√5 and Phi

[Skepdick]

No actually: knowing the degrees to which any symbol is limited
marks the point whereupon one does not jump on some bandwagon
thus such discernment is the active negation of it.

Great! So discern for me the limits of the "=" symbol.

Where does 0=0 become 0≠0 ?

Come on now, are you a child? Adults don't speak like that.

I am speaking to you in the exact same manner you spoke to me.
You asked me this question "Why would you use a word you can not define?"

So I challenged you to define the words you are using.

Define "define".

s/t = speed
t/s = energy
1/1 = c (speed of light)

You keep mixing up symbolic and numeric terms. That's called a Type error.

Express your variables as functions of each other. You'll see your problem.

You never answered me when I first ask you the same, so we'll leave it there
but your attempt to scapegoat is noted.

I did answer you: I can't define Logic.

Perhaps you didn't hear me: I use Logic. I don't need to or have to define it - that's YOUR criterion, not mine.

Relative to what?

Relative to your previous location in spacetime.

Time is a rotating base: one solar year is shared by all every ~365(1/4) days.

Not quite...

Metaphysical displacements from c = 1 are different because it requires understanding what is beyond the physical.

Indeed. It requires you to understand time. Do you understand time?

Are you on the Jean-Yves Girard bandwagon?

I am on the quantum information bandwagon. Which happens to correspond to Linear logic.
I am also on the computer science/distributed systems engineering bandwagon. Which happens to correspond to Geometry of Interaction.

We study this thing which you claim is of great import/desirable to a system. Consensus.

[nothing]

Great! So discern for me the limits of the "=" symbol.

Where does 0=0 become 0≠0 ?

I don't acknowledge 0 as anything, so 0=0 reads
"nothing is equal to nothing" which is redundant, whereas
"nothing is not equal to nothing" is nonsense.

I am speaking to you in the exact same manner you spoke to me.
You asked me this question "Why would you use a word you can not define?"

So I challenged you to define the words you are using.

Define "define".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/define
Pick any one you want - my usage agrees with all of them.

You keep mixing up symbolic and numeric terms. That's called a Type error.

Express your variables as functions of each other. You'll see your problem.

Mixing up symbolic and numeric terms? lol

Space and time are quantifiable discrete units:
1 unit of space per 1 unit of time.
There is no difference anyways: numbers are symbolic,
space and time are naturally reciprocally related, thus
need no such function. They are already functions of one another.

I did answer you: I can't define Logic.

Perhaps you didn't hear me: I use Logic. I don't need to or have to define it - that's YOUR criterion, not mine.

You use logic that returns Φ*Φ=Φ+1 as 'false'.

Φ*Φ = Φ + 1

The above sentence is FALSE.

Jeez Louise man, that's its defining property. Of course it's true. Congrats on finding a Wolfram bug but that's all you did. Take phi = (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2 and work it out by hand...

Perhaps you need to change your criterion.

Relative to your previous location in spacetime.

Relative to whose observation?

Not quite...

And follow-up with nothing to support?

Time is relatively "scalar" to a human being, thus s³/t wherein t = 1.
The only possible displacement(s) from here are contained in s³ as 3D space.
If/when s/t³ and s = 1, all displacements are contained in t³.

Time is cyclic, thus time implies circle. The solar calendar is a circle.

Indeed. It requires you to understand time. Do you understand time?

Time is an aspect of motion. 3rd time.
In terms of a circle(s) surrounding a human being:



The Age of Pisces contains two fish: 'to know' and 'to believe' and thus
the Piscean Age is a division between 'believer vs. unbeliever'.
Judaism/Christianity/Islam, and hundreds of millions abused/dead.
Humanity is still in saturated with this division,
however I doubt you have any such regard.

I am on the quantum information bandwagon. Which happens to correspond to Linear logic.
I am also on the computer science/distributed systems engineering bandwagon. Which happens to correspond to Geometry of Interaction.

Cult of quantum? Just a FYI, quantum mechanics is a cult, a paralyzed-upon-birth child of GR.

We study this thing which you claim is of great import/desirable to a system. Consensus.

