Every Mathematical Theory Is Held Inside a Physical Substrate
nav.al
nav.al
And their conclusion is... don't bother? Ok awesome. These two people can go about not bothering... and other people will try to figure it out. Why am I reading this?
0. https://www.thebeginningofinfinity.com/
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beginning_of_Infinity
2. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10483171-the-beginning-o...
FWIW, I believe that I can move. I have no idea on how small things get.
Whereas in mathematics, infinities are a rich field of research, which goes way beyond anything that could ever be physical.
Besides, the tension doesn't exist, because whether or not spacetime is infinitely subdividable, going a certain distance takes a certain time, and going a fraction of a distance takes a fraction of time. The two series will converge in both the discrete and the continuous scenario.
I don’t think any equivalent has been found for time units. Not that can be experimentally proven yet.
Would love to see time proven one way or the other.
This means it is subject to Planck scale and uncertainty principle.
Anyway, the article's take is a bit of a cop-out:
> If the laws of physics say that we can cover one meter in a certain time period, then that’s exactly what we’ll do. And our current understanding of the laws of physics says precisely that. So Zeno’s paradox is resolved simply by saying that we can cover this space in this amount of time.
Zeno accepted that we observe objects moving through space. He would not have to change his position an inch to accept classical physics as a valid and successful description of such observations. The paradox comes from accepting such observations and trying to reconcile them with the logical soundness of Zeno's argument. So, if you aren't looking at the logical structure of his argument, you aren't addressing the paradox at all.
And I would say, “General relativity.”
What does this mean? Could there not be a corresponding (to planck) limit there too?it's not about Gödel, it's not about wether physics or mathematics is more fundamental, it's just about how we develop and refute scientific theories in order to describe nature in the best possible way.