Re: Planck Length

2019-01-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 21 Jan 2019, at 00:17, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:16:01 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 19 Jan 2019, at 01:42, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:31:06 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 17 Jan 2019, at

Re: Discrete theories of space.

2019-01-21 Thread Philip Thrift
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 7:09:13 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 5:55 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > As for LQG's "quantum geometry" being empirical, as I posted before >> >> *Glimpses of Space-Time Beyond the Singularities Using Supercomputers* >>

Re: UDA and the origin of physics

2019-01-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
> On 20 Jan 2019, at 19:23, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 8:52:54 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 15 Jan 2019, at 12:56, Philip Thrift > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 at 5:33:01 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> > On 14 Jan 2019,

Re: Discrete theories of space.

2019-01-21 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 7:09:13 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 5:55 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > As for LQG's "quantum geometry" being empirical, as I posted before >> >> *Glimpses of Space-Time Beyond the Singularities Using Supercomputers* >>

Re: Discrete theories of space.

2019-01-21 Thread John Clark
Philip Thrift Wrote: *> There is a lot of scientific theory that doesn't really mention space: > theories in chemistry and biology for example. * > Please be specific because I can't think of a single example. > *These have to do with change of structures (molecules, cells).* > A change with

Re: Discrete theories of space.

2019-01-21 Thread Philip Thrift
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 8:02:59 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Philip Thrift > Wrote: > > *> There is a lot of scientific theory that doesn't really mention space: >> theories in chemistry and biology for example. * >> > > Please be specific because I can't think of a single example. >

Re: Discrete theories of space.

2019-01-21 Thread Philip Thrift
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 5:11:38 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:42 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > >> >> Time is about change so time can't be continuous unless there is >>> always a physical change between any 2 instances of time regardless of how >>> close

Re: Planck Length

2019-01-21 Thread Lawrence Crowell
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 5:09:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 21 Jan 2019, at 00:17, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:16:01 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 19 Jan 2019, at 01:42, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >> >> On Thursday, January 17,

Re: Planck Length

2019-01-21 Thread Philip Thrift
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 6:19:07 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 5:09:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 21 Jan 2019, at 00:17, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >> >> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 at 9:16:01 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>>

Re: Discrete theories of space.

2019-01-21 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 12:42 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > >> Time is about change so time can't be continuous unless there is >> always a physical change between any 2 instances of time regardless of how >> close together they are. If space is discrete what change could occur in >> less time than

Re: Discrete theories of space.

2019-01-21 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:53 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > *3D networks are combinatorial-algebraic in their definition. They are > not defined in the language of continuos manifolds of general relativity or > fields. A network "space" (spinfoam or other discrete structure) is not the > space of

Re: Discrete theories of space.

2019-01-21 Thread Philip Thrift
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 7:45:46 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:53 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > *3D networks are combinatorial-algebraic in their definition. They are >> not defined in the language of continuos manifolds of general relativity or >>