Is a Perfect Circle Real?

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

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, abstract or physical either through analysis in graphs or observation of inherent movements that constitute reality through a rhythmic motion as alternating extremes.

The sphere is "Variability" at its core, thus is form and function as a symbol of infinity...in these respects it is an image that is timeless that all temporal phenomena, as cyclical, approximate.

Any 3rd dimension is just a process of change through the synthesis of contexts (convergence, divergence). Where the alternation, of opposing phenomenon results in a new phenomenon...thus the third dimension as a convergence and divergence of multiple 2d "images" or "forms" is circular in itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

Never has a circle been seen.

So no, a circle is not real, and it doesn't matter whether the circle is perfect or not, makes no difference, a circle is not real within the field of sensibility + understandng + rationality.

Never has a circle been seen?? What??

One can draw a circle [e.g. below] on a piece of paper using a pen, pencil, etc. by hand, using a compass, and various methods.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

1. Because in defining what is real you are left using a perfect looping to define not just what is real but your position as well.


2. Can you define real without being subject to time within the answer? If I see a fly in a box, the fly is appearing to move randomly within the box, as it flies to one point then another, then another when compared to another movements. However if I view the flies movement all at one moment, from a larger time zone where the summation of the flies movements in the box is merely just a point, then the movements form the say context of the box it exists in. The question of a perfect form is a question of time.

3. To negate "perfect", through the word "imperfect", requires to define perfect...but what you provide is an indefinite word which can effectively mean anything and is a linchpin point justified by an infinite continuum of definitions and circularity...thus necessitating your position to prove the premise you are nullifying...but you dont prove it...thus cannot disprove it.

4. Your argument is not correct because it is not even wrong.

You have missed my point and gone into your own world.

Note I started with reality, i.e. human reality;

• 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.

Generally the above is conditioned upon time, space, experience and possible experience.
The above is the ground I am basing as to what is real.
I agree there is the alternative of reality based on a spontaneous realization without ordinary "time" but that is still conditioned upon the field of sensibility + understanding + rationality.

My point is;
A Perfect Circle is impossible to exists as real, i.e. within the field of sensibility + understanding + rationality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

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.

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]

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

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?

1. Because in defining what is real you are left using a perfect looping to define not just what is real but your position as well.


2. Can you define real without being subject to time within the answer? If I see a fly in a box, the fly is appearing to move randomly within the box, as it flies to one point then another, then another when compared to another movements. However if I view the flies movement all at one moment, from a larger time zone where the summation of the flies movements in the box is merely just a point, then the movements form the say context of the box it exists in. The question of a perfect form is a question of time.

3. To negate "perfect", through the word "imperfect", requires to define perfect...but what you provide is an indefinite word which can effectively mean anything and is a linchpin point justified by an infinite continuum of definitions and circularity...thus necessitating your position to prove the premise you are nullifying...but you dont prove it...thus cannot disprove it.

4. Your argument is not correct because it is not even wrong.

You have missed my point and gone into your own world.

Note I started with reality, i.e. human reality;

• 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.

Generally the above is conditioned upon time, space, experience and possible experience.
The above is the ground I am basing as to what is real.
I agree there is the alternative of reality based on a spontaneous realization without ordinary "time" but that is still conditioned upon the field of sensibility + understanding + rationality.

My point is;
A Perfect Circle is impossible to exists as real, i.e. within the field of sensibility + understanding + rationality.

You missed your own point and are going in circles trying to prove there is no perfect circle.

You also missed the point about how your process of "time" is in itself a problem. You ignore the fly in the box example.

You have no standard for what perfection is either without making assumptions as to what "sense" "understanding" and "rationality" are.

You argument is vague and obscure and you come off as pushing some empirical grounding to reality, when empirical reality observes the senses as fundamentally subject to death. You push a cause based on empty assumptions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You missed your own point and are going in circles trying to prove there is no perfect circle.

You also missed the point about how your process of "time" is in itself a problem. You ignore the fly in the box example.

I addressed the fly example here;

I agree there is the alternative of reality based on a spontaneous realization without ordinary "time" but that is still conditioned upon the field of sensibility + understanding + rationality.

You have no standard for what perfection is either without making assumptions as to what "sense" "understanding" and "rationality" are.

You argument is vague and obscure and you come off as pushing some empirical grounding to reality, when empirical reality observes the senses as fundamentally subject to death. You push a cause based on empty assumptions.

Yes my grounding is based on the empirical and empirical possibility + philosophical justifications.
What else is real other than the above?

[Eodnhoj7]

You missed your own point and are going in circles trying to prove there is no perfect circle.

You also missed the point about how your process of "time" is in itself a problem. You ignore the fly in the box example.

I addressed the fly example here;

I agree there is the alternative of reality based on a spontaneous realization without ordinary "time" but that is still conditioned upon the field of sensibility + understanding + rationality.

Actually you did not address it at all as your trinity is assumed and empty of definition...slippery slope and equivocation eventually lead to my point thus yours is contained within it.

You have no standard for what perfection is either without making assumptions as to what "sense" "understanding" and "rationality" are.

You argument is vague and obscure and you come off as pushing some empirical grounding to reality, when empirical reality observes the senses as fundamentally subject to death. You push a cause based on empty assumptions.

