I originally posted this in the Relativity forum but I thought it was cogent to this topic so I'm repeating it. Sorry for the redundancy: Is the Universe Analog or Digital? First, I'm new to this forum, so I'm sorry if I'm being redundant or naive. Anyway, a while ago, I'd seen the question posed, "Is the universe digital or analog in nature?" Seemed like such a complex question at first, but then I came up with the following answer, and it's not what some might think: I believe we're mentally or perceptually digital creatures existing in an analog universe. Perhaps it's because we have fingers; perhaps it's because our brains have a built-in clock rate, just like this computer I'm typing on. Our consciousness runs in flashes and bursts, ergs, if you will, just like my Intel chip. However, to demonstrate the analog nature of the universe, I pose this question: Solve Pi. Pi is inherently analog in nature, and it's the purest expression of two-dimensionality I can think of. It is Curvature Itself - the fundament of dimensionality as we perceive it. And things get really hyperanalog when you square and cube Pi, and creates the need for artificial constructs like Infinity - another mathematical example I can use to demonstrate the analog nature of the universe. Because of this thinking, I've started to look at everything in terms of spectra. Perhaps Planck only addresses part of the deal in that it may be better expressed that the fundamental "packet" that we associate with quantum mechanics is merely the part of the "spectrum" of a transdimensional unit that also exists hypo- and hyper-dimensionally. After all, I find it interesting that every "erg" we run into appears to be spherical in nature. If you've ever been exposed to the concepts of Flatland, you'll realize that a three-dimensional object entering two dimensional Flatland would appear to a flatlander as a two-dimensional object because of his limited perception of dimensionality. Spheres are the three-dimensional equivalent in this model, so virtually any hyperdimensional artifact would appear to us in exactly this fashion. In other words, what does a hypersphere look like? Well, in my way of thinking, look around; they're everywhere. We just can't actually perceive the "hyper" aspects of the sphere. (And of course, just like Flatland, I'm reducing the dimensionalities for simplicity; you have to add the time element, etc., for accuracy.) Ultimately, I'm starting to wonder if we need a whole new form of math that is analog in nature. I was told that we have that in algebra and other formulaic expressions, but they're meaningless until you apply values and solve for them. Following my muse, maybe the universe is full of intelligent life, all interrelating by use of technologies they have developed because of their analog-based mentalities; whereas us poor digital-brained creatures are too stupid to pick up on it because we're trying to shove stuff into shapes and units and ergs and things we can understand from an inferior perceptual nature. It's like trying to absorb the nature of God. Truly, the container must always be greater than that which it contains. What say you?