Rovelli - Why does relations make sense. Why not construct objects in isolation and then introduce them, allowing interactions between them.

God - Platonic objects are certainly appealing. But they are computationally infeasible to construct.

Rovelli - Computationally infeasible? Is it a computation problem?

God - From one perspective, yes. When you take a perfect platonic circle. The ratio between the circumference and radius is $$2*pi$$, which is irrational. The universe cannot realy computing this irrational value to infinite precision. This is where a relational architecture makes sense.

Rovelli - Ok. So in the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, objects doesn’t have self-inherent or self-contained properties, but the description of those properties include the object to which those properties are manifest.

God - Yes. It’s something which allows errors or approximations to creep in, and is related to the Uncertainty principle.

Rovelli - So how & where does relations bring approximations into “property manifestation” allowing the universe to exist despite not following platonic norms? Is it that the observations (or more generally “property manifestation”) are skewed, which prevents the need for the subject to “calculate” properties (let’s say pi) with infinite precision?
Or is that because of the relational nature, every object deviates from their platonic ideal due to force/influence exerted by the imperfect (but constrained) nature of other objects?

God - I suppose it’s both. Definitely observations are skewed; But also influences exist on the object (from other objects) which deviates it from a platonic manifestation. In fact such fluctuations can even cause the “inherent property” of the object to change continuously. For example, if a sphere exists in the universe, the value of pi that is calculated from, say surface area and radius, is in flux (like the radius and surface area).

I can’t stop thinking in terms of “inherent properties” of an object. Damn it, Helgoland!