bahman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:52 pm
We are talking about form rather than motion.
My understanding now tells me there is a physical infinitesimal at which nothing smaller than that can exist. Infinitesimal of space-time is the graviton for example that has a specific size. Mathematically you can abstract everything. But that doesn't mean that it could be real, like real number.
Fine. You are talking about form, hence
formalism.
The form of an infinitesimal is still a geometric concern. It's still an atomist perspective and it goes as far back as Democritus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritu ... hypothesis
The theory of Democritus held that everything is composed of "atoms", which are physically, but not geometrically, indivisible
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:52 pm
The good approximation is when you are certain about your theory to an extended limit. You say my theory is valid with this level of approximation by which that means the error bigger than specific is not allowed.
Towards quantifying uncertainty/measuring things there's nothing more to add here except to point you to a book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_C ... Democritus
There is an important passage there...
But if quantum mechanics isn't physics in the usual sense -- if it's not about matter, or energy, or waves, or particles -- then what is it about? From my perspective, it's about information and probabilities and observables, and how they relate to each other.
The "atom" you are seeking is information (classical or quantum - doesn't matter much). It's up to you to decide the location of its "existence". Is information epistemic or ontological? I don't even know if there is a difference.