3 ms·
> is just too low of a fidelity for such a complicated system? I think you're asking questions that some are afraid to ask. It appears to me that some people
by dekken_ 11mo ago
> is just too low of a fidelity for such a complicated system?
I think you're asking questions that some are afraid to ask.
It appears to me that some people have become accustomed to working with approximations, and have accepted the map for the terrain.
Fundamentally, I don't see how you can use continuous math to explain a discrete system.
- d4rkn0d3z 11mo ago"It appears to me that some people have become accustomed to working with approximations, and have accepted the map for the terrain." No, here we are discussing the formalism without approximations associated with an instance of its approximate application. And QM says "The map is the terrain".
- dekken_ 11mo agoQM is many things You might want to be a little more specific, and rely less on approximations. I am aware of what the Copenhagen interpretation states, thanks
- d4rkn0d3z 11mo agoTo what approximations do you refer? Here we discard Copenhagen and move forward.
- dekken_ 11mo agoTake your pick Schrodinger/Dirac/Feynman. A wave is a product, trigonometric functions do not exist. Gerard hooft was on Curt Jaimungal's youtube channel a while back, I generally agree with him, discrete systems cannot be explained by real numbers, only integers