• WillStealYourUsername@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        There are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, and yet there is no repetition. Pi and other irrational numbers are infinite yet non-repeating. I wish I knew the name for this kind of thing because I’m sure it’s been discussed in philosophy (a kind of opposite, eternal recurrence, has been discussed a lot).

        I don’t think anyone knows enough about the universe to say whether or not there is infinite variety in macroscopic stuff, so I don’t think anything can be ruled out.

        • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I don’t think anyone knows enough about the universe to say whether or not there is infinite variety in macroscopic stuff

          There are finitely many particles in the observable universe (that is to say, an infinite number will not fit), and a finite granularity to discern the position of those particles. That means there are finitely many configurations of particles within the volume of the observable universe.

          Therefore, there are finitely many discernable things, so in a meaningful sense we can say with confidence that there’s a finite variety of macroscopic things.

          • WillStealYourUsername@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Whether or not an infinite number of particles will fit or not is not important, no ? I’m not sure what you mean by finite granularity. There is no “grid”, space is continuous, the planck length and the fact that push on each other doesn’t really factor in. By virtue of space being continuous and particles being finite, means you can configure stuff in infinite ways.

            Edit: Not quoting you with the reference to a grid. I know that’s not what you mean.

            • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              I’m not sure what you mean by finite granularity.

              Are you aware of the plank length? It’s the distance less than which which we can no longer determine if 2 things are any closer.

              Not quoting you with the reference to a grid.

              Don’t worry, I understand.

              • WillStealYourUsername@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Yes, but distance is still continuous, a minimum measurable distance (between stuff) doesn’t make space granular. I suppose there might be a minimum measurably meaningful number of configurations, but I’m not super convinced.