Is a Perfect Circle Real?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:44 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:21 am
But additive and subtractive is what defines carving....

Whatever, you make no sense as usual, to address your point directly:

But Heraclitus keeps repeating the word river....his argument is built around a looping variable. You cannot affect the same river because there are multiple rivers: this necessitates river is a constant that occurs through continual variation...it becomes a platonic form.

A river is a boundary of movement, a quality. All qualities are continuums of progressive change. The quality of a horse are the movements that compose a horse. The same applies for any phenomenon. A circle is a quality as it is both composed of and composed further circles.

Hercilclitus was only half right.
As usual you are messing things up.

I can argue there is no river in the first place, or a river is merely an illusion in a way - as such Heraclitus should have shut up!

Thus the point doesn't exist at all, at which case there is no mess up...:).
As usual, you messed the point up by conflating irrelevant points.
What Heraclitus was referring to are strictly confined to phenomena only.
Heraclitus point was to convey the point 'Change is the only constant' and change is subjected to the human condition.
What you don't understand in this case is, the statement was qualified to the principle of change and permanence, i.e. the only constant is change.

But the constant change...is a river. Heraclitus contradicts himself through contradiction being a constant "boundary of division" from one phenomena and another. In these respects there are constants with the line as contradictive, dividing one phenomena from another, as necessitating universal forms.

Curvature is constant and omnipresent.

1. A glass half of water and half of air observes a define line between them, the same occurs with the glass itself.

2. A leaf in the air observes curvature separating them.

3. The basic yin/yang simple observes this curvature separating light from dark, with this observed with any horizon during dawn or dusk.

4. Etc.
You got it wrong.
What Heraclitus implied in this case is water in a river is always flowing and assumed the river-bed and river side are the same.
As such at every nano-second the river is a different river because the flowing water is not the same at the spot the person is stepping into.
Therefore on this basis one cannot step into the same river twice.
Strictly on the above basis, Heraclitus is right is demonstrating non-permanence and change is the only constant.

In the above example, there are so many other points that we can bring in, e.g. the river bed, the dept, the speed, and river side are also constantly changing. As mentioned we can bring in Quantum Physics, etc. but that is not the point.

If you use curvature as an example, then,
a curvature like a river is not the same and permanent all the time.
Whatever the curvature it is changing all the time due to changing circumstances.
The curvature observed in a glass of water is due to surface tension subject to time, location and the related material, the slightest evaporation of water molecules would have change curvature x to curvature y.
Again what is constant is change.
Heraclitus statement is valid within the qualified and appropriate context the statement is made.
If Heraclitus has studied Quantum Physics, he would have stated "a thing can be either a particle or wave" to reflect non-permanence and reality is conditional.

But it is not valid if taken out of context, and if all changes according to context then heralictus is also wrong and "negates" himself...he is subject to a negation of negation.

Context is constant form, as context requires a self referential loop that separates one phenomena from another. To say "dog is dog" separates it from the loop of "cat is cat" or "red is red", but all of these distinctintly seperate loops are still loops.

They are seperate by there intrinsic emptiness on one hand, but United in their circular nature of repetition within repetition as repetition.

Hericlitus is half right.
Why are you so stupid?
Heraclitus point is within a certain context to demonstrate there is no permanence in phenomena.
Heraclitus is right is demonstrating impermanence and change is the only constant with his implied context.
What is expected of you in this case is to prove the river one step in is always the same river, there is absolute permanence in phenomena, and change is not the only constant.

You are really stupid in going off tangent.
I suspect you are autistic with with a weak 'theory of mind' thus you are always going off tangent.

I have to agree with Sculptor in this case;

"There is no doubt you are bat shit crazy.
Bye bye"

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5038
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:12 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:21 am
But additive and subtractive is what defines carving....

Whatever, you make no sense as usual, to address your point directly:

But Heraclitus keeps repeating the word river....his argument is built around a looping variable. You cannot affect the same river because there are multiple rivers: this necessitates river is a constant that occurs through continual variation...it becomes a platonic form.

A river is a boundary of movement, a quality. All qualities are continuums of progressive change. The quality of a horse are the movements that compose a horse. The same applies for any phenomenon. A circle is a quality as it is both composed of and composed further circles.

Hercilclitus was only half right.
As usual you are messing things up.

