Justhink wrote:
That’s not right. A number and its value are two different things.
No kidding.
That’s true if you only define God as infinite, in which case it’s a circular argument. It is perfectly consistent to believe in pi and not believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
The explanation of how to determine the circumfrance of a circle is a ‘narrow’ application in the sense of how we percieve life, and how we are resultantly judged by others? Not to mention that it programs monism delusion into the minds of students using social pressure… a pattern of thinking and being they are not soon to part with. Who decided that they have the right to push a monism on students, necessarily corrupting their logic in order to pass through a number of courses designed as required for any significant major with which one earns a wage in society?
Is this just a big retard club that being engineered to control people who reach these levels of society?
Really? The equivilency is astonishing!
-Justhink
Well, yeah, but you can know the exact value of pi. You can choose any of several infinite series for this; you just can’t write it out as a decimal. “Transcendental” in math contexts simply means that the number will not be the root of any polynomial equation with integer coefficients, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the divine.
The problem that people have sometimes is that in pure math, we make the rules absolutely. Following logically from the definitions of a circle, of diameter, of ratio, and so forth, you can prove the existance, irrationality, and transcendence of pi. Justthink, should he indulge in a little more rigor, is free to come up with his own geometrical system where the rules are what he likes better. However, it may not be interesting enough to play with. (Try a system where division by zero is allowed. You’d think it would be really novel, but it’s just boring.) Once someone starts claiming their system has validity in the real world it’s acceptable to do physical testing. And I don’t know of anyone who would claim that the ratio of circumference to diameter of a real world object is exactly pi, only that pi is an approximation for it.
But for some reason people get really worked up about definitions that only relate to specific and well defined axioms. I volunteer at the site that DDG linked to earlier, and you’d be amazed at the questions we get about pi.
I suppose it’s perfectly consistent to believe in the golden ratio or the square root of 2 and not believe in pi.
I suppose it’s perfectly consistent to believe in Allah and not Jehova.
What’s your point? They all derive from the same system of contradiction.
-Justhink
Justhink wrote:
What the heck does that have to do with my comment that pi is synthetic a priori? 
Straightdope Staff Report (mailbag) article on the discovery and refinement of pi:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpiorigin.html
Fun fact from the above article: The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter was named “pi” by William Oughtred in 1647, who used the Greek letter pi as an abbreviation for the English word “periphery.”
And here’s another parallel to deism. The problem with the very specific deism found in the Bible for example (although they all fall down in similar means) is that omniscience and sentience are not compatable - you cannot combine the two and yield a result of one or the other in a single being. This is contradictiory.
I’m suggesting that there is something fundamental about how we’re veiwing reality which causes the same mistake here; that if we thought about it a little more we’d realize that the diameter and the circumfrance don’t make any sense as a ratio. I fact, I’m so much as stating that’s the case.
Why are we playing word games by saying “well, it’s only an approximation… blah, blah; don’t confuse it with reality… blah, blah”
When people are being socially de-merited for not showing evidence that they can be forced to believe this idea? It’s absurd to expect people to fake their way through school so that they can move out into a fake social stratum and succeed to the degree that they are being fake. Even the subconscious impact of this process of geometry is IMO extremely socially damaging, and also damaging to the person who underwent this treatment with regards to their perception of how much control over their behavior they actually have in the sense of transparency of mind.
Also, how much actual purpose they have with regards to the opinions they formulate to judge and grade the behaviors of others. This lesson seeks to destroy communication rather than enforce it.
-Justhink
My point is that you’re saying nothing. You are arguing that it is inconsistent to believe in infinity and not believe in infinity.
chuckle Not the back door! “It’s a simulted symbolic representation of a truth which exists independant of us and cannot be proven as such… just believe the damn thing. If I’m wrong, it’s not my fault! look at how i defined it.”
-Justhink
Is part of this confusion about whether pi can or cannot be expressed as a ratio due to the fact that it is irrational and thus cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers (from which it obviously follows that a circle can have an integral value for the diameter or for the circumference but not both)?
Or is it just a confusion between mathematics as a logical system and mathematics as it can be applied in the real world?
