Why do you believe that circles have sides? You had to turn a blind eye to logic to excuse your claim.
That would be the very definitions of the words that you are using. 
Incorrect, what did I say?
Did I not say “as a shape approaches infinite sides it becomes a circle?”
Yes I did, logically sound and flawless. Your error was in not seeing subtlety, and admitting that a Chiliagon, for all intents and purposes, is a circle, despite having sides (unseen by human eyes).
Circles have no sides. Circles are made up of points. A chiliagon is not a circle, rather the illusion of a circle as perceivable by the naked eye.
All shapes have sides.
Here is James, Wendy, and Arc’s argument:
That’s your “circle” compared to this:
Should be obvious who the winner is here… (me!)
Is the ‘winner’ the one who outlasts everyone?
And as a result he/she has the ‘correct’ philosophy?
It’s a good sign that you at least have enough sense to back off from what you actually said:
But in your last post, you still missed the point.
Only a geometrically perfect circle is required to be a closed shape. The definition of a “circle” allows for open circles, but not for any straight sides at all, much less an infinity of them.
So UrStillWrong.
When we say that a shape is a circle this is not because we tested every point on its boundary.
In fact, there is no such a thing.
You have some shape. Tell me, how many points are there on the boundary of that shape?
What we’re doing instead is we are testing a number of points on its boundary.
And these are points of our own choice.
And if these points – I call them key points – pass the test, we simply declare that the shape is a circle.
That’s what we do in PRACTICE.
No matter how many points you choose, you are always testing a finite number of points.
I don’t care about what people SAY.
I only care about what people DO.
You and James and Arc and Gib and many others have it BACKWARDS.
You start with WORDS.
You have no direct contact with nature.
Instead, you all work with what is artificial i.e. man-made.
Such as for example words.
I have no respect for bookworms.
A chiliagon seen as a whole is not merely an illusion of a circle.
It IS a circle.
If a chiliagon seen as a whole is not a circle then what is?
What is a circle?
Don’t just use words.
Show it to me.
But that’s the problem, right?
You are one of those people who think that there are things that are beyond experience.
Things that you don’t have to see.
Things that you only have to “understand”.
Give me an example of a circle and tell me why you consider it a circle.
No, it is because we either assume it to be a circle, assume that the other person understands the shortcut issues of the language and doesn’t care that it isn’t a perfect circle, or that we intend that the shape is to represent a perfect circle even if it doesn’t look exactly like one.
But at no time throughout history, has anyone of any education ever spoken of a shape with straight sides as being a “circle”. Even in Newton’s calculus, it was never said that the circle actually had infinite sides, but rather, only as URwrong recently stated;
Let’s say that noone apart from retards such as for example you cares about perfect circles. There is no such a thing. It’s merely an empty word.
But there is no such a thing as a perfect circle.
So it cannot be represented, approximated, etc.
The disease you are suffering from is Abrahamism i.e. you start with words and not with reality itself.
It’s irrelevant and you’re wrong. Leibniz, among others, thought of circles as infinilateral polygons.
Really? You have a reference for that?
Perfect circles only exist as abstractions where the only requirement is logical consistency. Any circles that exist in reality are therefore imperfect even if they do
not appear to be so. Or are treated as if they were perfect like the perfect geometrical mathematical versions. And it is therefore very important to acknowledge
the two different types rather than assume only one type actually exists depending on ones subjective philosophical interpretation of what a circle is or should be
which is what every one is doing. Can no one see that the imperfect circles that exist in reality are approximations of the perfect circles that exist as abstractions
The only issue was whether they include straight sides. No physical object can ever have an infinity of straight sides (or actually any perfectly straight sides). There is no straightness in the physical universe. And in the conceptual universe, circles are precisely as they are defined, with no straight sides.
Points only, no sides of any kind. Geesh!
My issue with you (and more or less everyone else in this thread) is that you think that the realm of the abstract and the realm of the concrete are two entirely different, separate, realms.
You think that it is perfectly fine when words have no reference to something real.
I don’t. I think that when words have no reference to something real that they are quite simply without any meaning – that they are meaningless.
You cannot represent or approximate something that quite simply does not exist.
You cannot represent or approximate perfect circles for the simple reason that perfect circles do not exist.
When we say that this or that shape is a circle we are NOT comparing that shape to some imaginary perfect circle.
Perfect circles cannot be imagined.
Why? Because it’s a meaningless linguistic construct.
If taken literally. If not, then “perfect circle” simply refers to the most perfect circle among the circles we are aware of.
What exists are circles that are more or less perfect in relation to each other.
That’s what exists.
Noone cares how consistent your thinking is if it does not correspond to something that is real.
Well, okay, prove that they have no meaning. But don’t expect to succeed, because you are going to be wrong.
Perhaps You aren’t but “we” certainly are. That seems to be one of your language problems.
Physically real circles cannot be imagined either. You can only image an approximation to anything, perfect or not.
If it is so meaningless, why is it that everyone seems to understand it … even you.
“… in relation to each other”???
I don’t think so. A circle is considered MORE CIRCULAR IF it is closer to being the ideal, perfect circle. Physical circles are compared to ideal, perfect circles as a measure of the perfection. In architecture, when calculating the circumference of a column, the diameter is used to calculate the circumference of a perfect circle.
I’m sure that most people would agree that perfect physical circles do not exist. But you are saying that not even the idea of a perfect circle exists. And that is just silly.
I agree with all this but it still seems very counter intuitive to not think of straightness existing in the Universe given how many everyday objects seem
to be absolutely flat with perfect sides and edges. But of course it is an illusion because at the quantum level those objects would not be perfect at all
I don’t believe in the ontology of quantumness, but in the ontologies involving infinitesimals, nothing could ever be infinitely flat or straight. Merely the issue of subatomic structure would prevent it.
I didn’t say “physically” for a very good reason. There is no need to. Dreams aren’t physically real but they are nonetheless real. When your words refer to your dreams then they are meaningful.
Noone is.
Real life circles can easily be imagined.
It is meaningless.
Exactly. You have a circle A that has 64 points on its boundary that are equidistant from its center and you have a circle B that has 128 points on its boundary that are equidistant from its center. Circle B is thus more circular than circle A. Circularity is understood as a property of a shape that is measured by counting how many points on the boundary of the shape are equidistant from the center of the shape.
Circle B, although more circular than circle A, is not a perfect circle. And the two shapes are NOT compared to some perfect circle in order to determine which one of them is more circular. All we’re doing is we’re measuring the degree of their circularity and then comparing the results.
Think of it this way: when we’re measuring the size of an object we are not doing so by comparing the object to some perfectly large object.
Yes. A man is considered TALLER if he’s closer to being the ideally, perfectly tall man.
Sure they are.
You cannot make comparisons unless there is an object that has perfect measurements.
Words can exist. Simply by saying something like “askeqoieusdf” I make it come into existence. But does it refer to something? Of course it does not.
Dreams are physically real. It is their implied content that isn’t physically real. The content “exists” as concepts or ideas.
And it seems that you cannot prove the meaninglessness of a perfect circle. So you need to come up with a different argument.