[] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...



On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote:

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote:

I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive -

granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive?


It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside

"fundamental" particles!



On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist <> wrote:


The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better

compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35.

So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi

gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy

arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would

delay one measurably.



Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain
classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS.

However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability
of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is
most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something
physical "out there". It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too,
which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with
his Brownian Quantum Universe models.


>>Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum
granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum
aI0> + bI1> (a and b complex).


The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity
of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being
pushed far below the Planck scale. 


>>The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical
(and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if
those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities
reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems).


>>I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity.
Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in
physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view).




If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need
for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as
the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps
reality really arises at it is observed so that if it were possible to scale
infinitely down it would emerge and continue to emerge at whatever minimum
scale could be achieved. If reality is information and information can be
described with equations that are scale invariant (such as for example
vector graphics versus pixel based graphics, or fractal geometry) then a
computational model can still describe the entire universal relationship and
identity sets even when there is seemingly no end (that we have found)  to
how small a point of spacetime can be. So long as this does not much matter
to the computational theory itself then it is unaffected by this very fine
grained measurement of the lack of any fine structure in spacetime.





You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to