Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 154: |
Line 154: |
|
| |
|
| ===3.3 Real numbers in the physical world=== | | ===3.3 Real numbers in the physical world=== |
| Penrose states that while the historical driving force for mathematical ideas were to find constructs that mimic the behavior of the physical world, it is normally not possible to examine the physical world in such precise detail to abstract clear cut mathematics from it. Instead, the mathematics provides its own âmomentumâ within the subject itself whereby it may seem to diverge from what it had been set up to achieve, but ultimately leads us to a deeper meaning of the world.
| |
|
| |
| The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number real number] system is given as an example of this since no direct evidence from Nature exists to show that the physical notion of âdistanceâ extends from arbitrarily large scales to the indefinitely tiny. Though, from cosmological scale to the quantum, to volumes and the metrics of spacetime, the ranges are increasing, and the fundamentals of calculus rely on the infinitesimal.
| |
|
| |
| We may still ask whether the real number system is âcorrectâ for describing the physical universe or have we gotten lucky with extrapolation thus far. Penrose describes quantum mechanics as not implying any discreteness to Nature, nevertheless this idea may persist and echoes a quote from Einsteinâs last published work where he suggested âdiscretely based algebraic theoryâ might be the way forward for future physics. Penrose ends with stating that his idea of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_network spin networks] are both discrete and foundational in quantum gravity, led to his [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory Twistor Theory], but real numbers are still fundamental in our understanding of the physical world.
| |
|
| |
|
| ===3.4 Do natural numbers need the physical world?=== | | ===3.4 Do natural numbers need the physical world?=== |