Is a Perfect Circle Real?

[Sculptor]

Here is an explanation why 'Perfect Circle' cannot and is impossible to exist as real.

No counter, just a simplification.
A circle is 2D. Real things are 3D.

Circles do exist in 3D things.

No. Circles are conceptual only.

Note the image of a 3D circle on the paper I posted above.

Circles cannot EXIST. Circles are only 2D concepts.

To be obvious, a more distinct 3D would be a circular round object.
So the question is still applicable, an absolutely perfectly round marble is an impossibility to be real.

You might light to try the idea of a "sphere", Which, although 3D, cannot exist perfectly.

If we were to expand that marble to the size of Earth, there will be holes, valleys and mountains which mean it cannot be an absolutely perfectly round marble. The other exposition is, to the smallest virus the surface of a supposedly perfect marble seen by humans, the virus would perceived holes, and irregular shapes.

[Eodnhoj7]

No counter, just a simplification.
A circle is 2D. Real things are 3D.

Depth is change as multiple 2d contexts. A sphere is just a circle within a circle within a circle within a circle....to infinity as a loop of circles which is circular. A sphere is just the imaging of recurssion and inversion as a multilateral variable which can represent or describe any facet of reality,

No.

No.

Go sculpt a statue and sell it a flee market.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No counter, just a simplification.
A circle is 2D. Real things are 3D.

Circles do exist in 3D things.

No. Circles are conceptual only.

Note the image of a 3D circle on the paper I posted above.

Circles cannot EXIST. Circles are only 2D concepts.

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.

To be obvious, a more distinct 3D would be a circular round object.
So the question is still applicable, an absolutely perfectly round marble is an impossibility to be real.

You might light to try the idea of a "sphere", Which, although 3D, cannot exist perfectly.

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

If we were to expand that marble to the size of Earth, there will be holes, valleys and mountains which mean it cannot be an absolutely perfectly round marble. The other exposition is, to the smallest virus the surface of a supposedly perfect marble seen by humans, the virus would perceived holes, and irregular shapes.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One can draw a God too.

When thought agrees what images/patterns are - those images become symbolic of anything the mind imagines is there. An image will always be an imposition upon the blank screen of awareness. An image is KNOWN but never seen, simply because the seer is KNOWN only in the seen image that cannot know or see.

What you are trying to see is what is looking. What else could there be for you to see? What else could you never see?

The above manifest from the loose "wires" in your brain.
You are totally off point.

Note the image of the circle above is justified with the defined measurement and shape.
Thus if one draw a circle in the sand, one can measure whether the circle is perfect or not in accordance to the measurement of a perfect circle.

In what ways can a stick-man represent God the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence and omni-whatever?
Don't insult your own intelligence with the above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually none of what you state makes sense. I am not alluding to kant at all...why bring him up?

You say reason, understanding and empiricality....but what are any of these these without being subject to a variety of logical fallacies. Your argument is not logical at all, you cannot even defined "reason" without being subject to a fallacy.

I have an idea: define each of the three core terms without using a fallacy...you can't.

Your system is imaginary and in your head...like your parasites ROFL.


What a loon.

Note I raised this OP so I know what is off topic and what is not off topic within my expectations.
What you presented above is off topic.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually none of what you state makes sense. I am not alluding to kant at all...why bring him up?

You say reason, understanding and empiricality....but what are any of these these without being subject to a variety of logical fallacies. Your argument is not logical at all, you cannot even defined "reason" without being subject to a fallacy.

I have an idea: define each of the three core terms without using a fallacy...you can't.

Your system is imaginary and in your head...like your parasites ROFL.


What a loon.

Note I raised this OP so I know what is off topic and what is not off topic within my expectations.
What you presented above is off topic.

According to your expectations it is off topic...but noone knows what your expectations are because there is no empirical proof for them...it is all in your head, thus you are going off topic again talking about your wishes and desires for the world.

You do understand this "moral system" you are promoting is imaginary and made up in your head right?

You have no evidence and you cannot define evidence without being subject to your point of view...thus a fallacy.

Your trinity...all assumed labels noone understands.

Your desire for peace....unpeaceful desire.

Seriously, you may want to get the zombie parasites you worry about removed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually none of what you state makes sense. I am not alluding to kant at all...why bring him up?

You say reason, understanding and empiricality....but what are any of these these without being subject to a variety of logical fallacies. Your argument is not logical at all, you cannot even defined "reason" without being subject to a fallacy.

I have an idea: define each of the three core terms without using a fallacy...you can't.

Your system is imaginary and in your head...like your parasites ROFL.


What a loon.

Note I raised this OP so I know what is off topic and what is not off topic within my expectations.
What you presented above is off topic.

According to your expectations it is off topic...but noone knows what your expectations are because there is no empirical proof for them...it is all in your head, thus you are going off topic again talking about your wishes and desires for the world.

You do understand this "moral system" you are promoting is imaginary and made up in your head right?

You have no evidence and you cannot define evidence without being subject to your point of view...thus a fallacy.

Your trinity...all assumed labels noone understands.

Your desire for peace....unpeaceful desire.

Seriously, you may want to get the zombie parasites you worry about removed.

Autism??
There you go again, the above are totally off topic from the OP's
Is a Perfect Circle Real?

All you need is to justify whether a Perfect Circle Real or not.

[Dontaskme]

In what ways can a stick-man represent God the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence and omni-whatever?

There is something very omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence within the whole structure of the universe since it's definitely ON and working so we cannot negate or rule that out.
So the big question is HOW what and who?
Hmm, let me think, so obviously it seems apparently clear that Ultimately all gods emerge and live in the hominid brain.

