Is a Perfect Circle Real?

[Dontaskme]

That is what a mental case, e.g. a schizo would insist.
To a schizo, it is self evident to her, the gnomes she talked to in the garden are real.
To the schizo, it is self-evident, so why need to proof it reality.

You are caught in the same situation like the schizo, that is why I recommend you consult a psychiatrist.

Ok if you say so then it must be true according to you.

But am I obligated to go along with that?

No.

I don't have to believe in order to be who I am, but in order to know who I am.. I have to believe.

To be or not to be ?? ...Fortunately I have evolved consciously to the point where I don't give a rats arse about knowing anything, I prefer the ultimate blissful freedom of not knowing.

Can't you just accept that ?

.

[Sculptor]

Generally the meaning of a circle refer to something which is circular, e.g.
"Draw a circle 30 centimetres in circumference."
I don't see how such a circle cannot exist empirically?
If we draw such a circle on paper, there is still a height to it represented by the molecules of the graphite particles of the pencil.

A circle is basically a geometry concept of a shape with precise defined measurements and qualities.

My point is an empirical circle, e.g. a drawn or constructed circle exists but the perfect circle as a mathematical concept cannot exists as real but only in the heads of subjects in consensus.



Except to the ignorant, it is obvious a sphere as defined with dented top and bottom cannot be a circular round object.

The circular round marble is a good example.
A perfect circular round marble is where any plane of the marble with its core center will have a circumference of a perfect circle.

A Circular round marbles exists empirically as real but it is impossible for a perfect circular round marbles to exist as real empirically and philosophically. This is because we will never find a marble where any plane measured will have its circumference as a perfect circle.

Note my point re marble above



My OP Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real is to support the point,

What is real are empirical things which can be justified with rationality and philosophy.
However as I had proven with the circle, a perfect circle is impossible to be real empirically within sensibility, understanding and rationality.
Just as a circle, no perfect empirical things can exist as real, i.e. impossible to be real.
Therefore a perfect God that can answer prayers, grant eternal life in heaven, etc. cannot exist are real [as defined] i.e. a perfect God is an impossibility to be real.

If I draw a picture of Gandalf, does not make Gandalf "REAL".
A picture of of a circle is just a picture. It is not a circle.

Drawing a circle is different from drawing a dog.
When drawing a picture of a circle on a piece of paper, the circle is represented by real graphite molecules or whatever material are used to draw the circle.

My use of a circle is merely an example.
It would be same with any empirical thing, i.e. a perfect empirical thing cannot exists independently by itself as real.

You are just so wrong. Even the graphite has depth.

Think about it.

[Eodnhoj7]

No.

No.

Go sculpt a statue and sell it a flee market.

1) Gibberish
A sculpture cannot buy a flea market.
2) It is spelled "flea", not flee.

No.

The word is spelled how I intend it to be spelled, apparently you have to carve out words now considering noone is buying the hollow little heads you produce...and yes people sell useless trinkets all the time (ie statues and sculptures) at "flee" markets.

[Sculptor]

No.

Go sculpt a statue and sell it a flee market.

1) Gibberish
A sculpture cannot buy a flea market.
2) It is spelled "flea", not flee.

No.

The word is spelled how I intend it to be spelled, apparently you have to carve out words now considering noone is buying the hollow little heads you produce...and yes people sell useless trinkets all the time (ie statues and sculptures) at "flee" markets.

You are still wrong.

[Eodnhoj7]

1) Gibberish
A sculpture cannot buy a flea market.
2) It is spelled "flea", not flee.

No.

The word is spelled how I intend it to be spelled, apparently you have to carve out words now considering noone is buying the hollow little heads you produce...and yes people sell useless trinkets all the time (ie statues and sculptures) at "flee" markets.

You are still wrong.

No.

Go carve a piece of clay.

[Eodnhoj7]

Generally the meaning of a circle refer to something which is circular, e.g.
"Draw a circle 30 centimetres in circumference."
I don't see how such a circle cannot exist empirically?
If we draw such a circle on paper, there is still a height to it represented by the molecules of the graphite particles of the pencil.

A circle is basically a geometry concept of a shape with precise defined measurements and qualities.

My point is an empirical circle, e.g. a drawn or constructed circle exists but the perfect circle as a mathematical concept cannot exists as real but only in the heads of subjects in consensus.



