Ian!
That is why I also added a real world example to complete the analogy.
Did you miss that? All real objects in our universe has three *spatial*
dimensions if you look close enough, you're absolutely right about that.
But *I'm* right about the last part, which does come from the real world.
"if you only look at how much something weighs, you can't tell whether
it's a motorcycle or a horse."
Magnus
On 2010-07-16 08:20, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Magnus said
I don't think there are any fuzziness at all, it doesn't matter how much you
zoom in. I've said this a couple of times, but I'll try to show it using
another analogy.
And I've replied to it twice already with ....
We're talking real shapes in the real world of physics, chemistry&
biology (and higher), NOT Platonic shapes in Euclidian space. Where
zooming in we find perfect straight lines and sharp corners.
If you zoom in on a real square (Piazza San Marco) for example you
will get a different experience, or a real hexagon the hexene ring of
a DNA base .... the sides and corners have fuzziness. The real hexagon
in a bee cell ... shaped by the jaws of myriads of bees .... think
about it. Fit is about "how good" the fit is.
Real shapes have the history of how they came to be, the interactions
that caused them, not how Plato idealised them.
Ian
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
