Lessons on Causality

That’s the point though, Absolutism.

Some people are too absolute to admit mistakes in definitions and meaning. Like how James refuses to admit that a Chiliagon, 1000-sided shape, is a circle. He is too proud to admit a weakness in his position, his meanings. But James and Arc are missing the points. There will be many different approaches to definition, interpretation. Accuracy is important but there are gray areas wherein which some will say “this is a circle” and others will disagree and say it is not. This gray area, area of conflict, is when each side offers superior definition and increases the stringent requirements, leading to the perfect, absolute circle.

“My definition is the absolute perfect circle and YOURS ISN’T!!!”

That’s not what I’m talking about. But it was necessary to show a few people here they were wrong to completely reject my, ARBITRARY definition. As if a brief definition of a circle has to do with the greater topic at hand? How about a square? A square has 4-sides and 4 right angles. Are people here going to argue with that definition as well? In order to do what? In order to dispute that if I define a cause as this or that, that those definitions must also be absolute and perfect?

That’s the point, isn’t it?

That for there to be “cause” of anything at all, in existence, then those causes must be defined absolutely and perfectly? Nope, that was never my implication or intention, James.

Causes, like these definitions of shapes, require lots of effort and sophistication to apprehend and understand.

Like how an offshore earthquake keeps causing a coastal tidal wave. It keeps happening, everytime, one after the other. So ought we not then deduce, and operate from the premise, that offshore earthquakes cause coastal tidal waves???

My opposition has few directions to travel, to dispute, to doubt this. And you could even say “well so what, it doesn’t matter”. It doesn’t matter to you, but knowing the causes of things, can save lives, and to those who are swept away by coastal tidal waves, will absolutely know the difference of importance, and whether it was the ‘good’ thing to do, to attribute causes to natural phenomenon.

It’s not imaginary, a matter of the mind only. Some humans, a few at least, attempt to find, locate, and identify causes in existence. The patterns of reality, of existence. And in so doing, they gain advantages that other people do not have. The scientist who creates a device to detect offshore earthquakes, can save countless lives, whereas those other places and people who do not, will not save lives. If you are fine with that then so be it. But cause, as a general matter, is much larger than merely offshore earthquakes and chiliagon circles.

Yes, it is true, every polygon and every shape can be said to be infinite sided. Where I disagree is that this is a problem. I ask: what exactly is the problem? Why is it a problem?
We don’t see squares and other shapes as infinite sided simply because there is no need to. There is, on the other hand, very good reason to see circles as infinite sided.
Circles have sides that are related to each other in a very specific manner.

The only way that every polygon or shape could be described as infinite sided would be if a straight line was also described as such
But anything with edges cannot be infinite sided because they are the points where two sides converge and therefore begin or end

1. It is pointless to say.
2. It is rationally incorrect (circles have no “straight sides”).

Even a hectagon, a 100-sided shape, is very much a circle.
Polygons become difficult to distinguish from cicles once you give them more than 50 sides.

Another thing to note is that the official definition of circles does not state that circles are not polygons.
This is a common mistake.
If a definition does not state that a shape is a polygon, or that it has sides, it does not mean that the shape is not a polygon, or that it does not have sides.

Yes, which is why NOONE is saying it.

You mean that when we look at circles we see no straight sides?
Yes, that is true, but that is merely due to the manner in which our brains process information.
A polygon appears to be a circle from a distance, for example.
In fact, any polygon can appear to be a circle if you simply don’t pay enough attention to it.

If you infinitely divide a line, what do you get?

If you divide a line, you get two sub-lines. If you divide each of the two sub-lines, you get 4 sub-sub-lines. And so on. The angle between the adjacent sub- . . . - lines is always 180 degrees since the main line is straight.
How is this relevant?