Except to the ignorant, it is obvious a sphere as defined with dented top and bottom cannot be a circular round object.

The circular round marble is a good example.
A perfect circular round marble is where any plane of the marble with its core center will have a circumference of a perfect circle.

A Circular round marbles exists empirically as real but it is impossible for a perfect circular round marbles to exist as real empirically and philosophically. This is because we will never find a marble where any plane measured will have its circumference as a perfect circle.

Note my point re marble above



My OP Re: Is a Perfect Circle Real is to support the point,

What is real are empirical things which can be justified with rationality and philosophy.
However as I had proven with the circle, a perfect circle is impossible to be real empirically within sensibility, understanding and rationality.
Just as a circle, no perfect empirical things can exist as real, i.e. impossible to be real.
Therefore a perfect God that can answer prayers, grant eternal life in heaven, etc. cannot exist are real [as defined] i.e. a perfect God is an impossibility to be real.

If I draw a picture of Gandalf, does not make Gandalf "REAL".
A picture of of a circle is just a picture. It is not a circle.

Drawing a circle is different from drawing a dog.
When drawing a picture of a circle on a piece of paper, the circle is represented by real graphite molecules or whatever material are used to draw the circle.

My use of a circle is merely an example.
It would be same with any empirical thing, i.e. a perfect empirical thing cannot exists independently by itself as real.

So the space from which particle moves from position A to position B is not a perfect line?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If I draw a picture of Gandalf, does not make Gandalf "REAL".
A picture of of a circle is just a picture. It is not a circle.

Drawing a circle is different from drawing a dog.
When drawing a picture of a circle on a piece of paper, the circle is represented by real graphite molecules or whatever material are used to draw the circle.

My use of a circle is merely an example.
It would be same with any empirical thing, i.e. a perfect empirical thing cannot exists independently by itself as real.

So the space from which particle moves from position A to position B is not a perfect line?

That is only in theory, i.e. ideally.
How can you demonstrate the Perfect line in reality?

[Eodnhoj7]

Drawing a circle is different from drawing a dog.
When drawing a picture of a circle on a piece of paper, the circle is represented by real graphite molecules or whatever material are used to draw the circle.

My use of a circle is merely an example.
It would be same with any empirical thing, i.e. a perfect empirical thing cannot exists independently by itself as real.

So the space from which particle moves from position A to position B is not a perfect line?

That is only in theory, i.e. ideally.
How can you demonstrate the Perfect line in reality?

You mean like you your theory which you have not demonstrated?

Or the imaginary nature of the scientific method as a process of spinning interpretations?

How do you demonstrate "reality" without falling under some empty assumption that is in both from and function no different than empty space?

[Veritas Aequitas]

So the space from which particle moves from position A to position B is not a perfect line?

That is only in theory, i.e. ideally.
How can you demonstrate the Perfect line in reality?

You mean like you your theory which you have not demonstrated?

Or the imaginary nature of the scientific method as a process of spinning interpretations?

How do you demonstrate "reality" without falling under some empty assumption that is in both from and function no different than empty space?

Which theory?

For 'God is an impossibility to be real' I have provided he relevant argument.
Do you have a counter to it?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

The scientific method is of an imaginary nature.
You have twisted the meaning of 'imaginary' in this case.
The scientific method is processed by real experiments and processes.
How can you be so ignorant of this.

Whatever is demonstrated as reality, this can be tested by anyone.
Say, the oncoming train is real, you can try standing in front of it if you doubt it is real.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is only in theory, i.e. ideally.
How can you demonstrate the Perfect line in reality?

You mean like you your theory which you have not demonstrated?

Or the imaginary nature of the scientific method as a process of spinning interpretations?

How do you demonstrate "reality" without falling under some empty assumption that is in both from and function no different than empty space?

Which theory?

For 'God is an impossibility to be real' I have provided he relevant argument.
Do you have a counter to it?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

The scientific method is of an imaginary nature.
You have twisted the meaning of 'imaginary' in this case.
The scientific method is processed by real experiments and processes.
How can you be so ignorant of this.

Whatever is demonstrated as reality, this can be tested by anyone.
Say, the oncoming train is real, you can try standing in front of it if you doubt it is real.

How have I twisted "imaginary" when all images are contexts of a greater whole and all experiments are contexts?

