Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 18:22:19 UTC No. 16618893

>>16618889
>Space is a structured 3D grid,
A particle can be in several grid points at the same time in quantum superposition. The probabilities change continuously so the jumps are never discrete

Anonymous at Fri, 14 Mar 2025 18:38:22 UTC No. 16618903

>>16618893
>quantum

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:44:07 UTC No. 16619421

>>16618903
your concession has been noted

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 01:56:33 UTC No. 16619429

>>16618889
>Why should reality be continuous? It must be discrete
>Why can't I arbitrarily define logic to be such? It must work like this!
Tell me you're a vsauce and veritasium IFLS onions drinking freshman without telling me...

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 02:59:48 UTC No. 16619459

>>16618889
What is the "discrete step" by which space-time evolves?

Please don't say something retarded like the Planck units (which are not the smallest units of anything, they are just a standardization tool).

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 04:12:36 UTC No. 16619481

>>16619459
>which are not the smallest units of anything, they are just a standardization tool
sauce?(not trolling or OP, genuinely curious, thanks in advance)

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:29:46 UTC No. 16620043

Solve the Kepler problem without calculus and I might read more than one sentence of your post.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:50:51 UTC No. 16620064

>>16619481
Literally reading the Wikipedia page (or a section in most any textbook that talks about them).

> As already stated above, Planck units are derived by "normalizing" the numerical values of certain fundamental constants to 1. These normalizations are neither the only ones possible nor necessarily the best. Moreover, the choice of what factors to normalize, among the factors appearing in the fundamental equations of physics, is not evident, and the values of the Planck units are sensitive to this choice.

This is from the Wikipedia page for Planck units.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

The idea that "things smaller than the Planck scale are subject to quantum uncertainty" is a heuristic (read, not a hard and fast rule) which Landau proposed in the 50's to help explain why so many quantities in statistical physics were still behaving stochastically even as our instruments become ever more precise. That explanation is a band aid on the fact that we aren't able to squarely produce determinism, even with incredibly precise sensing/actuation, not something fundamental about reality.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:35:25 UTC No. 16620090

>>16620064
It’s a philosophical question first and foremost, do you believe theres a smallest unit, yes or no? Science says no, and as you said yourself, physics is full of fairy dust and band-aid bullshit that only exists on paper: dark matter, string tanga theory, quantum gangbangs, gravitational waves, and whatever the fuck else they keep inventing to patch broken models. These theories might be useful approximations to some degree, but if you still believe they represent reality even slightly, you’re out of your goddamn mind. There needs to be a fundamental shift in thought. Discrete math is an alternative worth exploring.

>>16620043
>Solve the Kepler problem without calc
If I had time to go full autist mode, I’d do it, but I have 40k debt and I’m studying CS part-time. So tongue my anus.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:38:58 UTC No. 16620091

>>16620090
I don't believe that discrete math is any better off than continuous mathematics for describing reality. They both suffer from the same map-territory distinction problem.

The main difference is that discrete math is fundamentally worse at dealing with complexity and systems which appear to behave continuously. They add a curse of dimensionality aspect that gets intractable very quickly, and in exchange we get an even more arbitrary bullshit approach than the one we have now.

You're in deep if your best argument is "the current thing is broken so why not try my thing?"

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 21:48:48 UTC No. 16620095

>>16620091
You just admitted both discrete and continuous math suffer from the same map-territory problem yet somehow the discrete math approach is the one thats more "arbitrary bullshit".
the reason youre clinging to smooth math is because it’s comfortable.
"the current thing is broken, so why not try something els" is how progress is made.

Anonymous at Sat, 15 Mar 2025 22:44:59 UTC No. 16620123

>>16618893
>at the same time
how do you know its same time? do you have infinitely precise clock?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 01:07:49 UTC No. 16620219

>>16620095
No, the reason I'm "clinging to smooth math" is because smooth math is generally more tractable. There are essentially no smooth non-linear programming problems which are np hard. It's quite difficult to find combinatorial optimization problems that aren't np hard.

