>>8195283
>The balloon's surface is composed of finite points.
Defend this statemate. It can be representated in uncountably infinite real space, there's no reason to assign a finite number of points over an infinite.

>>8195304
The balloon is a finite object occupying a finite number of the universe's possible positions. The universe does not afford infinite precision or infinite subdivision of space between two arbitrary points.

If the balloon exists in a vacuum that is otherwise the rest state and minimum excistation of its underlying fields, as you expand the balloon you're just distributing the excitation gradient of its components more widely. The balloon is not gaining new energy, nor does it gain new points. It just elongates the distance between its excitation peaks and distributes the falloff further.

There is no reason to assign the balloon anything other than a quantized state.

>>8195315
(A finite range, and quantized state.)

>>8195315
>The universe does not afford infinite precision or infinite subdivision of space between two arbitrary points.
Sure...

>occupying a finite number of the universe's possible positions.
...but that's just wrong.
Planck length doesn't manifest as "snap to grid".

>>8195323
The universe does.

>>8195315
>The universe does not afford infinite precision or infinite subdivision of space between two arbitrary points.
Do we know this for certain? Just because energy can be quantized doesn't mean the same holds for an empty volume of space or am I wrong?

I have no idea btw, I'm asking this sincerely. What I'm getting as is the quantized matter that makes up the balloon isn't the same as the space wherin it exists. Just like there is vacuum between galaxies/matter in the real universe.

Actually can we just drop the balloon analogy.

>>8195304
>infinite

There is nothing infinite in the real world. Math on the other hand is just fiction for nerds.

>>8195331
I bet you can't kick my ass.

Do you know why? Because your foot will never reach my ass. It will always and forever only be half the distance from may ass as it was at any point you measure it as it travels towards my ass.

>>8195329
>The universe does.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ipse+dixit

>>8195331
>I have no idea btw, I'm asking this sincerely.
(You should probably ask somewhere other than /sci/ if you don't intend to study it yourself)
What I'm saying is one of a large spectrum of possibilities, but one I'm apt to gravitate towards repeatedly over time. I do think of the universe as a finite state machine, I do think what I've been saying makes sense, and I do think modern physics has an unfortunate overhead of undergrads largely regurgitating dogma that they've swallowed as near magical base truths their primal ape brains just can't see as logical and "intuitive", whatever that means. This is unfortunate state of physics, and specifically QM, is a disservice to the human species, and the rational mind.

The other thread was deleted. Everything I said was valid and any counterarguments are ultimately left wanting, but I also intended to mess with people "interested" in physics and supposedly "'interested" in how the universe works, forming accurate ideas to describe why a model might give accurate results, and what the universe is. Though I hijacked that last thread deliberately, my other threads have been quite genuine. I've got other things to do now, so I'll just say you can definitely pull whatever you might want from what I've said, and I would harvest everything from anything if I were me, but ultimately I don't know for certain how it all really "is". The people in the last thread didn't attack me too terribly, so I think that's deserved.

>>8195339
The time dilation of an object on an event horizon appears infinite to outside obeserver. Also evidence suggests that the shape of the universal space 3-manifold time itself is infinite. You can argue the mathematical constructs are incomplete, provide one that fits the data better if you can. Untill then we have no reason to assume space is not real space nor discrete to a fixed reference frame or otherwise.

Also the number of times I've stuck my cock into your mother's vag.


>>8195345
If you're going to incite a dumbed down Zeno's paradox at me at least do me a courtesy and save us some time by skipping to the part where you have to claim that epsilon-delta constructs -and as a corollary all of real analysis- is not applicable to physical space-time which brings us back to the initial OP statement.

Also stop projecting just because your penis is of infinitesimal question.