每种理论都存在于物理基质之中
每种理论都存在于物理基质之中
你始终受到物理定律的约束
Naval: 这下我的芝诺悖论解决方案就失效了,该悖论认为在你完全到达某处之前,你必须先到达一半路程。而在你到达一半路程之前,你必须先到达四分之一路程,因此你永远无法到达那里。
解决这个问题的一种方法是说,即使是无限事物的序列也可以有有限的和。你运行无穷级数并求和,我们很早就知道它是收敛的。我想到的另一个想法是,你必须覆盖一个最小距离,即普朗克长度,因此你会到达那里。这是一个有限的步骤序列。但你说我们只是不知道。
Brett: 如果物理定律说我们可以在特定时间段内覆盖一米,那么我们就会做到这一点。而我们对物理定律的当前理解正是这样说的。因此,芝诺悖论只需通过说我们可以在这么多时间内覆盖这个空间来解决。它没有说明空间是否无限可分。
当有人问”空间是否无限可分?“时,我会说”是的,它是。“他们可能会反问”你怎么知道?“我会说”广义相对论。“我怎么知道那是真的?嗯,我不知道它是真的。然而,这是目前我们对时空的最佳解释。然后他们可能会开始讨论”好吧,如果它是无限可分的,那么你就会再次面临芝诺悖论。“我会说”不,你可以通过一个简单的实验来反驳它。”
所以我们不知道它是怎样的,但如果确实存在无限多个点,我们可以穿过所有这些无限的点。芝诺悖论属于纯数学领域。但我们不是生活在纯数学的世界里;我们生活在物理世界中。如果物理学说我们可以在有限时间内穿过无限多个点,那么无论数学如何,我们都会这样做。
Naval: 每种数学理论都存在于大脑或计算机的物理基质中。你始终受到物理定律的约束,这些纯粹的抽象领域可能没有与现实的映射。
Every Theory Is Held Inside a Physical Substrate
You’re always bound by the laws of physics
Naval: There goes my solution for Zeno’s paradox, which says before you can get all the way somewhere, you have to get halfway there. And before you can get halfway there, you have to get a quarter of the way there, and therefore, you’ll never get there.
One way to get past that is to say even a series of infinite things can have a finite sum. You run the infinite series and sum it, and we learn pretty early on that it converges. Another thought I had was that you have to cover a minimum distance, the Planck length, and therefore you will get there. It’s a finite series of steps. But you’re saying we just don’t know.
Brett: 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. It’s silent on whether or not space is infinitely divisible.
When someone asks, “Is space infinitely divisible?” Then I would say, “Yes, it is.” They might turn around and say, “How do you know?” And I would say, “General relativity.” How do I know that’s true? Well, I don’t know that it’s true. However, it is the best explanation that we presently have of space-time. And then they might get into a discussion about, “Well, if it’s infinitely divisible, then you’re presented with Zeno’s paradox all over again.” And I would say, “No, you refute that by a simple experiment.”
So we don’t know how it is, but we can travel through all of these infinite points if, in fact, there are infinite points. Zeno’s paradox is about the domain of pure mathematics. But we don’t live in a world of pure mathematics; we live in a world of physics. And if physics says that we can transverse an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time, then that’s what we’ll do regardless of the mathematics.
Naval: Every mathematical theory is held inside a physical substrate of a brain or a computer. You’re always bound by the laws of physics, and these pure, abstract domains may have no mappings to reality.