Similarly, discretization introduces a ton of additional ambiguity in Fourier/Laplace transformations of the things you care about (which are key to making many practical engineering problems tractable) and discrete representations of these have fundamental ambiguities that just aren't present in continuous time implementations.

> "the current thing is broken, so why not try something els" is how progress is made.

Your brain is broken. I still wouldn't recommend trying hitting your head repeatedly with a hammer despite it undoubtedly being "something else."

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 02:56:32 UTC No. 16620287

>>16618889
>Discrete Math should replace Calculus
Calculus is a tool, not a dogma. It's useful for modeling phenomena that *appear* continuous at our scale. Discrete math is equally valid, especially when dealing with computational models or systems with inherent discrete states.
>Reality isnt continuous. Theres no such thing as infinitely small steps, everything moves in discrete jumps, no in-between.
This is a recurring philosophical debate. Quantum mechanics already operates on the principle of quantization, meaning energy, momentum, and other properties are discrete. The Planck length and Planck time suggest fundamental limits to measurement, implying a discrete structure at the smallest scales.
>Space is a structured 3D grid, the smallest step is a geometric necessity, and Time doesnt exist by itself, its just the count of these updates.
Lattice QCD, loop quantum gravity, and causal set theory are examples of theories attempting to model spacetime as discrete. These models have yet to be experimentally confirmed, but they are not without merit.
>Physics still clings to smooth bullshit because science cucks are too lazy to rewrite everything from scratch and because theyre afraid they might get their funding cut.
The transition from continuous to discrete models is not a matter of laziness, but of complexity. Rewriting established theories requires significant mathematical and computational effort. Furthermore, continuous models often provide accurate approximations at macroscopic scales, making them practically useful. Funding is always a factor in science, but claiming it's the sole reason for the current state of physics is an oversimplification.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:59:41 UTC No. 16620477

>>16620095
>"the current thing is broken, so why not try something els" is how progress is made.
anon, i hereby authorize you to believe the future is discrete. Start churning that progress

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 06:58:31 UTC No. 16620519

>>16620287
>implying a discrete structure at the smallest scales.
It doesn't imply anything like that.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 08:25:55 UTC No. 16620549

It's the opposite, computerfags should be taught how to make everything more continuous, like using polynomial chunks instead of discrete samples to be interpolated (because polynomials are actually continuous, there's no more interpolation).

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 12:34:49 UTC No. 16620674

>>16620287
>Calculus is a tool, not a dogma. It's useful for modeling phenomena that appear continuous at our scale.

Right it "appears" continuous. Thats the key word. We assume smoothness because it makes the math easy, not because its real. Calculus works as an approximation but youre dodging the real question: does continuity actually exist?

>Quantum mechanics already operates on the principle of quantization

And yet physics still refuses to accept that maybe space and motion itself are also discrete. Quantum mechanics quantizes certain properties but keeps using smooth equations for all kinds of shit. That’s an inconsistency.

>Lattice QCD, loop quantum gravity, and causal set theory are examples

And yet they remain fringe while physicists keep defaulting to smooth equations instead of actually FULLY committing to discreteness.there’s no experimental proof that space is continuous either yet the field is still dominated by smooth math.

>The transition from continuous to discrete models is not a matter of laziness, but of complexity.

So you admit that continuity is just convenient, not necessarily true. If discreteness is correct but nobody wants to rewrite physics because its too much effort that is lazy in my book.

>Continuous models often provide accurate/useful approximations at macroscopic scales

again.. that doesn’t prove they’re fundamentally correct. Newtonian mechanics is also practically useful but we know it breaks down at relativistic speeds.

>Funding is always a factor in science, but claiming it's the sole reason for the current state of physics is an oversimplification.