Circles are not polygons because that would mean they have a finite number of sides
And then not every point on the circumference would be equidistant from the centre

A polygon cannot be a circle just because it looks like a circle from a certain distance
The definition of a circle is dependent upon mathematical logic not human perception

A hexagon is not a circle but a six sided polygon. A circle has infinite sides so cannot be a polygon. It also has no
sides so cannot be a polygon. So therefore saying it has infinite sides is exactly the same as saying it has no sides

Every shape is a collection of finite number of points informational atoms (analogous to how pixels are the atoms of computer screens.)
There are no shapes that have an infinite number of points.
The word “infinite” must not be taken literally.
When I say that a circle is a polygon with an infinite number of sides what I mean is that the greater the number of sides a polygon has the more circular it is.
That’s all that is meant.

When we’re testing a shape whether it is a circle or not (more precisely, how circular it is) we’re always checking a finite number of points.
As I’ve said, the larger the number of points we’re checking, the higher the degree of circularity we’re testing for. And vice verse, the smaller the number of points we’re checking, the lower the degree of circularity we’re testing for.
Once a shape is tested positive, it remains so EVEN IF we find out there are points on its boundary that do not obey the pattern of circularity.
This is NORMAL because we only tested for A SPECIFIC DEGREE of circularity. We DO NOT CARE if we find out that the shape fails at the test of higher degree of circularity.
I hope this is clear.

In that case, almost nothing is a circle.

The purpose of mathematical logic is to MAP human perception.

A young boy is asked, “What is a circle?”

The young boy then draws a circle in the sand with his finger. Is it perfect? Does it need to be? No, and no. It is a circle.

For those demanding absolute perfection, of definition, you’ve already lost the point about infinity and geometry. All shapes have sides. Whether or not humans perceive a certain level of detail, is a moot point. Engineers, mathematicians, architects, if you want to call them ‘authorities’ on what is or is not a circle, then each will give similar yet different definitions, according to their work, tools, equations, and functions.

Many in this thread are being, naive, simple, dull, childish, elementary. Even the young boy can exceed the intelligence demonstrated by some in this thread.

All you need to do is draw a circle in the sand.

The cause of this dispute, is ego, being wrong, being humiliated, admitting inferiority to the common sense of the young boy. If he can figure it out then why can’t you?

Start simple, and start with reality. Shapes are approximations. Rarely or never will any person need ‘perfection’. Save that for the engineers who use calculus, when it matters.

Here’s some logic for those clamoring for rationality:

1. All shapes have sides.
2. Circles are shapes.
3. Therefore circles have sides.

For those claiming circles “have no sides”, you imply that circles are not shapes, which is false.

That wasn’t an answer. You have to pay to see the cards.

As with other questions asked of you, answer the question and then you get to see the relevance.

What do you end up with after infinitely dividing a line?

When you infinitely divide a line you end up with . . . oh wait, you never end up with anything because you never stop dividing the line.

Kind of reminds me of the course this thread has been taking.

People usually cheat in this thought experiment. Knowing full well such a process of division never ends, they unconsciously say: skip it! Let’s just assume we got to the end. What do we get? We get points! But geometric points come with a whole suite of paradoxes. This happens anytime you allow for something paradoxical in the first place, like skipping a whole infinity.

Yes. Infinity means there is no end. How can you assume there is an end?
When you stop an infinite process what you do is you turn it into a finite process. In fact, what happens is you realize it wasn’t infinite in the first place.
When you say that a circle is an infinite number of points that are equidistant from some fixed point all you are saying is that it can be ANY number of points that are equidistant from some fixed point and that it is BETTER if the number of points is LARGER. Nothing else.

As long as there are no straight sides.

This is a circle James.

You can be absolutist all you want. You’re still wrong fundamentally.

All shapes have sides. A circle is a shape. Therefore circles have sides. Your mind loses track after 1000 or 1,000,000. Just because you can’t perceive the imperfections, doesn’t mean they’re not there, and finally, doesn’t discount that the shape is a circle. It is.

James you have backed yourself into a corner of “only perfect circles are circles”, which is absurd. Just admit being wrong already.

Not hardly.

First, that is a “spot”, not a “circle”.

But regardless, anything that has a straight side, is not a circle.

That represents a circle … no straight sides.

There is no absolute difference between straight sides and curved sides.