I can argue there is no river in the first place, or a river is merely an illusion in a way - as such Heraclitus should have shut up!

So branching patterns do not repeat constantly in all physical and abstract phenomena? Hericlitus was half right.

Thus the point doesn't exist at all, at which case there is no mess up...:).
As usual, you messed the point up by conflating irrelevant points.
What Heraclitus was referring to are strictly confined to phenomena only.
Heraclitus point was to convey the point 'Change is the only constant' and change is subjected to the human condition.

Thus change as "subject to" the human condition makes the human condition precede it as a constant?
What you don't understand in this case is, the statement was qualified to the principle of change and permanence, i.e. the only constant is change.

But the constant change...is a river. Heraclitus contradicts himself through contradiction being a constant "boundary of division" from one phenomena and another. In these respects there are constants with the line as contradictive, dividing one phenomena from another, as necessitating universal forms.

Curvature is constant and omnipresent.

1. A glass half of water and half of air observes a define line between them, the same occurs with the glass itself.

2. A leaf in the air observes curvature separating them.

3. The basic yin/yang simple observes this curvature separating light from dark, with this observed with any horizon during dawn or dusk.

4. Etc.
You got it wrong.
What Heraclitus implied in this case is water in a river is always flowing and assumed the river-bed and river side are the same.
As such at every nano-second the river is a different river because the flowing water is not the same at the spot the person is stepping into.
Therefore on this basis one cannot step into the same river twice.
Strictly on the above basis, Heraclitus is right is demonstrating non-permanence and change is the only constant.

So if the river bed and sides are the same, not all things change?



In the above example, there are so many other points that we can bring in, e.g. the river bed, the dept, the speed, and river side are also constantly changing. As mentioned we can bring in Quantum Physics, etc. but that is not the point.

If you use curvature as an example, then,
a curvature like a river is not the same and permanent all the time.

But curvature is the constant, it is the loop which forms all phenomenon.


Whatever the curvature it is changing all the time due to changing circumstances.
The curvature observed in a glass of water is due to surface tension subject to time, location and the related material, the slightest evaporation of water molecules would have change curvature x to curvature y.
Again what is constant is change.

And these changes are multiple constants.
Heraclitus statement is valid within the qualified and appropriate context the statement is made.
If Heraclitus has studied Quantum Physics, he would have stated "a thing can be either a particle or wave" to reflect non-permanence and reality is conditional.

But they both repeat thus are constants.



But it is not valid if taken out of context, and if all changes according to context then heralictus is also wrong and "negates" himself...he is subject to a negation of negation.

Context is constant form, as context requires a self referential loop that separates one phenomena from another. To say "dog is dog" separates it from the loop of "cat is cat" or "red is red", but all of these distinctintly seperate loops are still loops.

They are seperate by there intrinsic emptiness on one hand, but United in their circular nature of repetition within repetition as repetition.

Hericlitus is half right.
Why are you so stupid?
Heraclitus point is within a certain context to demonstrate there is no permanence in phenomena.

But context is constant and that context is determined by limits which are fundamentally empty in and of themselves: "Curvature as Contextual Looping" thread.
Heraclitus is right is demonstrating impermanence and change is the only constant with his implied context.

He is half right and as half right there is another side of the argument.
What is expected of you in this case is to prove the river one step in is always the same river, there is absolute permanence in phenomena, and change is not the only constant.

River is an archetypal form of an inherent "branching" form...it is an archetype of an archetype...both one and many archetypes.

River is subject to multiple phenomenon:

Blood
Electricity
Emotion
Oil
Etc.


You are really stupid in going off tangent.
I suspect you are autistic with with a weak 'theory of mind' thus you are always going off tangent.

I have to agree with Sculptor in this case;

"There is no doubt you are bat shit crazy.
Bye bye"

Who cares...one mans stupid is another's genius, ones genius is another's stupid...there really isn't much of a difference when both are under the context of extremes.

But they again you argue logic and reason, yet your whole stance is grounded in equivocation through quantification...

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:44 am

The issue is simply a case of mixing epistemic issues with ontological issues.

If we can frame ‘real’ as not necessarily ‘reality’ then you might make headway into stating the obvious.

A circle is REAL but no perfect circle can EXIST. Abstract ideas are ... well, abstract. Any argument against such is a semantic issue and the poor evasive game of someone purposefully talking cross-purposes in order to reveal this (as the Doe is doing).