It’s not the sole reason but pretending funding and academic inertia have nothing to do with it is naive as well.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 14:43:24 UTC No. 16620753

>>16620095
At this juncture the best solution is to simply try it. Isn't this essentially the same thing Wildberger worked on? Finitism which is basically the the sake thing in a sense. I think the best principal is if you think current approach is wrong then why not try your own and see what difficulties you run into. If nothing else it will likely give you an appreciation for the reasoning behind why decisions were made ultimately to adopt the continuum

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 19:15:23 UTC No. 16621059

>>16618889
>Reality isnt continuous. Theres no such thing as infinitely small steps, everything moves in discrete jumps, no in-between. Space is a structured 3D grid
what are you basing this on?

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:10:39 UTC No. 16621134

>>16620287
>muh Quantums n' sheit
Write Schrödinger's equation without derivatives then.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Mar 2025 21:24:45 UTC No. 16621139

>>16620674
>Quantum mechanics quantizes certain properties but keeps using smooth equations for all kinds of shit. That’s an inconsistency.
No it's not. Fourier coefficients are also discrete, even though they belong to a continuous object. It's the same in QM where discrete eigenvalues that can be measured in an experiment and their eigenstates describe a continuous wave function. The existence of discrete next to continuous objects is not necessarily a contradiction.

>there’s no experimental proof that space is continuous
Except a lot of experiments confirm the often continuous math to a degree that is satisfactory. First and most famously, the Kepler problem. A problem that does not have a "discrete" solution, for all we know. Even it was wrong, why drop it when it's working out nicely?

>If discreteness is correct but nobody wants to rewrite physics because its too much effort that is lazy in my book.
There's no "fundamental truth" in physics. You necessarily have to have axioms. That's why Newton came up with his three axioms, which he derived the planetary orbits from. QM too makes assumptions about the world. So does Einstein's theory of special relativity - the constant speed of light, remember? In the end, you're only arguing that your assumption - that the world is discrete is better than Newton's assumption that the world is continuous - somehow better. Yet you have nothing to show for it. Newton, on the contrary, does.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 07:50:14 UTC No. 16622289

>>16621139
>Fourier coefficients are also discrete
akshually they're only discrete if you describe a loop. If you describe a signal with infinite padding before and after then the Fourier transform is continuous and looks like the original discrete looping Fourier transform but interpolated by a sinc.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 22:24:42 UTC No. 16624549

>>16620287
There's something subtle you're brushing over here.

> The Planck length and Planck time suggest fundamental limits to measurement, implying a discrete structure at the smallest scales.

Firstly, this isn't actually what the Planck length/Planck time are. There is no real reason to believe that the material universe "is discretized" with these fundamental units. This seems to have originated with Landau's heuristic that "anything near the Planck scale is quantum," but that's a heuristic, not some rule.

Secondly, even if the Planck scale does serve as some sort of discretization, it does so at the level of _measurement_, not truth. It could very well be the case that our material universe is continuous in some fundamental sense, but that the tools we have to measure the material universe are limited in this fashion.

I hate to use analogies to computing, because that has other connotations that don't entirely fit, but in this case it is a useful one. A computer having a maximum clock-speed of 4 GHz does not mean that the voltage going through the integrated circuit is somehow discrete in time. It is simply that our ability to observe this phenomenon is speed limited by our measurement capacity.

It is still somewhat of an open question how matter behaves at these fundamental levels. The standard model could actually be wrong about the maximum speed of massive particle movement being the speed of light, and that it is simply our measurement technology being based on light which makes this limitations appear.

I'm not holding my breath on this possibility, but there's no real way currently to distinguish between "the truth has a speed limit" and "our ability to measure the truth has a speed limit." At some point you just have to make an assumption about the relationship between the measurements and the truth because it won't be verifiable.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:06:46 UTC No. 16624625

>>16620753
>At this juncture the best solution is to simply try it.
Are you blind or just stupid? I gave you a permit to try this new kwool discrete math. Debate is over, go revolutionize the zeitgest, tiger

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:35:16 UTC No. 16624633

>>16624625
I already have a promising idea but im not gonna share it with you jews cause i know youre gonna steal it. ill brain dump my magnum opus once its completely done and produces real world results.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:52:18 UTC No. 16624640

>>16624633
surely that big brain will come up with ways to avoid idea theft

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 10:22:59 UTC No. 16624839

>>16624640