A dot and a point are the same thing but I accept that a geometric point is not physical
So this means that a circle can only be composed of physical points not geometric ones
A point is a Location, not a dot. A dot is used to represent a point. Or sometimes the center of a dot is said to be the point.
I agree wholeheartedly, James. My initial thoughts which you quoted were the result of “zooming in,” which as I said earlier, will introduce a whole suite of problems since zooming in to the point where you can actually see individual points is to skip over an entire infinity (allowing for paradoxes allows for more paradoxes). I assume you read on past that point as I dismissed that whole thought experiment on the grounds of these difficulties, and offered the alternative idea that circles (and lines and curves in general) are made of infinitely divisible segments, not points. Points still play a role but you have to invent them as you need them–say, for example, when you mark a point on the circumference of the circle. There’s an infinite range of possible locations you could mark a point between any two other points–I agree with that–but I think it’s a mistake to say the circle’s circumference is made of points.
circles (and lines and curves in general) are made of infinitely divisible segments, not points… I think it’s a mistake to say the circle’s circumference is made of points.
That is exactly true. The entire physical universe if made of “segments” or regions (“afflates”), not geometric points.
No matter how small, infinitely small, there is always an infinity of space between any two points. A point has zero width. The smallest space between two points has zero width. So when we add them together, 0+0+0, we get a total distance of zero. Even an infinity of such point pairs will still make only zero distance. A line cannot be built of points. Nor can a volume.
So a circle is made of an infinity of identical curve segments.
Enough of the squabbling and ego-seeking James, this thread is not about you, time to get it back on track:
Causality and Modern Politics:
Liberal-leftists blame nothing, or objects. Conservative-rightists blame victims. But neither side, neither party, blames the cause for the action and event. For example, in light of the recent Las Vegas mass shooting, liberal-leftists immediately repeat their mantra and agenda, “ban guns!” To which the conservative-rightists will defend their base, “you are taking away guns from those who could defend themselves!” But the recent mass-shooting is exceptional. The victims could not defend themselves with guns, as the shooter was at such a vantage point that they could not return fire. Nor do people bring guns to music concerts, or elementary schools, or movie theaters, etc. And hypothetically people should not, ought not, have to bring guns to defend themselves in these ‘safe’ areas.
Thus most people are missing the point, and not attributing Cause to its rightful place. Liberal-leftists are afraid to blame anybody for wrongness. Conservative-rightists tend not to blame the right people. Thus there is a problem of Justice in the u.s. and western culture. Western culture lacks blame. And it lacks correct and accurate blame (Morality). Who ought to be blamed for events such as these, or throughout life, any types of events. Who ought society point the finger at?
Western society has not developed its sense of Justice, blame, morality, judicial law, etc. Again this is evident by the political base, how liberal-leftists want not “to blame anybody at all”. And conservative-rightists are quick to blame the victims. If a desperate bum rapes a woman, then liberal-leftists will say “he was failed and not properly educated by society thus we are all to blame”. Conservative-rightists will say, “she should not have dressed so provocatively” and “she should have carried a gun to defend herself”.
Both sides can be wrong. And this fact escapes most Westerners, as, much or most or even all of their social “privileges” are built around concepts which protect some from blame, while re-directing blame and causality elsewhere. Spiritually, for pop religion, this means a redirect to godliness or some “grand author”. Blame is always redirect to god or satan, a scapegoat. Thus public blame, in events such as these, tend to shift to the political left-right spectrum, or the religious “satanic” scapegoat.
This was done very early in the recent mass shooting, as even the President and other authorities mention “Evil” as the cause.
But, these are mere scape-goating compulsions. Who in Modern discourse, which majority of people, actually blame the shooter, his motivations, and him directly, as the author of his own actions? Who can truly investigate the causes of mass shootings, or 9-11, or any other catastrophe, correctly and accurately? Meanwhile average people, with average intelligence, will ascribe (false) causes to events, or people’s motivations, in order to push underlying political agendas?
Blaming individuals for actions and events is a very confrontational activity, which requires courage. So when a society becomes cowardly, and fears blaming the perpetrator of a crime, then he has advantage and leverage over others. Also it is dangerous to blame the ‘privileged’ members of society, as privilege entails an air of authority and degree of prestige such that normal rules and laws do not apply to the upper class (elites). However blame still exists. And there are many social functions in society operating to blame somebody, or something, if not the perpetrator of a crime.
What the West lacks, in my opinion, is morality, wisdom, and justice, lacks maturity which older or ancient countries and nations sometimes retain. Many cultures throughout the world approach the topic of morality differently, according to customs, social hierarchy, traditions, religious mindsets, how to approach life, how to think about the world, etc. Thus one society will find ‘blame’ in ways that other countries will not. The same applies for individuals. While one person maybe very courageous and outspoken, quick to point the finger and blame somebody, others will be less courageous, silent, and “keep their opinions to themselves”. However that doesn’t change the fact that person X caused harm Y to person Z. And because people can harm each other so grievously, systems of “justice” and law are put into place and enforced, to prevent the widespread manipulation of harm. If some people are allowed to harm others with impunity, then they will, and so society will become held hostage, captive, to the cruelty of those who are blameless for their crimes and harm of others.