Numbers are ‘real’ but we don’t bump into the number ‘1’ whilst walking down a street. I don’t understand how anyone could get mixed up about this on a philosophy forum tbh?

Note: I have some stupid ideas about why I am stupid ... does that make me smart? :P

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:57 am

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:44 am
The issue is simply a case of mixing epistemic issues with ontological issues.

If we can frame ‘real’ as not necessarily ‘reality’ then you might make headway into stating the obvious.

A circle is REAL but no perfect circle can EXIST. Abstract ideas are ... well, abstract. Any argument against such is a semantic issue and the poor evasive game of someone purposefully talking cross-purposes in order to reveal this (as the Doe is doing).

Numbers are ‘real’ but we don’t bump into the number ‘1’ whilst walking down a street. I don’t understand how anyone could get mixed up about this on a philosophy forum tbh?

Note: I have some stupid ideas about why I am stupid ... does that make me smart? :P
That is my point;
"A circle is REAL but no perfect circle can EXIST"

"A creator is REAL but there is NO Perfect Creator who created the Universe.

The parallel above is to support my thread, i.e.

A God [perfect] is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:37 am

The waffle about ‘noumenon’ is ill conceived then. If your aim was to find people who use the terms ‘exist’ and ‘real’ differently then that’s fine.

In whatever way you’re attempting to use ‘noumenon’ it’s unconventional to me. Anyway, we agree on the main point ... boring. If anyone doesn’t they’re simply arguing semantics or being purposefully pedantic to irritate.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:10 am

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 8:37 am
The waffle about ‘noumenon’ is ill conceived then. If your aim was to find people who use the terms ‘exist’ and ‘real’ differently then that’s fine.

In whatever way you’re attempting to use ‘noumenon’ it’s unconventional to me. Anyway, we agree on the main point ... boring. If anyone doesn’t they’re simply arguing semantics or being purposefully pedantic to irritate.
When I used the term 'noumenon' it has to be in the Kantian sense as defined and explained in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

The term noumenon is so specific and sublime in the Kantian sense that to use the term 'noumenon' outside Kant's philosophy would be very ineffective.

If anyone want to use the 'noumenon' outside of Kant's philosophy, it would be more efficient to use a new term and explain the meaning they intended for it.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:43 am

Well, I hate to be the one to tell you but you’re misusing it. Sorry :(

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:45 am

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:43 am
Well, I hate to be the one to tell you but you’re misusing it. Sorry :(
Whatever your feelings, the valid 'currency' in this forum is 'arguments'.
So provide your justifications and arguments to support your point.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:45 am
I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:43 am
Well, I hate to be the one to tell you but you’re misusing it. Sorry :(
Whatever your feelings, the valid 'currency' in this forum is 'arguments'.
So provide your justifications and arguments to support your point.
Sorry, I misread your OP. My bad. I was just about to dish out quotes too! Haha!

I was going to ... no point now :)

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 9:50 am

Noumenon is one of those terms so many people trip up on I’ve gotten used to seeing it misused. The distinction between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ noumenon is what usually evades most - it is extremely hard to nail down.

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:35 pm

If you could clarify the distinction between ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ noumenon’ it would probably have helped others understand a little better.

The difficulty of Kant’s terminology is that we cannot even speak of ‘positive’ noumenon. This is because we cannot speak of what we can never speak of, by definition. People often confuse confuse this with what is ‘out of reach’, what ‘might be conceived as possibly there’ and what ‘cannot even be contemplated’.

In short, if we can imagine something - by way of the limitations of our human faculties - it has some ‘existence’ (but not necessarily a physical existence - hence the common distinction used between ‘real’ and ‘exist’, and ‘reality’ and ‘existence’). Human comprehension is limited. If anyone accepts this they necessarily accept that ‘positive’ noumenon (knowing the-thing-itself) is nonsensical.

If you read your OP again you can probably see why I misread. It is certainly a powerful thing Kant pointed at, yet also a deeply obtuse idea to express in a simple manner.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by Atla » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:03 pm

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 3:35 pm
The difficulty of Kant’s terminology is that we cannot even speak of ‘positive’ noumenon. This is because we cannot speak of what we can never speak of, by definition. People often confuse confuse this with what is ‘out of reach’, what ‘might be conceived as possibly there’ and what ‘cannot even be contemplated’.
Then how did Kant integrate the 'positive' noumenon into his argument, when by definition it can't be integrated or used in any way?