Consensus is certainly not desirable - truth is, which sometimes (often) escapes consensus especially nowadays.

[Skepdick]

I don't acknowledge 0 as anything, so 0=0 reads
"nothing is equal to nothing" which is redundant, whereas
"nothing is not equal to nothing" is nonsense.

Way to miss the point.

Where does 1=1 become 1≠1 ?
Where does Φ = Φ become Φ≠Φ?
Where does x = x become x≠x?

Perhaps the notation is getting in your way of understanding.
Let me re-word it in functional notation.

Where does equal(x, x) transition from True to False?

or in S-notation....Where does (eq x x) become (!(eq x x)) ?

Give me the smallest possible quantity I can add to LHS or RHS to render the equality false.
Where is the discontinuity in the equality function?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/define

All of those definitions are circular. They are using undefined words to define 'define'.

Do you have a word that doesn't require a definition? That would be a good place to start...

I have one of those. The word "I". Seeming as we are both using it...

Pick any one you want - my usage agrees with all of them.

Ohhh. We are talking about utility, not truth? That's a different story.

What do you USE words for?

Space and time are quantifiable discrete units:
1 unit of space per 1 unit of time.

Interesting. How do you measure 1 "unit of space"? Show me your yardstick.

There is no difference anyways: numbers are symbolic,
space and time are naturally reciprocally related, thus
need no such function. They are already functions of one another.

And functions? Are functions symbolic too? If space and time are functions of one another, then it sounds to me as if you are admitting that functions exist a priori.

What are functions anyway?

You use logic that returns Φ*Φ=Φ+1 as 'false'.

I am using a logic that can return either true or false. Which one do you want?
In the system you call 'arithmetic' it's true.

But why did you choose that particular system? Why not another system?

I am calling it 'false' because it's incomplete. There is another number (while I am running out of greek letters, I'll call it Skep)

Skep is ( 1 - √5)/2

Why did you choose Φ? Why didn't you choose Skep?

Perhaps you need to change your criterion.

By what criteria might one change their criterion?

Relative to whose observation?

Yours.

And follow-up with nothing to support?

The SI units of time are no longer based on the Earth's rotation around the sun? That is its historic definition. Do you not know this?

Time is relatively "scalar" to a human being, thus s³/t wherein t = 1.

That's useless! I already asked you what your speed/velocity was and you still haven't answered me!

So are you deriving time from velocity or velocity from time. Make up your mind.

The only possible displacement(s) from here are contained in s³ as 3D space.
If/when s/t³ and s = 1, all displacements are contained in t³.

OK. Do you know when s = 1? Because you still haven't told me what your velocity is.

Relative to your prior position in space time, as observed by you.

Define 'now'.

Time is cyclic, thus time implies circle. The solar calendar is a circle.

Time is not cyclic - it's a vector. Entropy is always increasing.

If time was circular you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 'past' and 'future'

Time is an aspect of motion. 3rd time.

3rd time also: If you are in motion (and you are) then what is your velocity?!?

Cult of quantum? Just a FYI, quantum mechanics is a cult, a paralyzed-upon-birth child of GR.

It is pertinently obvious to me that you don't understand the distinction between context dependence and context independence.
Have a look

GR and QFT have domains of applicability! QFT is the theory of small scale phenomena. GR is the theory of large scale phenomena.

For as long as you keep pretending that you have to ignore QFT because you can't reconcile it with GR you will forever remain ignorant of the notion of scale invariance.

Consensus is certainly not desirable - truth is, which sometimes (often) escapes consensus especially nowadays.

Your wish is my command.

1 = 1 is not True.
1 ≠ 1 is True.

The LHS has different coordinates in spacetime to the RHS.

No actually: knowing the degrees to which any symbol is limited marks the point whereupon one does not jump on some bandwagon thus such discernment is the active negation of it.

So I am going to paraphrase you slightly....

Knowing the degrees to which any LANGUAGE (not symbol - symbols don't mean anything) is limited marks the point whereupon one does not jump on some bandwagon thus such discernment is the active negation of it.

Linguistics. You need it. If you don't grok it, you are on a bandwagon. The algebra or C*-algebra bandwagon, but you are on a bandwagon.