I would like to go much more in depth into thoughts like this, but, this forum really lacks the interaction I require.
Thus I conclude this thread. You can find me elsewhere, if you have the drive and curiosity to do so.
Good riddance.
Enough of the squabbling and ego-seeking
Says the conspicuously defeated egotist.
What the West lacks, in my opinion, is morality, wisdom, and justice, lacks maturity which older or ancient countries and nations sometimes retain.
Although I wouldn’t argue with that.
And because people can harm each other so grievously, systems of “justice” and law are put into place and enforced, to prevent the widespread manipulation of harm.
Systems of “justice” are not assembled to prevent harm to the populous nor establish any kind of actual justice. They are constructed entirely for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining power and control over the populous. The idea of such systems existing solely to protect the weak or abused is merely a part of its construction. Minority and feminist outcries are the obvious evidence. Long after the minority is no longer the minority and the feminine is no longer at any disadvantage, the outcries continue on and on, because power over all things is their goal, nothing at all to do with justice.
Get your actual causes straight from institutional rhetoric and appearances.
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.
What does “all points on the circumference” mean?
You need to ask yourself this question.
What it means is “all the points on the circumference you are focusing on”.
You might be focusing on 16 points.
Or you might be focusing on 1024 points.
It is your choice.
This means that polygons can meet the definition of circles.
Polygons can have a number of points on their boundary that are equidistant from their center.
If you’re focusing on these points and ignoring all other points then they will pass the test.
That’s what you are PRETENDING is not the case.
With that establish, we can now move back to the question of cause and responsibility and resolve that puppy!
Nothing can be resolved if people you are talking to do not know how to think.
No matter how small, infinitely small, there is always an infinity of space between any two points.
The distance between any two points is infinite. This means that there is no such a thing as zero distance which in turn means that there are no points that are adjacent to each other which in turn means that all action is an action at a distance which goes against your pseudo-scientific theory which is based on the principle of locality.
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.
More of your pathetic pedantry.
Any set of adjacent points that share the same slope can ne considered a straight line.
In this sense of the word, real life polygons DO have straight lines.
Noone cares about PERFECT straight lines in the same exact way that noone cares about PERFECT circles and in general PERFECT ANYTHING.
The concept of perfection, if taken literally, is meaningless and only utter retards are seduced by it.
Polygons can have a number of points on their boundary that are equidistant from their center
That is true but only circles have every single point on their circumference equidistant from their centre
There are an infinite quantity of these points on every circle although they are finite in size. In the same
way that there are an infinite quantity of numbers between any two numbers which is also a finite space
That is true but only circles have every single point on their circumference equidistant from their centre
That’s not how things work in reality. In reality, we only check that a number of points on the boundary of a shape is equidistant from the center. This means that exceptions are permitted. You can have points that are at a different distance from the center and the shape would still be considered a circle. That’s how we determine whether any given shape is a circle or not. That’s how things work in reality.
There are an infinite quantity of these points on every circle
What you’re saying, or at least what I hope you’re saying, because otherwise there would be no meaning to what you’re saying, is that the greater the number of points on the boundary of a shape the more circular that shape is. And I agree with that.
I don’t understand, what your post have to do with causality. Perhaps causality Points to an endless series of Events. With monads this is nested. Perhaps causality expells to monads.
The thread derailed a while back with heated discussion about how many sides a circle has
But that has got nothing at all to do with what it is supposed to be about which is causality
The thread derailed a while back with heated discussion about how many sides a circle has
But that has got nothing at all to do with what it is supposed to be about which is causality
Although directly related to the cause of conflict.
I don’t understand, what your post have to do with causality. Perhaps causality Points to an endless series of Events. With monads this is nested. Perhaps causality expells to monads.
It has to do with people who are active in this thread. The nature of circles isn’t really the point. The point is how people think. In other words, logic. You can’t discuss the nature of causality, circles, infinity, etc if we do not agree on how thinking works. If people are illogical then the first thing to do is to discuss logic before proceeding to discuss more complex subjects. If people think that words are more important than reality or that words are permitted to have no reference point in reality then we have a SERIOUS problem that has to be tackled BEFORE we can proceed to discuss the subject of the thread.