Or do you mean that we can still speak of it in the abstract?

I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by I Like Sushu » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:26 pm

The issue comes into play when people claim to talk about things ‘beyond human comprehension’. Citing the such a possibility is delusional. They is literally nothing we can say beyond human comprehension ... ironically even what I’m writing is merely ‘negative’ noumenon.

Kant’s question in COPR was what we can ‘know’ prior to experience. In simple terms Kant framed ‘positive’ noumenon as a false claim by people who try to say they have experience of what is prior to experience. It may sound ridiculous but it’s a surprisingly easy trap to fall into without realising it.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by Atla » Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:49 pm

I Like Sushu wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 6:26 pm
The issue comes into play when people claim to talk about things ‘beyond human comprehension’. Citing the such a possibility is delusional. They is literally nothing we can say beyond human comprehension ... ironically even what I’m writing is merely ‘negative’ noumenon.

Kant’s question in COPR was what we can ‘know’ prior to experience. In simple terms Kant framed ‘positive’ noumenon as a false claim by people who try to say they have experience of what is prior to experience. It may sound ridiculous but it’s a surprisingly easy trap to fall into without realising it.
Yep we can't comprehend what we can't comprehend.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real?

Post by Atla » Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:54 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:52 am
Here is an explanation why 'Perfect Circle' cannot and is impossible to exist as real.

1. What is empirically real is confined to sensibility + understanding.
2. A perfect circle is noumenon [from Reason] that is beyond empirical "sensibility + understanding".
3. Therefore a perfect-circle is impossible to be real.

The realm of Sensibility + Understanding = real empirical things.
This how empirical things are derived from experiences.
Humans perceived things of all shapes, e.g. roundish ones.
From such observations and using understanding, the empirical concept of circle is abstracted with its various defined qualities.
In this case we can verify and know empirical circles existing as real.

However we have a faculty of Reason which can think of PERFECT CIRCLES and attributed it with a definition and qualities.
But the point while a Perfect circle as extrapolated from empirical circles, they are impossible to exists as real. There can NEVER be any absolute PERFECT Circles in the empirical world of sensibility + understanding.

Show me where can one find a real perfect_circle-in-itself?
The argument is related to Plato's ideas, forms and universals as real things that are independent of humans.
Thus a PERFECT circle can be thought of but cannot be really real in the empirical world.
The Perfect Circle is the noumenal-circle which a limit to what is a circle.
This is the principle of the Noumenon that is applicable a limit to all sensible and empirical things.

Here is the impossibility of a perfect circle in reality;
  • Mathematical Perfection
    Mathematically speaking, a circle is the set of points in a plane that are equidistant from a given point. For a circle to be perfect, you'd need all those points in the circle's circumference to match up exactly.
    And for all those points to match up exactly you'd need this precision to remain constant no matter how closely you looked: the particles, the cells, the atoms... And are these "points" stationary or are they in motion?
    The maddening search for perfection simply breaks down.

    Only in the abstract world of pure mathematics can we find our perfect circle -- a world of points and infinitely-thin lines with no room for particle inconsistencies or spherical oblateness.
    https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/blo ... iverse.htm
Forms From Beyond
The situation brings to mind Plato's Theory of Forms. We live in the material realm, it states, but beyond our plane exists an immaterial realm of ideal forms. You can think of these ideal forms as the absolute perfection of a given thing, a truth that cannot be manifested in our universe. All we can do is echo it.

In our world there is no true beauty, but we have an innate understanding and longing for the true form of beauty as it exists beyond the limits of our reality. There's no true justice here, but we have a sense of it because the unreachable ideal exists in the realm of forms.

The Theory of Forms applies to chairs, apples, fears, sex, art -- everything we can comprehend and long for, really. For each there is a godlike ideal beyond our worldly grasp, residing in a pantheon of other awesome and terrible forms.

The circle is but one of them, its perfection impossible in our imperfect world.

https://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/blo ... iverse.htm
My Point;
A Perfect Circle is impossible to exists as real, i.e. within the field of sensibility + understandng + rationality.

Any counter to the above?
A perfect circle is most likely an abstraction and does not actually exist in itself. But that's not what 'noumenal' means today, get a dictionary already.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Skepdick and 9 guests