• Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m not sure what you mean by finite granularity.

    Are you aware of the plank length? It’s the distance less than which which we can no longer determine if 2 things are any closer.

    Not quoting you with the reference to a grid.

    Don’t worry, I understand.

    • WillStealYourUsername@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yes, but distance is still continuous, a minimum measurable distance (between stuff) doesn’t make space granular. I suppose there might be a minimum measurably meaningful number of configurations, but I’m not super convinced.

      • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        My claim accounts for the possibility that the distances of particles may physically differ by amounts more granular than a plank length. My statement was that they are indiscernable. There are infinite copys of every person more closely identical than the two most similar identical twins. So closely identical that no physically possible device could ever distinguish between them. We cannot know if space is continuous. We simply know that if it is not continuous, it is of granularity as fine or finer than the plank length. So there is a meaningful sense in which there are finitely many macroscopic objects.