3 ms·

This is also wrong. We have ways to deduce resolution smaller than the molecular scale.

• shmeeed 3y ago
  Your Planck-length-attention to detail seems to have failed to parse the "at least" part of the sentence, which by formal logic makes it correct again, doesn't it? By the way you're saying yourself that this scale has to be deduced and isn't observable anymore. I suppose it could be argued that the essay is rather about what we as human individuals could observe by more or less direct means, and about what normal people could comprehend if they wanted to. It's not a stretch to say that musings about the quantum realm are beyond the scope of most. You're not wrong, of course the author could have chosen to extend his argument deeper into the fine structure of matter itself. But he didn't, and I think he gets the point across just as well, so the discussion seems a bit silly.
  • corethree 3y ago
    The author didn't need to extend his argument that far. That wasn't my point. What he did is make some statements that are factually wrong. Reality as we know it does not have infinite resolution. This is categorically false. It points to the fact about how his arguments aren't fundamentally true. His point is flawed because at the low level it's false. In my argument I took it further. I made the counter point. You probably didn't read far enough. If you did you would agree with my counter point. At a high level, both of our overall points have truth. But this guy is talking about his point as if it's the one fundamental truth, and he even uses the term infinite resolution which again is false.