Is there *really* such a thing as a point? Well, not really….

- Ask any of our undergraduates, why the real numbers? Can you say there’s something √π centimetres away from here?

—Well, not really, it’s an approximation….

—An approximation to what? - “We’re not really doing science. We don’t have any data, so we’re just indulging our own mathematical and philosophical prejudices. :)”
- “If a pile of papers appeared on your desk and claimed to be the correct theory of quantum gravity, how would you know?”
- “All of the standard formulations of quantum theory, whether it’s
- Hilbert spaces,
- C*-algebras,
- deformation,
- quantisation,
- quantum logic,
- path integrals
**∮**,

whatever you want — all of them more or less

*presuppose*the use of standard real numbers. That’s one issue I find very problematic. … That seems to me very dubious.” - Heidegger asked,
*What is a thing?*And answered, on page ~60, A thing is the bearer of properties. - From Heidegger’s perspective,
*there is no*”way that things are”. (due to the Kochen-Specker theorem)

(Source: http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/)