Words are not more important than reality even though they can describe reality
And when they are used for such a purpose they need to be as precise as possible
Imagination is a rearrangement of what was previously experienced. When we speak of zombies, for example, we are speaking of things we have experienced in the past but in a different arrangement. The concept of zombies is meaningful even though we have never experienced a zombie as a whole. We have experienced every single element zombies are made of but we haven’t experienced these elements in the arrangement that defines zombies. It is a meaningful concept because it is possible for us to experience zombies. At the present date, we only have an experience of their imitations. Imitations being objects that have a number of features but not all of the features that the object they are imitating – the original – has. It is rightful to say that when you see a zombie on a computer screen or at a halloween party you are seeing an imitation of zombies and not real zombies. But there are also words that are meaningless in the sense that they do not refer to anything that can be experienced. The concept of perfect circles, for example. It is meaningless because it is not something that we can experience. It is neither something we have experienced in the past as a whole nor a rearrangement of what we have experienced in the past. You cannot imagine a perfect circle. You can only pretend that you can. And because of this, there can be no approximations of perfect circles. You cannot approximate what the word refers to when the word does not refer to anything. I can be proven wrong, sure, but this would require that someone demonstrates to me that it is possible to experience perfect circles. If you DENY that words are meaningful only if they refer to something that can be experienced then we have a serious problem. A very serious problem.
Another word that most people throw around without understanding what it really means is “universe”. The word, if it means anything, means a model of reality or quite simply a theory. Or it might mean whatever set of assumptions one holds to be true. Assumptions being guesses regarding something we haven’t experienced. A theory is nothing but a set of instructions on how to calculate (or determine) what’s going to happen next based on what happened in the past. In fact, it is a broader concept than that. It is quite simply a formula i.e. a set of instructions on how to calculate (or determine) some output values based on some input values. A theory can be quite simply a mathematical function that relates a point in time with a set of events that happen at that point in time. Now, when people speak of “the universe having a beginning and an end” they are in fact speaking about theories that have a specific feature. Namely, they are speaking of a category of theories that calculate events only for a finite range of points in time e.g. a theory that takes a point in time as an input but only within a specific range. Say if time is measured relative to some event, the function may accept only real numbers between -6000 to +billion where 1 represents a single day, positive numbers days after the pivotal event and negative numbers days before the pivotal event. So far so good. What they are saying is meaningful. What these people are doing is they are asking a very simple question that has the form “if there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works, does this theory have a time limit?” Let us acknowledge that these people do make a difference between what people think is how the universe works (i.e. theories that people have that do not necessarily exactly represent how the universe works) and how the universe REALLY works independently from what anyone thinks. The problem is that they IGNORE how humans create theories. In other words, they ignore EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES. They are stuck speculating about what’s possible i.e. they are stuck exploring possibilities. In this particular case, exploring all the possible theories that can exist. They never, for example, ask whether the theories they come up with can be INFERRED from any kind of evidence that is imaginable. Why bother exploring “what ifs” that can never be proven? For example, suppose that there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works, how can we determine which one of the infinitely many theories is the one that represents exactly how the universe works? There is no way to do so. We don’t know what we HAVE to do because the procedure is undefined. Basically, such a theory cannot be inferred from any kind of evidence we can imagine. The actual theories they come up with are not meaningless. What is meaningless is the assumption that there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works. It’s a meaningless phrase.
The problem with the universe having a beginning and an end is not merely that there is no evidence to back it up but the fact that no evidence can back it up.
The Universe is defined as ALL THERE IS and although it is just three words is absolutely true. And as far as theories are concerned not every single one is testable
but it does not stop physicists from speculating about what could be true. Now strictly speaking they cannot be regarded as scientific but long as they are treated
as purely hypothetical then there is no problem. There will always be a limitation on how much knowledge science can be in possession of at any time but it does
nonetheless increase over time and so this could lead to a more accurate model of reality and more specifically in areas where hypotheses can actually be tested
The Universe is defined as ALL THERE IS and although it is just three words is absolutely true.
I don’t care what words you associate with the word “universe”. When you explain “universe” in terms of “all there is” what you are doing is you are replacing one meaningless phrase with another. Show me this “all there is”. Tell me what kind of experience it refers to. Don’t just bombard me with words.
And as far as theories are concerned not every single one is testable
but it does not stop physicists from speculating about what could be true.
It obviously does not stop them. My point is that it is pointless to explore “what ifs” that cannot be proven.
Now strictly speaking they cannot be regarded as scientific but long as they are treated as purely hypothetical then there is no problem.
The problem is that they are not honest about what they are doing. They are ignoring the reason humans create theories. They do not want to admit that theories are merely instruments that humans use in order to predict the future to the best of their ability. People who say that the universe might have a beginning and an end do not understand that there is no evidence that can put a time limit on our theories. This is because the purpose of theories is to help us determine the set of best guesses regarding any kind of unknown event we are interested in. For example, I might be interested in what’s going to happen tomorrow or I might be interested in what’s going to happen 1,000 years from now on. Maybe even a billion years from now on. Or a quintillion years from now on. There is no limit. No evidence can impose such a limit. Evidence only limits what counts as the best guess regarding any given unknown event.
There will always be a limitation on how much knowledge science can be in possession of at any time but it does nonetheless increase over time and so this could lead to a more accurate model of reality and more specifically in areas where hypotheses can actually be tested
I have a feeling that you’re not listening to what I am saying. There can be no productive discussion between the two of us if one of us does not listen to what the other is saying.
My point is that it is meaningless to say that there is a theory that represents exactly how the universe works. This is because such a theory cannot be found. There is no test that can separate such a theory from all the rest.