The method is made up, we did not find it scientifically without first admitting it is both a loop and onservation of loops. Loop at the history of science, it is a byproduct of evolution and as a bi product we will eventually evolve past certain forms of it.

The majority of experiments cannot be repeated by the general public due to advanced equipment and even the experiments, ones which alter contexts, are corporate funded and cherry picked...thus showing a conceptual bias. If something is to be measured according to x, y and a contexts, but only x is chosen...then this "fact" was cherry picked.

Most experiments do not occur because of financial and political ramifications as well as biases, thus most "facts" are effectively chosen.



That "oncoming train" is a metaphor....it is imaginary.



You do understand the number of deaths science is responsible for right? How much technical advancement we procured in the 20th century was through Nazi collaboration right?

Do you support fascism? And the extinguishing of ideologies and races?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You mean like you your theory which you have not demonstrated?

Or the imaginary nature of the scientific method as a process of spinning interpretations?

How do you demonstrate "reality" without falling under some empty assumption that is in both from and function no different than empty space?

Which theory?

For 'God is an impossibility to be real' I have provided he relevant argument.
Do you have a counter to it?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

The scientific method is of an imaginary nature.
You have twisted the meaning of 'imaginary' in this case.
The scientific method is processed by real experiments and processes.
How can you be so ignorant of this.

Whatever is demonstrated as reality, this can be tested by anyone.
Say, the oncoming train is real, you can try standing in front of it if you doubt it is real.

How have I twisted "imaginary" when all images are contexts of a greater whole and all experiments are contexts?

The method is made up, we did not find it scientifically without first admitting it is both a loop and onservation of loops. Loop at the history of science, it is a byproduct of evolution and as a bi product we will eventually evolve past certain forms of it.

The majority of experiments cannot be repeated by the general public due to advanced equipment and even the experiments, ones which alter contexts, are corporate funded and cherry picked...thus showing a conceptual bias. If something is to be measured according to x, y and a contexts, but only x is chosen...then this "fact" was cherry picked.

Most experiments do not occur because of financial and political ramifications as well as biases, thus most "facts" are effectively chosen.

That "oncoming train" is a metaphor....it is imaginary.

You do understand the number of deaths science is responsible for right? How much technical advancement we procured in the 20th century was through Nazi collaboration right?

Do you support fascism? And the extinguishing of ideologies and races?

We are well aware, throughout the history of scientific theories, many theories whilst accepted at one time were rejected at another time or even brought back later. Example the galactical object Pluto was once class as a planet, then a dwarf planet, then a planet again.

Given the above, we have to view scientific truths with different levels of credibility and the degree of confidence level one can apply to scientific theories based on how the scientific method are done. Point is all the scientific theories as claimed and accepted are very transparent thus accessible for anyone or groups to place their confidence levels on the respective scientific theories.
The amount of confidence level will also vary with the different class of Science, e.g. Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc. plus how long the scientific theory has been established.

Surely most people will place a high confidence level say 99% [100% impossible' that within the stated qualifications, scientifically, water is comprised of 2 oxygen and one hydrogen molecules.
Where it is known where political and financial considerations could be involved we have to discount the confidence of the scientific theory by some %, especially those related to climate change and medicines.

You cannot conflate moral issues with scientific truths. They are apples and oranges. That is the problem with your shallow and narrow thinking.

[Eodnhoj7]

Which theory?

For 'God is an impossibility to be real' I have provided he relevant argument.
Do you have a counter to it?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

The scientific method is of an imaginary nature.
You have twisted the meaning of 'imaginary' in this case.
The scientific method is processed by real experiments and processes.
How can you be so ignorant of this.

Whatever is demonstrated as reality, this can be tested by anyone.
Say, the oncoming train is real, you can try standing in front of it if you doubt it is real.

How have I twisted "imaginary" when all images are contexts of a greater whole and all experiments are contexts?

The method is made up, we did not find it scientifically without first admitting it is both a loop and onservation of loops. Loop at the history of science, it is a byproduct of evolution and as a bi product we will eventually evolve past certain forms of it.

The majority of experiments cannot be repeated by the general public due to advanced equipment and even the experiments, ones which alter contexts, are corporate funded and cherry picked...thus showing a conceptual bias. If something is to be measured according to x, y and a contexts, but only x is chosen...then this "fact" was cherry picked.

