Eduffy80911 said:
On the quantum thing, I was referring to when you get to a quantity of time, energy, mass that is as small as you can get. It seems the universe is finite, at least on the small end. Intuitively, that just doesn't seem "natural" to me.
Hard to know how to interpret it. Maybe there is a smallest. Maybe it's just that there is a smallest
combination. In some parts of quantum physics, you get values (however you like to represent them, e.g. matrices) that can vary wildly - and seemingly
smoothly - but they pair up with another value that has to vary in inverse lockstep with that, and together, this will pop out as something like the smallest energy level you can have, or the smallest certainty you can have.
Eduffy80911 said:
As for the empty space, it seems there is increasing chatter among actual scientists that the void is not nothing.
You should also take a quick look at
spin networks and spin foam when it comes to some interpretations of empty space.
Eduffy80911 said:
I think I've talked myself out of a two dimensional database expressed in three dimensions as a function of our brains (processors) reading binary data for a very non-rocket science reason. If that were the case, depth perception could be coded and read without the need for a pair of eyes separated by a nose. The design of our sensory input receptors seems to indicate that the space is actually there, and since they were that way long before we had any idea they had to be that way, it's not something we talked ourselves into or imagineered.
Our eyes - if we even needed them - would probably function a lot differently if that were the case :)
All nervous system pieces are an odd mix of analog and digital - threshold voltages that trigger a "digital" pulse are triggered by a decaying-plus-accumulating model of inputs - just the input into the process seems to differ: pressure, light, sound, all converted into sort of moving "grayscale" voltage maps, all electrochemical or electromechanical.