I love that example!

I would argue that is still a constructible real. Only practical issues make calculating that value difficult.

Since we are instances of physical constraints ourselves, just because we can't do a particular measurement, directly or indirectly, doesn't make a value un-constructible in the mathematical sense.

(Also side noting, that we handle superposition/quantum collapse explicitly, by actually generating many alternate counts, or an expression that covers all the counts.)

Note that your "algorithm" was finitely statable, and that its "data", consists of a finite number of particles (in any given superposition).

But if I were going to argue for an un-constructible number with a physical counterpart, your thought experiment is a good starting point!

▲

NoahZuniga 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Note that your "algorithm" was finitely statable, and that its "data", consists of a finite number of particles (in any given superposition).

Well if the universe is actually infinite, the amount of data in the number this process approaches is infinite.

> I would argue that is still a constructible real.

That is what I was going for. I was trying to think up a construction that leads to uncountably many reals, but the construction I gave doesn't really work.

Consider a different situation:

Start with r = 0. (a number in binary)

Look for an unstable radioactive isotope. Wait for its half time. If it decays within its half time, concatenate 1 to r. Else concatenate 0. Look for another radioactive isotope and repeat.

The number this process approaches could be real number between 0 and 1 (including both bounds). Is the resulting number constructible?

▲

Nevermark 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Is the resulting number constructible?

That's a good one.

I am going to say it absolutely is. Then acknowledge why others may feel very strongly that it isn't.

So that's quantum mechanics, which from a field theory standpoint is completely deterministic. It just appears non-deterministic to us, because we are also superpositions. We are quantum structures too. And our field would keep splitting in two, at each measurement/decision point, so our total quantum field would remain completely predictable.

But, it is true that each of our superpositions would have the experience of a completely random set of digits, going off to infinity.

But, despite it adding additional physics and not explaining any more, some physicists seem to still think that there is a real collapse, not just an already explainable experience of collapse, of quantum fields.

So, I think it is fair to say that if that was true, then truly unconstructible events would be happening. There would be no way to form an expression or algorithm to ever predict the flow of digits, even in principle.

So you nailed the best possibility for it that I can think of.

And this is a little circular, but between collapses adding a new phenomenon with no additional explanatory power (Occam's Razor be damned!), and the magic event decisions, are why I don't believe collapses happen.

Collapses don't just imply that a magical event decision is made whenever we set up some careful experiment with one particle, but that all possible event situations in space-time, even in us, are constantly being magically decided as we are exposed to information about them, all the time.

Given virtual particles are constantly frothing around even in empty space, this means that all of space-time is constantly flooding us with an unimaginable amount of magically created information. The magic bandwidth would be insane.

One magical fundamental physical constant seems implausible to me. But 10^(very very big number) of magical decisions animating all of our universe and us every pico-second? Well, that would just be ... unconstructible!

▲

NoahZuniga a day ago | parent [-]

> So that's quantum mechanics, which from a field theory standpoint is completely deterministic.

This interpretation of reality, at least how I stand it, seems like the correct one to me. (At least that's how it feels to me.)

But this combined with:

> I am going to say it absolutely is.

Means that all reals in [0, 1] are constructible, and as a result of that, all reals by modifying the starting value of r to ie 1. instead of 0., or 10. (2. in decimal).

	▲	Nevermark a day ago \| parent [-]
		I am not sure what your last statement means. Constructible reals are continuous over [0, 1] in that there are no gaps between any interval between constructible reals [r1 r2] that are not filled by more constructible reals (and in fact, the cardinality of the constructible reals within any interval is the same, i.e. countably infinite, in a fractal way). So there is no obvious motivation for anything but constructible reals from that standpoint. Unconstructible reals were invented (or at least used) by the mathematician Cantor to explore ideas about different infinities. A "real" number with infinite decimal digits but not any finite description lets him create a number space larger than the constructible reals, a larger infinite cardinality. So there is nothing missing in a [0 1] constructible interval. Or to put it another way, constructible numbers are closed. There is no sqrt(-1) situation requiring unconstrucible numbers to fill, like the square root of -1 required imaginary numbers (or geometric algebra dimensions) to fill. But [0 1] contains the higher infinity of unconstructible reals in it, if you want. But I am unaware of any claim that they solve any problems by being included, other than exploring interesting puzzles related to unconstructible numbers as interesting ideas in themselves.