Most experiments do not occur because of financial and political ramifications as well as biases, thus most "facts" are effectively chosen.

That "oncoming train" is a metaphor....it is imaginary.

You do understand the number of deaths science is responsible for right? How much technical advancement we procured in the 20th century was through Nazi collaboration right?

Do you support fascism? And the extinguishing of ideologies and races?

We are well aware, throughout the history of scientific theories, many theories whilst accepted at one time were rejected at another time or even brought back later. Example the galactical object Pluto was once class as a planet, then a dwarf planet, then a planet again.

Yes, thus "scientifically" all facts eventually are proven false in light of a new interpretation. Chameleon and Symmetron theory seem to be the new possible interpretations.

Progress negates all truth values, thus whatever truth statement is made now will be proven false eventually.

Even the speed of light, a constant, has been found to change...they just reinvent definitions to save face...why? Group subjectivity and people are illogical and will not point out their fallacies.

Given the above, we have to view scientific truths with different levels of credibility and the degree of confidence level one can apply to scientific theories based on how the scientific method are done. Point is all the scientific theories as claimed and accepted are very transparent thus accessible for anyone or groups to place their confidence levels on the respective scientific theories.
Not really, I dont have the technology to test all fundamentall particle discoveries...neither do most people. The experiments cannot be repeated by everyone.


The amount of confidence level will also vary with the different class of Science, e.g. Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc. plus how long the scientific theory has been established.

So if confidence varies, then by default non scientifically limited beliefs such as Islam are justified and inevitable.

Surely most people will place a high confidence level say 99% [100% impossible' that within the stated qualifications, scientifically, water is comprised of 2 oxygen and one hydrogen molecules.
So what defines the one percent? And what studies promote this...last time I check people barely even care about what they are taught or learn in school...are you telling me I can walk up to a person anywhere and ask them about the composition of cadmium and they can answer?

People here interpretations and they repeat these assumptions. It is a continuum of assumptions.

Where it is known where political and financial considerations could be involved we have to discount the confidence of the scientific theory by some %, especially those related to climate change and medicines.

And where does politics and corporate finance not determine the testing of corporations and governments are responsible for all of the funding?

You cannot conflate moral issues with scientific truths. They are apples and oranges. That is the problem with your shallow and narrow thinking.
You said science is subjective, thus "truth telling" is part of the ethics system considering these interpretations are determined by consensus. Ethics is the interaction of people, thus all consensus is grounded in ethics.

How do we scientifically or even ethically have the proof science is correct in light of the number of interpretations and conflicts which exist? What proof do you have for trust in light of dissatification, chaos and distrust in the modern world.

Can you do this without coming off as a judgmental extremist?

[Veritas Aequitas]

How have I twisted "imaginary" when all images are contexts of a greater whole and all experiments are contexts?

The method is made up, we did not find it scientifically without first admitting it is both a loop and onservation of loops. Loop at the history of science, it is a byproduct of evolution and as a bi product we will eventually evolve past certain forms of it.

The majority of experiments cannot be repeated by the general public due to advanced equipment and even the experiments, ones which alter contexts, are corporate funded and cherry picked...thus showing a conceptual bias. If something is to be measured according to x, y and a contexts, but only x is chosen...then this "fact" was cherry picked.

Most experiments do not occur because of financial and political ramifications as well as biases, thus most "facts" are effectively chosen.

That "oncoming train" is a metaphor....it is imaginary.

You do understand the number of deaths science is responsible for right? How much technical advancement we procured in the 20th century was through Nazi collaboration right?

Do you support fascism? And the extinguishing of ideologies and races?

We are well aware, throughout the history of scientific theories, many theories whilst accepted at one time were rejected at another time or even brought back later. Example the galactical object Pluto was once class as a planet, then a dwarf planet, then a planet again.

Yes, thus "scientifically" all facts eventually are proven false in light of a new interpretation. Chameleon and Symmetron theory seem to be the new possible interpretations.

Progress negates all truth values, thus whatever truth statement is made now will be proven false eventually.

Even the speed of light, a constant, has been found to change...they just reinvent definitions to save face...why? Group subjectivity and people are illogical and will not point out their fallacies.