Slight nitpick. You can USE the exact value of π as long as you choose some series(including the irrational number 3.14159…) to represent it. Once you start trying to actually represent it, on it’s own, you are forced, by its transcendental nature, to just use a name for it instead of actually being able to use its value. You can express the idea of π, but you can’t express π itself as anything that a person could handle objectively, only theoretically. It’s not possible to have π apples.
Justhink’s problem seems to be that scientists and other critical thinkers demand absolute proof, something objective they can see, smell, taste, touch, or hear to demonstrate the existance of God, yet require no such proof of the existance of π.
I don’t write 'em folks, I just translate 'em.
Enjoy,
Steven
Have you read anything Might Maximino has written? Pi is an observed property of the system of geometry that we happen to subscribe to. Its truth, in any ontological sense, is not relevant. In this respect it is no different than the controversial idea that two plus two equals four.
Symbolic representation of a truth? Check.
Does it exist independendly of us? Check.
Can it be proven “as such”? Evidently not.
If you are not satisfied with our current monism, feel free to propose a more interesting system.
DING DING DING! We have a winner! The root of this problem is that Justhink believes in an objective reality. As such this implies the rules of physical reality apply to humans and human decision-making processes. The laws of physics are real and inescapable. Using these laws it is possible to determine exactly how matter will behave in any situation if you observe it closely enough to understand all the forces in play.
Justhink is trying to build a set of laws of human social behavior which would correspond to the laws of physics. The contradiction which is currently the burr under his saddle is the rejection of the concept of god(self-defining, unknowable, in a gnostic sense, by mortal minds) and the concept of π (self defining, unknowable, in a gnostic sense, by non-infinite minds). Why is one accepted and its belief re-inforced by our social learning institutions and the other rejected by most of our social learning institutions?
Enjoy,
Steven
I’m not using the same variable. The arguement is about diameter and circumfrance; both of which fall with this line of reasoning in the same way - two different entities, neither of which is justified with regards to the act of using them in a certain means and declaring that this is why you were able to accomplish what you did.
Omniscience can only be defined as a data field; as it contradicts any possibility of sentience. A sentient being and an infinite data field do not contradict each-other, as sentient beings require an infinite data field, from which they are a recursive incomplete copy of in order to exist. So, no I’m not arguing that a field which must by definition be finite cannot exist with a field which must by definition be infinite in order for it to exist.
I’m arguing that the two cannot be merged in a means where both properties describe one single thing which possesses both of them. That is absurd. The collapse of either collapses motion indefinately, and the inclusion of both or collapse of both into a single entity collapses motion indefinately. Pi is the equivilent of this usage of two contradictory terms necessitating one single existent which is imbued with both of them.
I’m saying that circumfrance and diameter must be contradicting themselves - even though they are both faulty of precision power with regards to their exstence. Even as imaginary numbers, they must fundamentally be contradicting each-other. It’s a bit more serious than simply arguing that math doesn’t equal form necessarily. Even in the abstract world, there is something not understood about these properties of circumfrance and diameter which makes them necessarily contradict each other - even though they clearly contradict reality in the sense of associated precision.
Also, to address the argument that I’m required to submit a new system is interesting, but it doesn’t address that the old one cannot stand, given what we know. Why continue to re-enforce a known delusion as a standard to show evidence of believing in order to be allowed into societies well paid spots. It does suggest a bit about currency! chuckle Another thread I’m involved with.
-Justhink
Justhink wrote:
Oy.
OK, where am I going wrong?
[ul][li]There is such a thing as a circle.[/li][li]It is possible to imagine (as existing on a 2D ‘flat’ surface) an ideal circle as being a line of infinitesimal thickness arranged in such a way as that the end of the line joins seamlessly with the origin and that all points on the line are equidistant from a fixed point[/li][li]The fixed point is thus defined as the exact centre of the circle[/li][li]An ideal line measured from the central point to the edge is defined as the radius.[/li][li]The radius has length.[/li][li]The line that describes the circle has length[/li][/ul]
Am I wrong so far? - if not:
Either:
[ul][li]The ratio describing the relationship between the length of the radius and the length of the circumference is constant (and is defined as pi.[/ul][/li]or
[ul][li]It isn’t.[/li][/ul]
If you believe that pi is not constant, please outline your reasons for thinking so (reasons other than paranoia, that is).
I disagree.
Why?
Are you saying that it is impossible for anyone to imagine it?