So ask your brain, what's making the working work? what's turning the ON AND OFF SWITCH on & off while simultaneously remaining permanently ON...neat trick indeed!!...Now,some of you will call it Nature others will call it God...so you see, the little stick man is the one who is calling this working universe a name. So obviously the little stick man has to be God because the idea comes from it.

So did an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God create the entire universe just so a stick man could strut itself on centre stage bleating I am impossible to exist as real?

Or, did an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent stick man create the entire universe just so a God could strut itself on centre stage bleating I am impossible to exist as real?

Take your pick.

Don't insult your own intelligence with the above.

I don't need to - you do a pretty dam good job of that all by yourself.

.

[Eodnhoj7]

Note I raised this OP so I know what is off topic and what is not off topic within my expectations.
What you presented above is off topic.

According to your expectations it is off topic...but noone knows what your expectations are because there is no empirical proof for them...it is all in your head, thus you are going off topic again talking about your wishes and desires for the world.

You do understand this "moral system" you are promoting is imaginary and made up in your head right?

You have no evidence and you cannot define evidence without being subject to your point of view...thus a fallacy.

Your trinity...all assumed labels noone understands.

Your desire for peace....unpeaceful desire.

Seriously, you may want to get the zombie parasites you worry about removed.

Autism??
There you go again, the above are totally off topic from the OP's
Is a Perfect Circle Real?

All you need is to justify whether a Perfect Circle Real or not.

You may have autism, I would not argue against it.

I am throwing you in a loop and you are too dumb to see it, if you can't see that than how could you see a perfect circle? How do you know it would not drive you mad?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In what ways can a stick-man represent God the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence and omni-whatever?

There is something very omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence within the whole structure of the universe since it's definitely ON and working so we cannot negate or rule that out.
So the big question is HOW what and who?
Hmm, let me think, so obviously it seems apparently clear that Ultimately all gods emerge and live in the hominid brain.

You are jumping to conclusion.
Where is the proof such an entity or thing which is very omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence within the whole structure of the universe?

So ask your brain, what's making the working work? what's turning the ON AND OFF SWITCH on & off while simultaneously remaining permanently ON...neat trick indeed!!...Now,some of you will call it Nature others will call it God...so you see, the little stick man is the one who is calling this working universe a name. So obviously the little stick man has to be God because the idea comes from it.

Where is the proof there is such a thing?

If you apply the fundamental of the ANEKANTAVADA, then,

• 1. There is this Nature or God - without proof +
  2. There is no such Nature or God - no proof available

As such one has to hold the above two opposite at the same time but in different perspective.

So did an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God create the entire universe just so a stick man could strut itself on centre stage bleating I am impossible to exist as real?

Or, did an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent stick man create the entire universe just so a God could strut itself on centre stage bleating I am impossible to exist as real?

Take your pick.

Whatever your pick, bring your proof.

Don't insult your own intelligence with the above.

I don't need to - you do a pretty dam good job of that all by yourself.

As I had stated the currency is argument with evidence, and you are bankrupt on this have none to support your claim there is Nature which some call God.

[Dontaskme]

Where is the proof such an entity or thing which is very omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence within the whole structure of the universe?

Self evidence doesn't need proof. Who would be the other one proving itself exists?

Both the thing and the thing that knows thing ARE NOT the 'no thing' in which they appear. They are both 'objects' (of seeing/knowing).

The no thing that sees/knows this is not.

No proof necessary, proof only pertains to the illusory sense of a separate entity where there is none.

It's you that's going bonkers mate, and you don't like that do you so you project it onto me as if it was me, because the mind doesn't like to think of itself as non-existent, your fear is normal, your not alone, luckly you have invented your imaginary friend to keep you company, it's been right along side with you the whole time, else you really wouldn't have existed.

.

[Sculptor]

Depth is change as multiple 2d contexts. A sphere is just a circle within a circle within a circle within a circle....to infinity as a loop of circles which is circular. A sphere is just the imaging of recurssion and inversion as a multilateral variable which can represent or describe any facet of reality,

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.

[Sculptor]

Circles do exist in 3D things.

No. Circles are conceptual only.

Note the image of a 3D circle on the paper I posted above.

Circles cannot EXIST. Circles are only 2D concepts.

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.

To be obvious, a more distinct 3D would be a circular round object.
So the question is still applicable, an absolutely perfectly round marble is an impossibility to be real.

You might light to try the idea of a "sphere", Which, although 3D, cannot exist perfectly.

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

If we were to expand that marble to the size of Earth, there will be holes, valleys and mountains which mean it cannot be an absolutely perfectly round marble. The other exposition is, to the smallest virus the surface of a supposedly perfect marble seen by humans, the virus would perceived holes, and irregular shapes.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Where is the proof such an entity or thing which is very omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence within the whole structure of the universe?

Self evidence doesn't need proof. Who would be the other one proving itself exists?

Both the thing and the thing that knows thing ARE NOT the 'no thing' in which they appear. They are both 'objects' (of seeing/knowing).

The no thing that sees/knows this is not.

No proof necessary, proof only pertains to the illusory sense of a separate entity where there is none.

It's you that's going bonkers mate, and you don't like that do you so you project it onto me as if it was me, because the mind doesn't like to think of itself as non-existent, your fear is normal, your not alone, luckly you have invented your imaginary friend to keep you company, it's been right along side with you the whole time, else you really wouldn't have existed.

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.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No. Circles are conceptual only.

Circles cannot EXIST. Circles are only 2D concepts.

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.

You might light to try the idea of a "sphere", Which, although 3D, cannot exist perfectly.

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

If we were to expand that marble to the size of Earth, there will be holes, valleys and mountains which mean it cannot be an absolutely perfectly round marble. The other exposition is, to the smallest virus the surface of a supposedly perfect marble seen by humans, the virus would perceived holes, and irregular shapes.

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.