True, we do science both digitally, on computers, and by analog mathematics (theorems and whatnot). So we need both-- does the universe need either? I doubt it, I think both types of quantities are projections we make onto the universe. That they work at all, let alone so well, is what is really amazing.But in practice, note that whenever one does a numerical simulation of partial differential equations, it's all digital--how fine we slice things depends on the latest computer.
No one, certainly.You know me, I always look at things teleologically; so I ask not how Newton did things, but rather "If I were God, would I make the universe digital or continous?" Now, mathematicians hate discontinuities for some reason (hence we write "1/0 = 'undefined'" rather than "1/0 = 0"). But would God share the same esthetics? Who knows. . . .
This presumes the universe invokes a notion of information. I would say information is a product of an intelligence, and the universe must function without any obvious connection to an intelligence contemplating it. Again we must distinguish the projections of our intelligence from the universe we apply it to.But from an engineering perspective, what is the best design for a universe? Digital or analog? Well, an analog system would require a separate state description for every infinitesimal point--and there are infinities upon infinities of those. But if the universe were composed of "pixels", then only each pixel would have a separate state description.
That's true if the universe is "composed" of points. I doubt that too. Points, and digitized pixels, are both inventions of our mind, tutored to us by a universe that is not giving up all its secrets, perhaps like a cosmologist doing research on general relativity standing up in front of an introductory physics class teaching Newton's law of gravity.Oh that's right--descriptions aren't the same as reality you say. OK, then every infinitesimal point in an analog system would exist potentially in a different state-of-affairs than its infinity of neighbors. That's just not a good design.
A more natural question is, why should we expect otherwise? The idea that humans can create universes is absurd, perhaps a form of insanity, despite what a few fringe physicists with no concrete results are saying. It's modern day Dr. Frankenstein-- remember, all that was taken just as seriously when the breakthroughs in anatomy and surgery were occuring.There's been some talk here lately we might not exist in a physical universe, but rather exist is some kind of weird virtual matrix. Well, clearly, when humans design virtual worlds on computers, they are of necessity forced to use digital media. So we humans design our worlds digitally--therefore, why should we expect God to do it differently?
But there's no such thing as "white", there is only what we decide to agree on is white, accepting the grey areas as part of the cost of doing business. It's all about what works, start to finish. Even logic itself-- there is nothing "intrinsically correct" about logic, it is a reasoning process whose complete arbitrariness is broken only by how well it works.I don't go in for Truth with a capital 'T'. Still, I don't want to reduce truth to that which works well. That's too self serving. The word 'truth' is a predicate that's properly applied to sentences, and nothing else. The sentence 'Some snow is white' is true if and only if there is some snow that is actually white.
Perhaps those artists are seeing that ground with different eyes than you are.It's as simple as that. If some artists are overly liberal in their admixture of blues into their winter landscapes, that doesn't change the facts on the ground.