Re:Banach-Tarski and the Paradox of Infinite Cloning
by rytill on Sunday August 29, 2021 @02:26PM
(#28349204)
As the other comment implied, infinity and exactitude are two sides of the same coin. Exactitude is infinite precision. No finite amount of empirical evidence can afford infinite precision, so you’re back in math-land.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Banach-Tarski and the Paradox of Infinite Cloning
by tsimionescu on Sunday August 29, 2021 @03:38PM
(#28349776)
That's true, though I have a hard time squaring that with observations of classical objects. Would it make sense to say that I have approximately 2 legs, or can I actually be confident in saying I have exactly two legs? Even with things like MWI, in any particular world I would still have an exact integer amount of legs, as far as I understand.
Perhaps the problem here is one of mixing intuition (the idea of 'an object') with rigorous physics and mathematics, perhaps this is where I am going a bit wrong.
Re:Banach-Tarski and the Paradox of Infinite Cloning
by snet0 on Sunday August 29, 2021 @04:09PM
(#28350032)
We have a very precise (although one might struggle to describe it) idea of what qualifies as a human leg. The number 2 is basically defined (at least in common usage) as the number of things you have when you have one thing and then another thing. I'd point out that, as you mentioned, this is a different level of abstraction to physics and mathematics.
Re:Banach-Tarski and the Paradox of Infinite Cloning
by tsimionescu on Sunday August 29, 2021 @04:29PM
(#28350184)
I would also need to know more QM. I don't know if the theory would actually allow a small fraction of an electron or an electron and a bit to actually exist - common descriptions suggest that it wouldn't. If it doesn't, then electrons could be counted just as much as mathematical objects and legs.