3 ms·
> In one sense yes, but not in the sense that matters for this discussion. I'm not really sure when you decided on this, as I don't really evaluate the complex
by projektir 9y ago
> In one sense yes, but not in the sense that matters for this discussion.
I'm not really sure when you decided on this, as I don't really evaluate the complexity of something based on whether it follows math. I evaluate it based on the nature of the logic and abstraction that needs to be used to follow it.
The fact that you can approximate the location of particles with a math equation doesn't really feel to me that we're doing the same thing, even mathematically, that we were doing in Newtonian mechanics. That seems very much in line with "These "laws" of physics can be written as simple mathematical equations only because these equations make various simplifying assumptions.".
- lisper 9y ago> I evaluate it based on the nature of the logic and abstraction that needs to be used to follow it. What do you think math is? > The fact that you can approximate the location of particles with a math equation doesn't really feel to me that we're doing the same thing, even mathematically, that we were doing in Newtonian mechanics. Huh? Are you referring to the fact that QM is probabilistic? That's not a simplifying assumption, that's a reflection of how the world actually is.