- #1
someonewholikesstuff
- 2
- 1
In many physical models, lower-dimensional manifolds are mathematically self-consistent, but dynamically incomplete unless augmented by additional parameters (for example, time for change, or external structures that allow evolution).
This suggests a distinction between mathematical consistency and physical realizability: a model may be well-defined internally, yet require extra structure to represent dynamics or observable processes. I am interested in whether this distinction is already implicit in standard physical frameworks, or whether articulating it in terms of dimensional dependence offers any conceptual clarification.
This suggests a distinction between mathematical consistency and physical realizability: a model may be well-defined internally, yet require extra structure to represent dynamics or observable processes. I am interested in whether this distinction is already implicit in standard physical frameworks, or whether articulating it in terms of dimensional dependence offers any conceptual clarification.