> You'll have to chop it off at some point. That's OK. That's what error bars are for. Just keep going and keep track of your error. Oops, you'll find that your error grows larger than the prediction itself with remarkable speed! THAT is the chaos.
If this were true, it should be trivial to prove by observation that we're not in a mathematical universe, or that physics is not computable, even in principle. As far as I understand, physics as we know it is widely acknowledged to be computable, albeit with exponential slowdown on classical computers.
By the Bekenstein bound and other thermodynamic constraints, a finite region of space necessarily contains a finite amount of information, or it would collapse into a black hole, ergo physics is at worst a finite state machine. So where's the disconnect?
If this were true, it should be trivial to prove by observation that we're not in a mathematical universe, or that physics is not computable, even in principle. As far as I understand, physics as we know it is widely acknowledged to be computable, albeit with exponential slowdown on classical computers.
By the Bekenstein bound and other thermodynamic constraints, a finite region of space necessarily contains a finite amount of information, or it would collapse into a black hole, ergo physics is at worst a finite state machine. So where's the disconnect?