Given the above, we have to view scientific truths with different levels of credibility and the degree of confidence level one can apply to scientific theories based on how the scientific method are done. Point is all the scientific theories as claimed and accepted are very transparent thus accessible for anyone or groups to place their confidence levels on the respective scientific theories.
Not really, I dont have the technology to test all fundamentall particle discoveries...neither do most people. The experiments cannot be repeated by everyone.


The amount of confidence level will also vary with the different class of Science, e.g. Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc. plus how long the scientific theory has been established.

So if confidence varies, then by default non scientifically limited beliefs such as Islam are justified and inevitable.

Surely most people will place a high confidence level say 99% [100% impossible' that within the stated qualifications, scientifically, water is comprised of 2 oxygen and one hydrogen molecules.
So what defines the one percent? And what studies promote this...last time I check people barely even care about what they are taught or learn in school...are you telling me I can walk up to a person anywhere and ask them about the composition of cadmium and they can answer?

People here interpretations and they repeat these assumptions. It is a continuum of assumptions.

Where it is known where political and financial considerations could be involved we have to discount the confidence of the scientific theory by some %, especially those related to climate change and medicines.

And where does politics and corporate finance not determine the testing of corporations and governments are responsible for all of the funding?

You cannot conflate moral issues with scientific truths. They are apples and oranges. That is the problem with your shallow and narrow thinking.
You said science is subjective, thus "truth telling" is part of the ethics system considering these interpretations are determined by consensus. Ethics is the interaction of people, thus all consensus is grounded in ethics.

How do we scientifically or even ethically have the proof science is correct in light of the number of interpretations and conflicts which exist? What proof do you have for trust in light of dissatification, chaos and distrust in the modern world.

Can you do this without coming off as a judgmental extremist?

I talk "apples" you deflect to 'oranges' and 'dogs'.

[Eodnhoj7]

We are well aware, throughout the history of scientific theories, many theories whilst accepted at one time were rejected at another time or even brought back later. Example the galactical object Pluto was once class as a planet, then a dwarf planet, then a planet again.

Yes, thus "scientifically" all facts eventually are proven false in light of a new interpretation. Chameleon and Symmetron theory seem to be the new possible interpretations.

Progress negates all truth values, thus whatever truth statement is made now will be proven false eventually.

Even the speed of light, a constant, has been found to change...they just reinvent definitions to save face...why? Group subjectivity and people are illogical and will not point out their fallacies.

Given the above, we have to view scientific truths with different levels of credibility and the degree of confidence level one can apply to scientific theories based on how the scientific method are done. Point is all the scientific theories as claimed and accepted are very transparent thus accessible for anyone or groups to place their confidence levels on the respective scientific theories.
Not really, I dont have the technology to test all fundamentall particle discoveries...neither do most people. The experiments cannot be repeated by everyone.


The amount of confidence level will also vary with the different class of Science, e.g. Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc. plus how long the scientific theory has been established.

So if confidence varies, then by default non scientifically limited beliefs such as Islam are justified and inevitable.

Surely most people will place a high confidence level say 99% [100% impossible' that within the stated qualifications, scientifically, water is comprised of 2 oxygen and one hydrogen molecules.
So what defines the one percent? And what studies promote this...last time I check people barely even care about what they are taught or learn in school...are you telling me I can walk up to a person anywhere and ask them about the composition of cadmium and they can answer?

People here interpretations and they repeat these assumptions. It is a continuum of assumptions.

Where it is known where political and financial considerations could be involved we have to discount the confidence of the scientific theory by some %, especially those related to climate change and medicines.

And where does politics and corporate finance not determine the testing of corporations and governments are responsible for all of the funding?

You cannot conflate moral issues with scientific truths. They are apples and oranges. That is the problem with your shallow and narrow thinking.
You said science is subjective, thus "truth telling" is part of the ethics system considering these interpretations are determined by consensus. Ethics is the interaction of people, thus all consensus is grounded in ethics.

How do we scientifically or even ethically have the proof science is correct in light of the number of interpretations and conflicts which exist? What proof do you have for trust in light of dissatification, chaos and distrust in the modern world.

Can you do this without coming off as a judgmental extremist?

I talk "apples" you deflect to 'oranges' and 'dogs'.

I talk fruit and you deflect to accusations or apples and oranges.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I talk "apples" you deflect to 'oranges' and 'dogs'.

I talk fruit and you deflect to accusations or apples and oranges.

Hey.. you are hijacking my OP of specifically "apples" only with your loose fruits.