Thank you, Del, for your very kind words! Glad that you found my essay enjoyable.

All the best,

Flavio

Dear Rick,

thanks very very much for your kind appreciation. I am glad that you find something interesting in my work.

All good wishes,

Flavio

Dear Tejinder,

thanks for pointing it out. In fact, I had already read your essay and found some interesting ideas there.

I wish you success, too!

Best regards,

Flavio

Dear Lachlan,

thanks for your feedbac and glad that you find my conclusive remarks inspiring.

I did read your nice essay already some time ago (and positively rated it).

I wish you good luck for the contest.

All the best,

Flavio

  • [deleted]

  • Post #165

Hi Flavio,

Regarding my earlier message, I'll try a different tack. In your essay you write:

"As we will show in the next section, one can indeed envision an alternative classical physics that maintains the same general laws (equations of motion) of the standard formalism, but dismisses the physical relevance of real numbers, thereby assigning a fundamental indeterminacy to the values of physical quantities, as wished by Born. In fact, "as soon as one realizes that the mathematical real numbers are not really real, i.e. have no physical significance, then one concludes that classical physics is not deterministic." [13].

In relation to the above anyway, can you explain whether or not you think there is anything different between our two works? Also, and although they're in a somewhat different context, do you or not think my work is closely related to the idea of infinite precision? Finally, had you known about my paper, do you think that you and Nicolas Gisin would have referenced it?

I'm sorry to push Flavio, but considering a few things, I don't think I have much choice.

Once again, I wish your essay and your work all the very best.

Peter

Write a Reply...