To get off the bandwagon you need to learn to discern grammar, syntax and semantics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_grammar

[nothing]

...

where is the discontinuity in the equality function?

The notation is getting in the way of my caring:
I don't care to argue over notation, as the universe is not notation,
or a program called Wolfram that finds inequality in Φ*Φ=Φ+1.

YOU, yourself, as an autonomous human being, should have intuited
Φ*Φ=Φ+1 is obviously true, as was pointed out to you.

It doesn't matter the notation, syntax or systems to which it applies: it is notation
the use of which only extends to the same degree to which one themselves relies on it.

All of those definitions are circular. They are using undefined words to define 'define'.

Do you have a word that doesn't require a definition? That would be a good place to start...

I have one of those. The word "I". Seeming as we are both using it...

"I" is both self-referencing and self-contained, as in a torus field
and thus is defined locally by the choices made, conscious or not.

It's like suffering: it begins locally, ends locally.
People who suffer, invariably suffer themselves.

The problem is when the suffering of "I" is perceived to be due to "other":
think Adam blaming Eve for his own eating of the tree. Think Cain
comparing himself to Abel, growing enmity, and desire to spill blood.

Does it take a "believer" to "believe" their own ignorance-induced suffering is someone else's fault? Yes/no question.

Ohhh. We are talking about utility, not truth? That's a different story.

What do you USE words for?

Truth and utility need not be severed from one another.

I use words to transact - they serve as a means of exchange.

Interesting. How do you measure 1 "unit of space"? Show me your yardstick.

If I do that you'll become exceedingly envious -
why do you want to see my yardstick anyways?

Do you want to measure it yourself?

What are functions anyway?

"Function" is just a word.
The word function implies a relation between the concerned object/subject(s).

In the case of space / time they "function" as merely aspects of motion,
are measured in discrete units (as speed and/or velocity) thus v = s/t.

If/when setting the speed of light c to 1
v = 1/1 describes light. This is also unity
as all physical phenomena are particular
displacements therefrom such that v ≠ 1/1.

I am using a logic that can return either true or false. Which one do you want?
In the system you call 'arithmetic' it's true.

But why did you choose that particular system? Why not another system?

I am calling it 'false' because it's incomplete. There is another number (while I am running out of greek letters, I'll call it Skep)

Skep is ( 1 - √5)/2

Why did you choose Φ? Why didn't you choose Skep?

Before Skep was Φ, thus Skep relies on Φ for its own existence.

What line is to Φ, curve is to π. Modern-day humanity does not understand the relation
but these two are all that is needed to model the observable universe, because all
is expressed as discrete units of motion. s/t = speed wherein t/s = energy.

By what criteria might one change their criterion?

It's your own choice, mine is whatever agrees with the physical universe.
That entails knowing what to and not to believe regarding mainstream "science".

Relative to whose observation?

Yours.

Unchanged.

The SI units of time are no longer based on the Earth's rotation around the sun? That is its historic definition. Do you not know this?

I don't know what "SI" units are. The earth's rotation around the sun is motion, not time. Time is a human construct.

However, if you understand that this motion produces a recurring cycle, you might understand time is cyclic (ie. circular)
on any scale: daily, yearly, great yearly, great-great-yearly etc. and on each "now" moment, all are aligned in the local "I"
to each their own, according to their own orientation/impetus, according to their own pace, according to their own conscious.

That's useless! I already asked you what your speed/velocity was and you still haven't answered me!

So are you deriving time from velocity or velocity from time. Make up your mind.

velocity requires both s/t, the reciprocal being energy.
What exists as velocity in the s³/t domain has a proportional energy representation in the t³/s domain.

OK. Do you know when s = 1? Because you still haven't told me what your velocity is.

Relative to your prior position in space time, as observed by you.

Define 'now'.

all

Time is not cyclic - it's a vector. Entropy is always increasing.

If time was circular you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 'past' and 'future'

A vector is a mathematical construct (psst, so is time) used to model.

Most people can not tell the difference between past and future.

“So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
-'The Great Gatsby' by F. Scott Fitzgerald

3rd time also: If you are in motion (and you are) then what is your velocity?!?

