Absolutely. I just don't think that mathematical objects exist in an ontological sense. Mathematics is the domain of specifications. Uncomputable physics describes mathematical objects, not ontological ones, but these can be emergent patterns over existing structure.
We project particle systems into a 3space, but what if a traveling regularity in the universe graph is insufficiently constrained to map it to 3 dimensions? It will occupy a region in computationally expensive ways, but only if we insist on computing the missing spatial indices.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I don't think that particles are best understood as discrete objects, in the same way as gliders in Game of Life are not discrete objects, but stable emergent patterns. Likewise, I don't think that there is anything continuous in this universe.
- 23 more replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.