Lessons on Causality

A large amount of sides equal imperfect circles that only exist in reality and
no sides or infinite sides equal perfect circles that only exist in mathematics

Imperfect circles are circles.

They are separate but not entirely separate. The purpose of what is abstract, such as for example words, is to represent what is concrete. You’re arguing that it is fine if words have no reference to something that is real. Somehow, you can imagine perfect circles even though they cannot possibly be observed in reality. That’s the problem. Perfect circles aren’t merely imaginary. Zombies are imaginary. Perfect circles are simply meaningless words.

There you go. That’s the end of the discussion.

Words are words. They are not what they represent. I agree with that. The problem is when words represent nothing at all.

Yes, you can represent or approximate what is imaginary. But you cannot represent or approximate what is meaningless.

Zombies are imaginary. You can approximate zombies using adequate makeup, costumes and behavior.
But perfect circles are NOT imaginary. They are meaningless words.

If you can imagine something it means that you can experience it. For example, if you can imagine zombies this means you can experience them in real life. It does not matter that we never do. The fact is that we can. But this is impossible to do with perfect circles. How can we experience perfect circles? Give me an example. I can easily imagine shapes that are extremely circular even though I never observed one. But I cannot imagine shapes that are perfectly circular.

Sure, whatever you say.
If your conviction is extremely strong then it must be true.

If you SAY you can imagine then I am pretty sure that you CAN imagine them.

I cannot argue with this.

Dreams are a form of experience. Whenever your words refer to some kind of experience they are meaningful. That’s my point. It is unnecessary to say that dreams are physically real. Even if there was nothing behind dreams – no physical mechanism that brought them into existence – words that refer to them would still be meaningful.

The problem with him is that he is focusing on superficial and secondary things (such as dictionary definitions) instead of focusing on what is fundamental and primary (such as how we determine whether any given shape is a circle or not.)
Another way to say it is that he’s focusing on what other people SAY instead of focusing on REALITY ITSELF.
In Schopenhauer’s terms, he’s a man of learning rather than a man of thinking.
Such people spend more time deciphering what other people say than thinking on their own.
And they do so with a conviction that behind every written word there is some kind of meaning.
Just look how convinced they are that what is meaningless (if taken literally, at least) is in fact meaningful.

We aren’t talking about imperfect. We are talking about circles having nothing but straight sides. Ask even a child if a circle has straight sides. Assuming that he doesn’t merely call you an idiot, see what he says.

If a polygon has sufficiently small sides then it is a circle.

Too bad the forum does not allow blank posts.
Who cares what a child says?
I am only interested in how things are.
What children say matters only if they know how things are.
And, unlike you, they won’t tell you that a chiliagon is not a circle.
But will they agree that circles can have sides?
Well, if they say a chiliagon is a circle then they have to agree that circles can have sides.
But what if they don’t? Because maybe they won’t.
Who cares anyways?

Earlier in this discussion, I would have agreed that the “infinite sides” definition of a circle was a valid one, but now I’m changing my mind. Even if we said a circle had infinite sides, those sides couldn’t be longer than a single point each (otherwise you wouldn’t have “curve”), and I don’t think a point counts as a “side”.

Given that, if we’re saying that a thing is a circle so long as the sides it is made of are too small to see, then we’re talking about an actual object in the world, not the abstract (ideal) notion of a circle. So then it is a question of: can actual objects count as circles so long as they are circular shaped?

I think this counts as a different context for the definition of circles. When we’re talking about ordinary objects in the shape of a circle, I think we have to go with how things look to the eye (and approximations become a matter of judgement). You ask someone to make a bunch of piles of objects, one of circle objects, another of square objects, another of triangle objects… I think it’s fair to say that the objects in the circle pile count as circles.

But then we can define circles in the other context–the geometric context–in which circles adhere to a very specific definition: all points equidistant from the center → no sides. Here you can’t talk about sides that are too small to see because in this context, the definition has nothing to do with visibility or how the object looks from one angle or another, or to one person or another, etc. Here, in this context, it really is black and white–all points on the circumference either are or they are not equidistant to the center. Even if a point is out by an infinitesimal amount, it is out as a fact, and therefore does not adhere to the definition.

With that establish, we can now move back to the question of cause and responsibility and resolve that puppy!

Preach it, Brother! :evilfun:

True. As I said before, if you want to talk about how a circle should be defined, that is another topic.

And even if accepting the physically possible circles, they don’t have an infinity of straight sides either. There is no straightness of objects in the physical universe.

This can be interpreted as a circle with straight sides:

It’s not a normal “circle” by how people mean but people with common sense understand my point. You’re still arguing about the degree by which a shape is considered a circle or not. You’ve already demonstrated countless times that you refuse to admit a Chiliagon is a circle, and therefore, your position is unreasonable. Further arguing over definitions of circles having sides or “straight sides” is a moot point when you already refused to admit the 1000-sided shape as a circle, which it is, and which people will agree with out of common sense.

As stated before, people identify shapes and geometry out of approximations. Triangles have 3 sides, rectangles 4, hexagons 6, octagons 8, chiliagons 1000, etc. The more sides a shape has, the more ‘circle’ it becomes.

Those that dispute this fact, you, Arc, Wendy, gib, all of you are simply, wrong.

What you really meant was circle 6, circle 8, and circle 1000, right? :laughing:

I passed 1st grade, unlike you and a few others here.

It could also be interpreted as a square with extra sides, as a dog with a few pieces missing, as the King of Cleveland on a good day, as a circle to a blind man…

:laughing:

And people who don’t think Chiliagons are circles can be interpreted as wrong.

Notice that he’s accepted it would be an interpretation.

I already said it was a matter of approximation pages ago. Some individuals need very specific definition and accuracy, like mathematicians, engineers, and physicists.

To a mathematician, a circle can be defined as (x^2)+(y^2)=r^2

It’s okay, you can admit I was right all along, now…