Relative to myself: unchanged. You can't change your own velocity in time, only orientation.



You "go" either way. The question is which direction.

This "cycle" of humanity is still far too ignorant to see it.

It is pertinently obvious to me that you don't understand the distinction between context dependence and context independence.
Have a look

GR and QFT have domains of applicability! QFT is the theory of small scale phenomena. GR is the theory of large scale phenomena.

For as long as you keep pretending that you have to ignore QFT because you can't reconcile it with GR you will forever remain ignorant of the notion of scale invariance.

You sound like a religious fanatic defending a Bible.

You don't need Relativity or QM to model the universe: only to distort them.
They can't be reconciled because they are false.

The barrier is hubris - the grant seekers will never admit their mistakes, because their livelihoods rely on them.

Your wish is my command.

1 = 1 is not True.
1 ≠ 1 is True.

The LHS has different coordinates in spacetime to the RHS.

It's not possible (in this universe) for the LHS to have anything
but the multiplicative reciprocal of RHS if/when c = 1.

s²/t² x t²/s² = 1

You can do whatever else you wish: it's not relevant.

So I am going to paraphrase you slightly....

Knowing the degrees to which any LANGUAGE (not symbol - symbols don't mean anything) is limited marks the point whereupon one does not jump on some bandwagon thus such discernment is the active negation of it.

Linguistics. You need it. If you don't grok it, you are on a bandwagon. The algebra or C*-algebra bandwagon, but you are on a bandwagon.

To get off the bandwagon you need to learn to discern grammar, syntax and semantics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_grammar

"symbols don't mean anything"

is telling - of course they do. That is why they exist: to impart a meaning, if not as imbued by the designer, as taken by the receiver.

Symbols are a kind of language: they impart meaning. To sever symbols from language entirely is rather egregiously bigoted.

To say they don't have meaning is the same as saying the one who designed the symbol did not have any "meaningful" motivation/will/intent such to give rise to that symbol.

[Skepdick]

The notation is getting in the way of my caring:
I don't care to argue over notation, as the universe is not notation,
or a program called Wolfram that finds inequality in Φ*Φ=Φ+1.

And that's why you are on a bandwagon.

Mathematics is notation. It's all that it is. Grammar and syntax.

YOU, yourself, as an autonomous human being, should have intuited
Φ*Φ=Φ+1 is obviously true, as was pointed out to you.

This is an appeal to purity - No True Scotsman fallacy.

As a human being I can intuit that it can be either true OR false.
Because I can construct a logical system to assert either one. Which system is the 'correct' system?
Shall we ask The Universe?

It doesn't matter the notation, syntax or systems to which it applies: it is notation
the use of which only extends to the same degree to which one themselves relies on it.

Did The Universe tell you that?

"I" is both self-referencing and self-contained, as in a torus field
and thus is defined locally by the choices made, conscious or not.

Great. So you should have no problem telling me why you chose the number Phi over Skep; or the system of algebra over the system of geometry?

In general - you should have no problem justifying your axiomatic choices.

Truth and utility need not be severed from one another.

But if they are adjoined, they still need be distinguished.

I use words to transact - they serve as a means of exchange.

Is that the same way you use formal words also?

If I do that you'll become exceedingly envious -
why do you want to see my yardstick anyways?

Do you want to measure it yourself?

Naturally! Science cares about reproduction. If we are using different yardsticks - we will obtain different measurements.

We need to be able to "exchange" yardsticks. You inspect mine - I inspect yours.

"Function" is just a word.
The word function implies a relation between the concerned object/subject(s).

That's rather vague. What kind of relation? There's a relation between apples and chickens too.

In the case of space / time they "function" as merely aspects of motion,
are measured in discrete units (as speed and/or velocity) thus v = s/t.

And what is motion a function of?

Before Skep was Φ, thus Skep relies on Φ for its own existence.

No it doesn't.

Φ is (1 + √5)/2
Skep is (1 - √5)/2

They are complementary, as solutions to f(x) = x*x - x - 1 = 0

Bloody functions again! Where do they come from ?!?!?!

