>>11707084Also
>in b4 muh limitsLimits do not prove the universe is continuous. They prove that in math you don't need infinitesimals or atoms to do calculus. They don't make any comment about your ontological commitments.
Neither do any of the physical theories that use calculus.
>>11706054> round Earth was proven before satellites. Yes, again, using the math of spheres and circles. But it's not exactly a sphere or a circle. Again, the math just werks >on my machine when I use a n-sphere as an estimate than when I use a plane.
Right now most, but not all, physical phenomena appear to map well to continuous equations. Some important ones don't, like parts of QFT.
