" that currently only applies to ENERGY, but you wish to apply to space.

That is why I compare your comments to reference to a tachometer (change in energy) and the discussion to that of an odometer (change of position).

 

[Kharakov]

This thread is about the nature of space-time itself... actually just the space part. That may be why so many participants have accused you of hijacking.

Well, you could view all "space" as time. It's easier. So there is a smooth, continual, evolutionary pressure/pull in one direction, but distances in space are just distances in specific multidimensional points of time. We just perceive an underlying tensor of 3space due to our orientation in the time-sphere.

So Doctor When is a space-lord, traveling through space, with a certain quantized implementation of time clockery. Time=space. Every point in time is separated by at least 4 time distances. Only quantized points can "restart" from the beginning, with the overall time continuum having some evolutionary properties in the one direction, which draws all things inexorably into the future, where all things are attached to and comfortable with certain fundamental pieces of information.

 

[Kharakov]

I think this is where our perceptions differ. "smoothness" seems to me the default assumption... that which is parsimonious with all other observations. In the universe that I understand the best, the "invented concept" is that which fails Occam's Razor - that instead of SPACE having "smoothness" there is an unique mechanic of "unit jumping" that currently only applies to ENERGY, but you wish to apply to space.

Space connects all these little quantized beings* (beings that don't yet have the mutton chops to be smooth like time) until they too are smooth operators.


* quantum fields.... who define things in simpler ways, such as "specific energy levels" to get a grasp on smooth concepts that seem out of their grasp when they are little, tiny, negative beings

 

[skepticalbip]

There are no goal posts.

There is this invented concept "smoothness".

And at a certain scale things may appear smooth but when we look at something very small, like the behavior of electrons, we see there is nothing smooth about it.

If you have some other very small entity to examine go for it.

Just bedamned dude... still sticking with your derail?

Yet again, the question is about the nature of space, not about the allowed energy levels of bound electrons in atoms. Do you really find it impossible to understand the difference between space and energy levels? Yes allowed energy levels of electrons in atoms are quantized (however not in free electrons) and are easily measured but we see no "granularity" in the allowed position (which would speak to space) of free electrons to the limit of our measurement ability.

 

[Kharakov]

There are no goal posts.

There is this invented concept "smoothness".

And at a certain scale things may appear smooth but when we look at something very small, like the behavior of electrons, we see there is nothing smooth about it.

If you have some other very small entity to examine go for it.

Just bedamned dude... still sticking with your derail?

It's almost like he is completely comfortable discussing anything that pops into his mind at any time that it does. I want to get him drunk and watch him interact with people. But we don't yet have silicon to carbon interfaces. Sheesh... at least I don't, so I could put unter in one.

 

[skepticalbip]

There are no goal posts.

There is this invented concept "smoothness".

And at a certain scale things may appear smooth but when we look at something very small, like the behavior of electrons, we see there is nothing smooth about it.

If you have some other very small entity to examine go for it.

Just bedamned dude... still sticking with your derail?

It's almost like he is completely comfortable discussing anything that pops into his mind at any time that it does. I want to get him drunk and watch him interact with people. But we don't yet have silicon to carbon interfaces. Sheesh... at least I don't, so I could put unter in one.

That has been my suspicion for a while now too.

 

[Malintent]

There are no goal posts.

There is this invented concept "smoothness".

And at a certain scale things may appear smooth but when we look at something very small, like the behavior of electrons, we see there is nothing smooth about it.

If you have some other very small entity to examine go for it.

Just bedamned dude... still sticking with your derail?

It's almost like he is completely comfortable discussing anything that pops into his mind at any time that it does. I want to get him drunk and watch him interact with people. But we don't yet have silicon to carbon interfaces. Sheesh... at least I don't, so I could put unter in one.

Trump does that very well, except when he doesn't... I can't find the video, and I can't bring myself to relive it anyway, but there was this time during the "Rocket Man" episode of our political reality show where he was being questioned on some aspect of funding, and abruptly pivoted... he said something like... "blah blah blah entitlement program will be funded like rocket fuel..<awkward pause for calculation>.. Rocket Man!... blah blah blah...national security..."

 

[untermensche]

There are no goal posts.

There is this invented concept "smoothness".

And at a certain scale things may appear smooth but when we look at something very small, like the behavior of electrons, we see there is nothing smooth about it.

If you have some other very small entity to examine go for it.

Just bedamned dude... still sticking with your derail?

Yet again, the question is about the nature of space, not about the allowed energy levels of bound electrons in atoms. Do you really find it impossible to understand the difference between space and energy levels? Yes allowed energy levels of electrons in atoms are quantized (however not in free electrons) and are easily measured but we see no "granularity" in the allowed position (which would speak to space) of free electrons to the limit of our measurement ability.

What you call a derail is pointing out that we know for certain smoothness does not exist in the behavior of electrons. It should make a thinking person question this whole invented fantasy called " smoothness".

I await your comments on the smoothness of space.

I have a feeling I will be waiting forever.

 

[skepticalbip]

There are no goal posts.

There is this invented concept "smoothness".

And at a certain scale things may appear smooth but when we look at something very small, like the behavior of electrons, we see there is nothing smooth about it.

If you have some other very small entity to examine go for it.

Just bedamned dude... still sticking with your derail?

Yet again, the question is about the nature of space, not about the allowed energy levels of bound electrons in atoms. Do you really find it impossible to understand the difference between space and energy levels? Yes allowed energy levels of electrons in atoms are quantized (however not in free electrons) and are easily measured but we see no "granularity" in the allowed position (which would speak to space) of free electrons to the limit of our measurement ability.