What line is to Φ, curve is to π. Modern-day humanity does not understand the relation

But you do. Why can't you explain it?

but these two are all that is needed to model the observable universe, because all
is expressed as discrete units of motion. s/t = speed wherein t/s = energy.

Those sound like functions...

It's your own choice, mine is whatever agrees with the physical universe.
That entails knowing what to and not to believe regarding mainstream "science".

So how would I go about testing if your yardstick agrees with the physical universe?

Trivially: show me how to use it.

Unchanged.

So you can't distinguish between the past, present and future? It's all the same to you?

I don't know what "SI" units are. The earth's rotation around the sun is motion, not time. Time is a human construct.

So is motion. Motion is change.

However, if you understand that this motion produces a recurring cycle, you might understand time is cyclic (ie. circular)

So when will yesterday arrive again?

velocity requires both s/t, the reciprocal being energy.
What exists as velocity in the s³/t domain has a proportional energy representation in the t³/s domain.

So now we have multiple domains? But there is only one universe!!!

Why do you need multiple domains to describe a single universe?

all

Your velocity is ALL velocities? What am I to make of this?

A vector is a mathematical construct (psst, so is time) used to model.

So is energy. So is motion. So is space. They are all human constructs.

Most people can not tell the difference between past and future.

I am not asking "most people". I am asking you.

Can you tell that yesterday is not tomorrow?

Relative to myself: unchanged. You can't change your own velocity in time, only orientation.

I didn't ask you to tell me whether your velocity is changed or unchanged. I asked you to tell me what it is.

Quantify it.

You "go" either way. The question is which direction.

I am pretty sure we are going the same way as the arrow. Entropy.

You sound like a religious fanatic defending a Bible.

Really? I thought I sound more like a fanatic attacking a Bible. Your Bible.

The barrier is hubris - the grant seekers will never admit their mistakes, because their livelihoods rely on them.

Good thing I fund my own research then, eh? I incur my own losses and I source my own capital.

It's not possible (in this universe) for the LHS to have anything
but the multiplicative reciprocal of RHS if/when c = 1.

OK. What's the smallest possible quantity that would make c anything other than 1?

s²/t² x t²/s² = 1

You can do whatever else you wish: it's not relevant.

That's a truism. It's symmetrical - it says nothing

"symbols don't mean anything"

is telling - of course they do.

Just a few posts ago you told me you don't use denotational semantics, now you rooting for them. Make up your mind?

That is why they exist: to impart a meaning, if not as imbued by the designer, as taken by the receiver.

Naturally. There's the intended meaning and the received meaning.

Symbols are a kind of language: they impart meaning. To sever symbols from language entirely is rather egregiously bigoted.

To claim that I am severing symbols from languages is a strawman. Symbols make up language.

But a language is more than the sum of its symbols. That's by model-theoretic definition.

To say they don't have meaning is the same as saying the one who designed the symbol did not have any "meaningful" motivation/will/intent such to give rise to that symbol.

To claim that they have meaning is to sign yourself up for a demonstration.

What does the symbol ˥ mean ?

[nothing]

...

If there are questions inside of this, pick 3 as I am not going through a broken-up mess.

[Skepdick]

If there are questions inside of this, pick 3 as I am not going through a broken-up mess.

No sweat.

You seem to have gone as deep as you care to in your own understanding

Just short of dismantling your religion.

[nothing]

If there are questions inside of this, pick 3 as I am not going through a broken-up mess.

No sweat.

You seem to have gone as deep as you care to in your own understanding

Just short of dismantling your religion.

I don't mind deep - I can go as deep as needed,
including to the simplex geometry of the universe
however not by way of a fragmented tit-for-tat means
which is very childish and generally fruitless:
nobody wants to sift through such childishness
to find small pieces of real dialogue.

That's why I said pick 3 questions, and note you did not,
otherwise happy to address.

[Skepdick]

I don't mind deep - I can go as deep as needed,
including to the simplex geometry of the universe

Then go as deep as is needed to figure out why you keep projecting your mind's grammar for "the geometry of the universe".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

That's why I said pick 3 questions, and note you did not,
otherwise happy to address.

I've asked you the questions multiple times. You keep avoiding them.

