Today I found out that reality is analog because it is simple and easy.

Today I found out that reality is analog because it is simple and easy.

 

Conversations ≠ discussions. You've already been asked to expand a bit more in your opening post to allow for more productive discussions. Please don't keep making us ask you what you mean, OK?

Conversations ≠ discussions. You've already been asked to expand a bit more in your opening post to allow for more productive discussions. Please don't keep making us ask you what you mean, OK?

 

 

I mean is reality concurrent with the simplest and easiest explanation revealing itself to be the correct one? Is reality concurrent with Occam's razor?

You seem to confuse two idea, digital vs analogue and simple vs complex.

 

It seems the general view is that Reality is continuous, same as the number line, so legato rather than staccatto. Hence the need for the calculus.

 

As one mathematician conjectures, reality may not be just simpler than we think, it may be simpler than we can think. This would be my view for what it's worth.

 

Of course reality consistent with the principle of least hypothesis. It is human beings who create redundant theoretical entities.

Why label reality?

We can't talk about reality in analogue because that is one continuum and in order to communicate about it we must 'digitise' the world (attach labels to arbitrarily defined boundaries) in order to share our experiences which, as a consequence, adds complexity to its description.

Edited September 26, 201213 yr by StringJunky

Doesn't it depend on how you define reality? There are different aspects of reality that are analogous (time), and there are different aspects that are quantized (atoms), I don't think you can say the whole of reality is one or the other, can you?