Thread

1. voxleone · 1789655697 · focus · HN ↗

   There's this little pet project of mine, the Functional Universe [0]. It explores a direction suggested by Dirac: treating mathematical structure and transformation not merely as a language for describing physical reality, but as potentially constitutive of it. FU models physical reality in terms of functional state evolution, with an emphasis on composition, aggregation, and transitions. In that sense, I think there's an interesting point of contact with Dirac's emphasis on transformations: Dirac points toward transformations as fundamental mathematical structures from which physics might be derived; FU asks what happens if physical reality itself is formulated in terms of transitions and their composition.

   [0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;voxleone.github.io&#x2F;FunctionalUniverse&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;voxleone.github.io&#x2F;FunctionalUniverse&#x2F;

   1. lioeters · 1789661396 · focus · HN ↗

      Curious, in this model, is there any discussion on whether the mathematical structures underlying space-time are continuous or discrete? Usually the former is assumed, but it seems your &quot;functional&quot; approach may be able to accommodate the latter possibility.

      1. lerp-io · 1789664343 · focus · HN ↗

         universe is continuous &#x2F; cant be proven otherwise but any measurement or simulation of it is discrete by nature same reason pi is computed infinitely and why calculus exists and why math exists at all to try and explain continuity of nature even if all of it is perceived discretely.

         1. pixl97 · 1789665331 · focus · HN ↗

            The question is what exactly is continuous. The quantum fields themselves? And we have no evidence the the quantum fields are discrete quantum states themselves, but the particles they produce appear otherwise.

            It&#x27;s always possible that continuous maths are a side effect of this field. Of course, the causality could be revered.

            1. podocarp · 1789691123 · focus · HN ↗

               It is an interesting discussion you bring up but will take much more than a comment to talk about. There is a divide between mathematics and physics regarding numbers. Real numbers have supposedly infinite precision, and arbitrary size, which are not true in our physical universe. Indeed infinities have given physicists quite some headaches. It&#x27;s a bit of a dark art as to where you can and cannot just use infinity willy nilly and many have expressed distaste to it. Also at some point you have to talk about computability, like are these infinite precision and magnitudes even real if nothing in the universe even gets close, what is omega to the omega, statements dream up by the utterly deranged?

               I remember there being a talk or some article about this but can&#x27;t find it anymore, but it is an interesting thing.

               1. GoblinSlayer · 1789724233 · focus · HN ↗

                  Only infinite magnitude causes problems in physics, infinite precision doesn&#x27;t. Real numbers have infinite number of digits only in digital model of numbers, so their infinite size is a modelling artifact. e=1 in base e - one digit.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.