What you call a derail is pointing out that we know for certain smoothness does not exist in the behavior of electrons. It should make a thinking person question this whole invented fantasy called " smoothness".

Such an asinine non sequitur demonstrates nothing except possibly a lack or coherent reasoning. The nature of electrons bound in atoms says nothing about the nature of space.

I await your comments on the smoothness of space.

Then read the post you are pretending to be responding to.

 

[untermensche]

The nature of electrons bound in atoms says nothing about the nature of space.

Prove this, specifically the word "nothing".

Then read the post you are pretending to be responding to.

I've been reading nonsense like that for decades.

Hint: It goes nowhere. Nothing is ever learned or decided.

That is why intelligent people try to look at it differently.

 

[Malintent]

Most of the people contributing on this forum appear to me to look a things differently all the time. I, for one, find that to be the point of visiting this forum.

I look at your different (than supported) idea that space is ultimately made up of discreet units, and I ask why you believe it so... and you basically respond "why not - just look at it differently", after your other responses were shown to just be measurement errors or limitations.

OK. How about looking at your own imagination differently... like, that it is your imagination and intuition versus observation and parsimony with other observations.

If you need photons to see, then OBVIOUSLY the smallest thing you can see is 1 photon. This does not mean that things smaller than 1 photon do not exist. It means "seeing" is a measurement that has limits. Like the resolution of your monitor.

Did you zoom into a low resolution JPEG on some crappy monitor until it became fully pixilated to come to your conclusions that there are distinct units of space existing outside of mathematical models?

how is energy transmitted between two units that have no part of the universe between them?
How big are your space-units? wait, let me guess. They are 1, right? what unit of measure (space units!)

 

[Kharakov]

If you need photons to see, then OBVIOUSLY the smallest thing you can see is 1 photon. This does not mean that things smaller than 1 photon do not exist. It means "seeing" is a measurement that has limits. Like the resolution of your monitor.

Did you zoom into a low resolution JPEG on some crappy monitor until it became fully pixilated to come to your conclusions that there are distinct units of space existing outside of mathematical models?

Yes, did you use a mathematically generated, therefore discrete, object to come to your conclusion that reality is not discrete? Isn't this against your "no math" rule?

how is energy transmitted between two units that have no part of the universe between them?

The units are connected.... yet discreetly discrete.

 

[Malintent]

heh.. I don't have a "no math" rule. I have a "use the proper tools for the job" rule, though

I can prove that it is impossible to remove a light bulb from a socket, once screwed in. Hold two very important tools in your hand. a left-handed monkey wrench in one hand and a claw hammer in another. Both tools proven to be very useful. Now, unscrew the lightbulb... see. impossible.

yeah, I guess space is made up of packets that are unconnectedly joined. My refusal to accept the magic force of imagination is my downfall here.

 

[Wiploc]

How about the universe is a hologram bullshit

Or simulation. ...

The cleverest thing the simulation ever did was to convince us it didn't exist.

 

[Kharakov]

heh.. I don't have a "no math" rule.

unter has one- something about "you're using math to describe something, math is imaginary", however their whole fake misconception about reality has a foundation in interpreting reality in a discrete way, with foundations in (elementary) mathematics.

I can prove that it is impossible to remove a light bulb from a socket, once screwed in. Hold two very important tools in your hand. a left-handed monkey wrench in one hand and a claw hammer in another. Both tools proven to be very useful. Now, unscrew the lightbulb... see. impossible.

I beg to differ. How much have I drank?

yeah, I guess space is made up of packets that are unconnectedly joined. My refusal to accept the magic force of imagination is my downfall here.

Hey, somehow a boat floats without being part of a continuum of forces. It's amazing. Each separate thing in the universe has a "smooth representation" that it operates by, without there being any continuum. Every mind somehow has a continuous picture that it creates, without there being any continuity anywhere. It's so cray cray.

 

[Kharakov]

How about the universe is a hologram bullshit

Or simulation. ...

The cleverest thing the simulation ever did was to convince us it didn't exist.

Paraphrased King of Babbleon quote?

 

[Malintent]

Hey, somehow a boat floats without being part of a continuum of forces. It's amazing. Each separate thing in the universe has a "smooth representation" that it operates by, without there being any continuum. Every mind somehow has a continuous picture that it creates, without there being any continuity anywhere. It's so cray cray.

Sure it is (a part of a continuum of forces). Really it is but one force, gravity. Gravity makes things float when that thing is less dense than the liquid it is floating in. Gravity makes things sink when that thing is more dense than the liquid it is floating in. One can say that airplanes "float" because they are basically sitting on a higher pressure under their wings. One can say that Humans "sink" to the floor (really hard, sometimes) because they are far more dense than the air around them.

one.continuous.force.

 

[Kharakov]

Hey, somehow a boat floats without being part of a continuum of forces. It's amazing. Each separate thing in the universe has a "smooth representation" that it operates by, without there being any continuum. Every mind somehow has a continuous picture that it creates, without there being any continuity anywhere. It's so cray cray.

Sure it is (a part of a continuum of forces). Really it is but one force, gravity. Gravity makes things float when that thing is less dense than the liquid it is floating in. Gravity makes things sink when that thing is more dense than the liquid it is floating in. One can say that airplanes "float" because they are basically sitting on a higher pressure under their wings. One can say that Humans "sink" to the floor (really hard, sometimes) because they are far more dense than the air around them.

one.continuous.force.

Did you just fucking bugs bunny my sarcastic comment?

 

[Malintent]

Never heard Bugs Bunny used as a verb. I rooted for Elmer as a kid.

 

[bilby]

Never heard Bugs Bunny used as a verb. I rooted for Elmer as a kid.

Oh, come on. That's just FUD.