10 ms·
Ah, okay, so it boils down to the question whether real numbers are physically realizable. There is a debate about that in the philosophy of physics and mathem
by jonathanstrange 8y ago
Ah, okay, so it boils down to the question whether real numbers are physically realizable.
There is a debate about that in the philosophy of physics and mathematics. AFAIK, according to the current state of physics real numbers cannot be realized within a finite amount of space, at least Gisin [1] recently argued that way and I've seen other arguments for this view before [2,3,4,5:167-170]. I also remember some argument based on thermodynamics but cannot find the reference.
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.06824.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.06824.pdf
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0411418 https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0411418
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14080024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14080024
[4] https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/~eal/pnerd/blog/are-real-numbers-real.html https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/~eal/pnerd/blog/are-real-number...
[5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397507008778 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030439750...
- gowld 8y agoAre there any arguments in favor of "a noncountable subset of real numbers are physically realizable" ? That seems obviously false to me. The "debate" is one-sided; anyone who considers the problem comes to the same conclusion.