1. Why have you chosen the axioms that you have chosen?
2. What is your velocity relative to your prior location in spacetime?
3. You claimed that symbols have meaning, so I asked you what the symbol ˥ means ?

[nothing]

Then go as deep as is needed to figure out why you keep projecting your mind's grammar for "the geometry of the universe".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

Please stop throwing accusations/wiki links at me - the geometry of the universe does not rely on grammar.
However the geometry itself is "projective", so I'm covered either way .

That's why I said pick 3 questions, and note you did not,
otherwise happy to address.

I've asked you the questions multiple times. You keep avoiding them.

1. Why have you chosen the axioms that you have chosen?
2. What is your velocity relative to your prior location in spacetime?
3. You claimed that symbols have meaning, so I asked you what the symbol ˥ means ?

1. I don't "choose" axioms - I choose to follow/accept whatever is true (and ignore what I know is clearly not).
2. I already answered this before: unchanged after asking you to clarify the reference point, to which you replied "yourself".
3. What is it? It looks like either the 6th letter of the Hebrew aleph-beis "vav" or a musical tone severed from manuscript. In either case, just picking a random symbol absent a context only proves how little you know about symbols, as I study them for a living. I will give you a hint: they require a context which lends itself to their existence. For example the Christian cross "means" something because there is a context.

Now let me ask you three, and you can reciprocate.

1. Does the universe rely on (use of) any human language (incl. logic) to function?
2. Is it possible to develop/employ a language which does not describe the physical universe?
3. Does all belief-based ignorance occur due to there being some 'state' of belief?

I may shortly be making a new thread that corrects the "value" of π - still deciding whether or not I should, as
too many people are indoctrinated and will not even consider how "wrong" the current π is, due to 'belief'.
In case I do, that was the reason for the 3rd question: so you can see how 'correct' my anticipation of the same is.

[Skepdick]

Please stop throwing accusations/wiki links at me - the geometry of the universe does not rely on grammar.

Mathematics is a GRAMMAR.

If the universe does not rely on a grammar, then don't use Mathematics to describe it.

However the geometry itself is "projective", so I'm covered either way.

If you are right, you are right. And if you are wrong, you are also right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

1. I don't "choose" axioms - I choose to follow/accept whatever is true (and ignore what I know is clearly not).

So which axiomatic truths have you chosen to follow? Which Bandwagon are you on?

2. I already answered this before: unchanged after asking you to clarify the reference point, to which you replied "yourself".

So your velocity is 0? There is no distinction between past and present?

3. What is it? It looks like either the 6th letter of the Hebrew aleph-beis "vav" or a musical tone severed from manuscript. In either case, just picking a random symbol absent a context only proves how little you know about symbols, as I study them for a living.

It doesn't matter what it is. I am asking you what it means. You said symbols have meaning. I gave you a symbol - now you can't tell me what it means.

I will give you a hint: they require a context which lends itself to their existence. For example the Christian cross "means" something because there is a context.

I KNOW!!!! That's why I keep pointing you to Context-free and context-sensitive grammars!!!

1. Does the universe rely on (use of) any human language (incl. logic) to function?

I don't know and I can't know. But everything we SAY about the universe is said in a human language. The universe doesn't even need "to function".
That's your description of it.

2. Is it possible to develop/employ a language which does not describe the physical universe?

Yes. No language describes the physical universe. All language describes the structure of human experiences when experiencing the physical universe.

3. Does all belief-based ignorance occur due to there being some 'state' of belief?

I have no idea what this means.

I may shortly be making a new thread that corrects the "value" of π

You can't correct "the value of π" because you don't know what its value is. All you have is approximations

[nothing]

...

It is very difficult to reply when you break up line-for-line: can you not parse and reply generally to what is most important?

There is nothing wrong with using mathematics to describe the universe, or anything for that matter. The only problem is if/when the same is either falsely constructed and/or falsely interpreted. The closest thing that comes to an "axiom" in my own perception relates to the third question I asked which you did not even understand. Clearly: it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true, thus "belief" is a factor which is liable to invert perception. This would not occur less a state of "belief" such to cause the confusion.

