Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!sher
From: sher@rochester.UUCP (David Sher)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Continuity
Message-ID: <36@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 18:42:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocheste.36
Posted: Mon Jul 15 18:42:23 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 07:02:57 EDT
References: <3088@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: sher@rochester.UUCP (David Sher)
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 37

In article <3088@decwrl.UUCP> williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) writes:
>
>	You will have to excuse me if I am not able to explain
>everything to your satisfaction, I am not nearly as well educated in
>physics as some of the others who subscribe to this news group. The
>theory of a continuous universe is based purely on probability, the
>probability of physical phenomenon repeating themselves consistently,
>to some degree of accuracy, over undetermined history. A probability
>distribution requires some kind of process, and a set of equations
>is insufficient. A process requires a media for support. The media
>then requires some mathematical relationship. We are then back to
>the continuous function.
>
>	Does anyone have any strong disagreements?
>
>						John Williams

I have had little training in physics but I have had some training in
mathematics (about the same level as a 1st year grad student) and have
(and am) studied probability and statistics.  Anyway I don't see how
you can make an argument from probability about continuity.  I am sure
that there are infinitely many discontinuous theories that support
experimental data as well if not not better than the continuous
theories.  The only valid argument I can imagine for continuity is
that such theories are pleasing either in the Occam's razor sense
(Occam's razor as it has been described to me is generally
inconsistent (the simplest theory is that the entire world is a result
of random chance)) or in the sense that continuous theories are easier
to analyze so we'll stick with them until they conflict with
experimental evidence.  Ultimately this kind of argument boils down to
continuous theories make me happy.  I may misunderstand you or maybe
don't understand the mathematics or physics you are engaging to make
your point though.

-David Sher
sher@rochester
seismo!rochester!sher