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.
A circle doesn’t have to be perfect, to be a circle. Flawed circles are circles too. Therefore, James, Arc, Wendy, you’re all wrong.
As long as it doesn’t have straight sides. Therefore, Urwrong … UrWrong.
A Chiliagon is a circle, therefore, circles have sides.
I’m afraid they say nothing at all about it being a circle.
Association is not Identity.
Is this a circle?
I knew you would agree with me, James, only a matter of time.
No, it’s a approximation picture of a circle (and it doesn’t have any straight sides).
Hey Ur, just wanted to poke my head back in to let you know I read your numerous replies to me (are you planning to write a novel?) and I’m not going to reply back (except for this). Unlike you, I’m not that compelled to reply to each and every one of your points. If you had kept it short and sweet, I might have been bothered to continue our heated exchange, but I’ve got much better things to do with my time. I’ll just summarise by saying you did not understand a word I said. I actually don’t believe the universe had a beginning as such. I’m not a geocentrist or a creationist (you must have grown up in a small Christian town to believe the whole world is geocentric; as for the solipsism thing, I have no idea where you get the idea that everyone believes that). You don’t understand relativity or how measurement (the light year thingy) works even at the level of a 3 year old. And you have no clue how the burden of proof thing works.
I’ll see you around the forums. Maybe we’ll battle it out again over some other trivial issue that’s not worth anybody’s time (should be fun), but I gotta say: if you’re going to respond to my posts with 50 thousand other posts within the span of an hour, I won’t have the time or the drive to address each one (I should hope this is not a tactic you use). Maaaybe I’ll refresh the exchange with a short and succinct post of my own summarising my thoughts but it all depends on whether I feel like it or not. So take care, Ur. See you around.
It’s a circle.
And yes there are straight lines which comprise the circumference of circles.
Points do not equal sides and sides do not equal circles.
You seem repulsed by the idea that what you thought had been grandiose and awe-inspiring insights into the nature of existence, are not so, and can be, completely wrong.
My argument is simple. You say the universe has a beginning. You cannot prove this of course, neither can “Science”. But you do have the advantage of majority vote, mob rule, democracy on your side. You side with the common, who like you, believe the universe does have a beginning, or “The Big Bang”. Because you have such a position though, you are logically compelled to prove your position, provide evidence, reasoning, etc. Which you can’t do. The universe is not “expanding” everywhere, rather, it is a mistake and flaw of human consciousness and perception. Humans use themselves, as you admitted, as the ‘relative’ marker for existence. I claimed this was false. I further counter-argued that the universe is infinite.
Now my position is, no beginning, no end. You wanted me to provide some “evidence and reasoning”, which I did. Why should there be a beginning and end? What is a beginning or an end? I explained some of this, leading to the topic of Teleology, which is the compulsion by which people believe concepts or assert existential qualities, such as “beginning or end” into existence.
Rather what one person believes is a beginning, is not necessarily so. Rather minds are compelled to pick and choose beginnings and ends, to make sense of phenomenon. To draw a line, for example, you must begin at some point. Is it arbitrary? We cannot investigate the arbitrariness or “randomness” of when and where such beginnings take place. Because you seem too cowardly to move forward with the topic. Maybe you have too much investments on your presumptions, fear the prospect of being wrong, after you’ve put so much work and time into your ideas? Just to have them undermined and shattered?
So what is the “beginning of life”? If you claim there is a beginning to the universe, then isn’t there also a beginning to all life? How about a single life? When does a human begin and end? Does life begin at conception, birth, your seventh birthday? When are you “truly living”? When are you dead? After your heart stops? After you are forgotten? If nobody remembers your name then what did your life really matter? Are some lives worth remembering and others not? Do some lives have meaning and others not?
Concerning teleology, I was headed in that direction of conversation anyway.
Just as people believe there are “beginnings and endings” to… the universe, existence, circles, lines, so too do they believe there are beginnings and endings to causes and their affects. And that there is some grand cause, “First Cause”, which sets all existence into motion.
I’ll prove that false, and wrong, as well.
A large amount of sides do equal circles.
You have yet to provide reasonable evidence to counter your opponents.
Urwrong: "It looks like a circle to me, so it must be one."
Opponents: "If it has straight sides, it doesn’t matter what it looks like to you, by definition it isn’t a circle."
The burden of proof is big-time on you.
I already provided evidence. I showed you circles. And they have lines in their circumference.
Most humans cannot tell the difference after a 1000-sided shape, is a circle. Most people just say “that’s a circle”. They’re correct. You’re incorrect.
You’re incorrect because you believe “only perfect circles” can be circles, but that’s obviously false.
So now your “evidence” is “most people believe” and “people can’t tell the difference”?
Since when have you accepted anything merely because “most people believe” or because “people can’t tell what the truth is, therefore…” even though you know the difference is there? I thought they called that “magic”. You believe in magic, do you?
“Most people believe in the Big Bang. They can’t tell the difference. So it must be true.”
The point is pramatism and practicality. If a child sees a circle, and calls it so, and it is a Chiliagon, who disputes this except you? You’re the one claiming that a circle has to be ‘perfect’ or it’s not a circle. And the reason you’re claiming such is because you’re backed into a corner and don’t want to appear more foolish than you already do, in denying obvious shapes as circles. They are circles. Therefore, you are wrong.
Oh. So now you believe it because a child says so.
…great “evidence” you have there.