Is Ultimate Reality Continuous or Discontinuous?

  • Thread starter Thread starter afcsimoes
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Continuous
Click For Summary
Ultimate reality is posited to be continuous and multidimensional, despite our perception of it as discontinuous due to our limited dimensionality. The discussion highlights the logical foundations of mathematics and physics, emphasizing that entities perceived as discontinuous may actually be manifestations of a continuous nature. The principles of mathematics, such as the concepts of limits, integrals, and derivatives, bridge the gap between continuous and discontinuous phenomena. The Uncertainty Principle and Gödel's Theorems further complicate our understanding, suggesting that while we can describe discontinuous entities mathematically, this does not negate the continuous essence of ultimate reality. Ultimately, the validity of our theories must align with reality, which remains an elusive concept.
afcsimoes
Messages
59
Reaction score
2
Considering:
a) The logical foundation of Mathematics and Mathematics as the foundation of Physics.
b) The principle of excluded middle (nothing can be simultaneously something and its opposite).
c) The ultimate physical reality: It must be discontinuous or continuous; it can neither be simultaneously both nor one or the other in random mode.
d) The concepts of Field and Wave are in the domain of the continuous and the concept of Particle is in the domain of discontinuity.
e) The Uncertainty Principle (Heisenberg) as a barrier to our knowledge.
f) Randomness versus uncertainty.
g) Godel's Theorems: the discontinuous “kingdom” cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
h) The Hypothesis of the Continuous versus Discontinuous and the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with all the possible axiom schemata.
i) The Field Equations and Wave Equations (continuous) versus infinite series (discontinuous).
j) In essence, the mathematical "operation" of "passing to limit” is an amazing jump to the void, a thinking inference that builds a bridge between the discontinuous and the continuous (and that works fine…).
k) The mathematical concept of integral (continuous entity) as the boundary for a series of a succession of terms, or the series of “infinite” infinitely small parcels, i.e. as small as you wish.
l) The same for the mathematical concept of derivative or derived function, based on the concept of "infinitesimal" and in the limit resulting from a sequence of tangents.
m) The perimeter of the circle as the polygon limit.
n) And so on…
All this seems to me that points to the following conclusion(s):
ULTIMATE REALITY is of continuous nature and multidimensional, which does not exclude the existence of entities apparently in the domain of the discontinuous, or so we interpret them as.
We are discontinuous entities of 3 or 4 dimensions and cannot perceive, in their full “glory”, entities of more dimensions.
Those entities appear to us like discontinuous ones because their multiple dimensions are “winded within themselves”, thus creating a region in the continuous space so different from the remaining that we observe them as a separated one from all the background.
We can describe the behavior of these seemingly discrete and discontinuous entities with equations of the domain of discontinuity, but that does not invalidate the nature of ultimate REALITY as Continuous.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PF rules do not allow for personal speculation or philosophical discussions. Thread locked.

Also, remember that math is a tool. Just because the math suggests something does not make it true. Ultimately, our theories have to match reality. That is the ultimate test of science. As such, it is impossible to find an "ultimate reality" since we can never know whether our theories are true or if they just appear to be true.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
11K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K