It is common procedure to describe the initial conditions of some classical dynamical physical system, with real numbers, which contain an infinite amount of information. It is argued that a finite volume of space can't contain infinite information, hence real numbers are not physically relevant, as their series of bits are truly random. Additionally, these numbers are more accurately termed "random numbers". An alternative Classical Mechanics is proposed, which is empirically equivalent, but uses only finite-information numbers. The alternative mechanics is non-deterministic, despite the use of deterministic equations. Both the alternative classical mechanics, and quantum theories can be supplemented in such a way that the resulting theory is deterministic. Most physicists supplement classical theory with real numbers, assumed to have some physical existence, while rejecting Bohmian mechanics, as supplemented, arguing that Bohmian positions have no physical reality.

A main issue is the fact that General Relativity is a system based on Classical Mechanics, yet Quantum Mechanics puts us in a situation where we have to ask, from where does a particle, that can be in two places at once, attain its gravity? The answer to this question is often called a Theory of Everything or a Theory of Quantum Gravity."

Classical Mechanics

While Classical Mechanics does contain phenomena of the same nature, there are two key ways that QM diverges:

From here, if we zoom in on Classical Mechanics a bit, we will inevitably encounter General Relativity: Einstein's theory that gravity, is the result of mass causing space to curve. A side effect, of this is that gravity and time become linked, due to the fact that the curvature of space increases the distance that light must travel between any two points. The result of this is that the amount of space that light can travel over any span of time becomes smaller as the curvature of space increases, which is why light can't escape Black Holes, and an observer watching some object fall into one, will never actually see the object "finish falling".

Classical Mechanics describes the motion of systems under the influence of forces. Complex physical objects can be expressed as an arrangement of particles, with the static spatial relationships between them being due to stiff interaction forces.

A main issue is the fact that General Relativity is a system based on Classical Mechanics, yet Quantum Mechanics puts us in a situation where we have to ask, from where does a particle, that can be in two places at once, attain its gravity? The answer to this question is often called a Theory of Everything.

Starting at Classical Mechanics: we index time to the Natural numbers, if we need to treat time as something discrete, or the Real numbers if we need to treat time as something continuous (generally using the latter as it more accurately represents our intuitions about time). Beyond that, there's not a large amount of development of the concept of time, as it is mostly a guidepost, for the path of objects and processes through Space. Time is not where the action is, and thus it's a bit of a background player: time limits, stalls, progresses, or reverses the action.

Classical Mechanics:

Gisin and another collaborator have reformulated (some) of Classical Mechanics, with the same predictions as Newton, save for events being indeterministic, providing the conditions for uncertainty and The Arrow of Time.

While it is canon within the history of mathematics that Newton didn't have a consistent definition of the concept of a limit, and that only since the work of Cauchy has this notion been available, this view is contested by some individuals, however it is incontestable that the rigorous concept of the derivate was not available in the supermarket when it was required by Classical Mechanics.

A similar contradiction exists in the relationship between the energy oscillation of an electromagnetic field in a vacuum: CM requires specific heats that correspond to this energy to be infinite, but the observed values are obviously finite.

The issue here, is that these arguments, descend from a time when science and religious beliefs were intimately linked, within the work of these scientists. Newton, the creator of Newtonian, or Classical Mechanics, believed his observations to be influenced by God. This is also the individual who, alongside Gottfried Leibnitz invented Calculus. Leibniz in fact, believed that the earth is the pinnacle of creation.

We're going to rely on Classical Mechanics: The number of hot-dogs eaten by a person at a given place in line, n, $P_{n}(h)$, is equal to the number of hot-dogs eaten at time $n - 1$, plus two so: $P_{n}(h) = P_{n - 1}(h + 2)$.

Within the field of Classical Mechanics, Newton's laws of motion, are three laws which define the relationship between objects in motion, and the forces these objects are subject too.

In order to demonstrate the tension faced by physics, we can observe Classical Mechanics.