Velocity relative to myself is ever-unchanged, and there is no such thing as past and future: they are constructs, still invariably contained in the present (ie. the "past" is the necessary soil-bed for now, "now" is the necessary soil-bed for any possible contingent future etc.).

Knowing what a symbol is matters, especially if the same symbol is used in different ways and/or can be confused easily with other usages. That you selectively ignore this in effort to find ways to undermine is to your detriment, not mine.

Concerning 1, the answer is no - the universe does not rely on use of human language to function at all.
Concerning 2, the answer is yes, though not for the reason you provided, which is incorrect.
Concerning 3, see above.

Concerning π, I can correct the value of π because it is not an approximation: it is a precise geometric relationship expressed as an integer over an irrational number. It is true that all humanity has is a polygon approximation, but my method does not use any such straight lines, given using a straight line can only give a mere approximation and never the precise "value" (which is actually just a relationship).

[Skepdick]

It is very difficult to reply when you break up line-for-line: can you not parse and reply generally to what is most important?

Everything is equally important. I am a logician - completeness matters.

There is nothing wrong with using mathematics to describe the universe, or anything for that matter. The only problem is if/when the same is either falsely constructed and/or falsely interpreted. The closest thing that comes to an "axiom" in my own perception relates to the third question I asked which you did not even understand.

You are doing algebra. You've accepted a bunch of axioms implicitly.

Clearly: it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true, thus "belief" is a factor which is liable to invert perception. This would not occur less a state of "belief" such to cause the confusion.

No idea what this means.

Velocity relative to myself is ever-unchanged, and there is no such thing as past and future

OK, so you disregard/reject the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the arrow of time?

Concerning 1, the answer is no - the universe does not rely on use of human language to function at all.

That's what I said. Only you are the one ascribing the adjective "functioning" to the universe.

Concerning 2, the answer is yes, though not for the reason you provided, which is incorrect.

Empiricism is incorrect? Well then! You must have some superpowers that none of us, humans, do.

Concerning π, I can correct the value of π because it is not an approximation: it is a precise geometric relationship expressed as an integer over an irrational number.

Q.E.D you don't know what the value of an irrational number is. All you have is approximations.

[nothing]

...

Everything is equally important. I am a logician - completeness matters.

Well you certainly believe you are a logician:

No idea what this means.

gives it away.

OK, so you disregard/reject the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the arrow of time?

I don't see how the 2nd applies to the non-isolated (ie. "human") mechanism, and "yes" to the second.
Human beings can become ordered from chaos, if the latter can even be said to exist empirically.

Concerning π, it is possible to know what the "value" of an irrational number is: I used "" the first time I brought it up as well because it is not actually a "value" that is important, it is the relationship which is not captured by approximations, thus is not an approximation. A whole integer over an irrational is not an approximation, it is exact because there is no actual "value", only a relationship, which is a quality as much as a quantity (if not moreso/exclusively). In this case, four about the irrational produces a precise π which is not an approximation.

[Skepdick]

Well you certainly believe you are a logician:

Well, you are certainly projecting belief onto me.

I don't have any beliefs - I haven no use for them. I have a toolbox of instruments and various mental models that help me attain my goals.

Human beings can become ordered from chaos, if the latter can even be said to exist empirically.

Entropy is not chaos... common error.

Concerning π, it is possible to know what the "value" of an irrational number

No, it isn't. It's only possible to know approximations of an irrational number. Its exact value is beyond your reach.

is: I used "" the first time I brought it up as well because it is not actually a "value" that is important, it is the relationship which is not captured by approximations, thus is not an approximation.

Everything that you think is "the value" of π is only a representation of it.

A whole integer over an irrational is not an approximation, it is exact because there is no actual "value", only a relationship,

There is nothing "exact" about 1/√5 - it's just an expression. It has no value until you evaluate it. Like 2+2 is an expression which evaluates to 4.

which is a quality as much as a quantity (if not moreso/exclusively). In this case, four about the irrational produces a precise π which is not an approximation.

There's nothing "precise" about the symbol π either. It's diameter relative to radius - you are just juggling symbols. give me an exact, numerical quantity.