Earlier quoted context omitted.
The obvious counter-argument is that circles are an invention.
By humans? Do circles not exist without humans to point them out?
Where is π today? The nature of the mathematical universe
31–37 of 37 posts
Re: Where is π today? The nature of the mathematical universe
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of those things are literally circles, though. If you look close enough there will be a deviation.
Water waves are perfect circles as waves move at same speed in every direction, so its points are always equidistant. Let a soap bubble settle in the table and take some measurements with a ruler. They are almost always perfect circles. You can deny they're circles, but you know it's not true.
They're not actually perfect circles. They're very close, but at an atomic scale there are clear imperfections.
Re: Where is π today? The nature of the mathematical universe
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Water waves are perfect circles as waves move at same speed in every direction, so its points are always equidistant. Let a soap bubble settle in the table and take some measurements with a ruler. They are almost always perfect circles. You can deny they're circles, but you know it's not true.
They're not actually perfect circles. They're very close, but at an atomic scale there are clear imperfections.
At atomic scale sometimes there are perfect cirlces. The argumentum a silentio fallacy is bidirectional in this case.
Re: Where is π today? The nature of the mathematical universe
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not actually perfect circles. They're very close, but at an atomic scale there are clear imperfections.
At atomic scale sometimes there are perfect cirlces. The argumentum a silentio fallacy is bidirectional in this case.
Even at atomic scales there are always minor distortions due to external influences. For example, although the shape of an electron s-orbital is said to be a sphere, the only way this could theoretically be a perfect sphere is if the atom is and always has been completely isolated from all external fields and forces.
Re: Where is π today? The nature of the mathematical universe
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
At atomic scale sometimes there are perfect cirlces. The argumentum a silentio fallacy is bidirectional in this case.
Even at atomic scales there are always minor distortions due to external influences. For example, although the shape of an electron s-orbital is said to be a sphere, the only way this could theoretically be a perfect sphere is if the atom is and always has been completely isolated from all external fields and forces.
Circles exist in nature. You can deny it, but it isn't true.
Now go with your atomic imperfections and external influences and take a nap, because it must be exhausting to be so repellent.
Re: Where is π today? The nature of the mathematical universe
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
At atomic scale sometimes there are perfect cirlces. The argumentum a silentio fallacy is bidirectional in this case.
Even at atomic scales there are always minor distortions due to external influences. For example, although the shape of an electron s-orbital is said to be a sphere, the only way this could theoretically be a perfect sphere is if the atom is and always has been completely isolated from all external fields and forces.
Re: Where is π today? The nature of the mathematical universe
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even at atomic scales there are always minor distortions due to external influences. For example, although the shape of an electron s-orbital is said to be a sphere, the only way this could theoretically be a perfect sphere is if the atom is and always has been completely isolated from all external fields and forces.
Circles exist in nature. You can deny it, but it isn't true. Now go with your atomic imperfections and external influences and take a nap, because it must be exhausting to be so repellent.
I'm sorry for being dismissive but you threw a barrage of contentious examples at me without really trying to engage with my point.
The way I see it, the circle is an abstract idea which resides within the language that we use to share our understanding about the patterns we observe in the external world. Those patterns may conform to the abstraction to varying degrees but they are fundamentally not the same thing. Mathematics is a very precise and formal way to communicate this type of knowledge, but that doesn't mean the ideas therein exist objectively. This contrasts with the views of someone like Max Tegmark, who has the impression that the universe is inherently mathematical.