Yes my grounding is based on the empirical and empirical possibility + philosophical justifications.
What else is real other than the above?

The fact this is all assumed and these are manners of assumptions that are assumed to exist. You ground everything off of vague undefined empty loops, but if you accept this then you are left with expressing a perfect circle if your reasoning is perfect...but this is a contradiction.

I want you to look at the thread in the general section: the delusion of science/banned Ted talk. Your empiricism is just made up interpretations.

Empirical senses play tricks where they are viewed as right or wrong dependent on memory, but the same portion of the brain responsible for memory is also responsible for imagination.

Reason is imaginary by nature.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You missed your own point and are going in circles trying to prove there is no perfect circle.

You also missed the point about how your process of "time" is in itself a problem. You ignore the fly in the box example.

I addressed the fly example here;

I agree there is the alternative of reality based on a spontaneous realization without ordinary "time" but that is still conditioned upon the field of sensibility + understanding + rationality.

Actually you did not address it at all as your trinity is assumed and empty of definition...slippery slope and equivocation eventually lead to my point thus yours is contained within it.

You have no standard for what perfection is either without making assumptions as to what "sense" "understanding" and "rationality" are.

You argument is vague and obscure and you come off as pushing some empirical grounding to reality, when empirical reality observes the senses as fundamentally subject to death. You push a cause based on empty assumptions.

Yes my grounding is based on the empirical and empirical possibility + philosophical justifications.
What else is real other than the above?

The fact this is all assumed and these are manners of assumptions that are assumed to exist. You ground everything off of vague undefined empty loops, but if you accept this then you are left with expressing a perfect circle if your reasoning is perfect...but this is a contradiction.

I want you to look at the thread in the general section: the delusion of science/banned Ted talk. Your empiricism is just made up interpretations.

Empirical senses play tricks where they are viewed as right or wrong dependent on memory, but the same portion of the brain responsible for memory is also responsible for imagination.

Reason is imaginary by nature.

I understand the problem the empirical faces, i.e. empirical illusion.

This is why I included 'philosophical justifications' where we apply all the necessary tools in ensuring we avoid empirical illusions so that our propositions are grounded as solid as possible.

Note real = empirical and empirical possibility + philosophical justifications.

You keep accusing my views are wrong but you have not explained what are your ground which you allude to as very solid.

What I know whatever grounds you can claimed beyond mine is likely to be an illusion, as in Kant's the thing-in-itself independent of human condition can only be an illusion. In this case, it is not an empirical illusion which can easily be detected if we rationalize it BUT rather it is a transcendental illusion mocking you and not easy to detect.

Don't be a coward, expose and explain what is your ground that you are so sure will provide certainty you are 'right.'

Btw, I remember we have gone through your weirdo argument in the past.
I don't mind going over it again if you can produce solid arguments to justify your position.

[Eodnhoj7]

I addressed the fly example here;

I agree there is the alternative of reality based on a spontaneous realization without ordinary "time" but that is still conditioned upon the field of sensibility + understanding + rationality.

Actually you did not address it at all as your trinity is assumed and empty of definition...slippery slope and equivocation eventually lead to my point thus yours is contained within it.


Yes my grounding is based on the empirical and empirical possibility + philosophical justifications.
What else is real other than the above?

The fact this is all assumed and these are manners of assumptions that are assumed to exist. You ground everything off of vague undefined empty loops, but if you accept this then you are left with expressing a perfect circle if your reasoning is perfect...but this is a contradiction.

I want you to look at the thread in the general section: the delusion of science/banned Ted talk. Your empiricism is just made up interpretations.

Empirical senses play tricks where they are viewed as right or wrong dependent on memory, but the same portion of the brain responsible for memory is also responsible for imagination.

Reason is imaginary by nature.

I understand the problem the empirical faces, i.e. empirical illusion.

This is why I included 'philosophical justifications' where we apply all the necessary tools in ensuring our propositions are grounded as solid as possible.

Note real = empirical and empirical possibility + philosophical justifications.

You keep accusing my views are wrong but you have not explained what are your ground which you allude to as very solid.

No I am saying they are too obscure and not even right. I am saying they are senseless...as in you cannot see them empirically or understand them through reason and as such they come of as imaginary to your mind.

What I know whatever grounds you can claimed beyond mine is likely to be an illusion, as in Kant's the thing-in-itself independent of human condition can only be an illusion. In this case, it is not an empirical illusion which can easily be detected if we rationalize it BUT rather it is a transcendental illusion mocking you and not easy to detect.

So the illusion is mocking me...does that make it an anthropomorphic...do your illusions talk to you veritas? Do illusions "mock" you? Or are you above illusion?

Don't be a coward, expose and explain what is your ground that you are so sure will provide certainty you are 'right.'

I never said I was right, or wrong, rather that right and wrong are assumed.

So your argument is not from your point of view?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No I am saying they are too obscure and not even right. I am saying they are senseless...as in you cannot see them empirically or understand them through reason and as such they come of as imaginary to your mind.

It would appear you are alluding 'they' as the thing-in-itself which exists independent of humans and are unknowable to humans.
Kant, one of the greatest philosophers of all times has proven things-in-themselves are transcendental illusions.
Note this current thread re Kant;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27433

What I know whatever grounds you can claimed beyond mine is likely to be an illusion, as in Kant's the thing-in-itself independent of human condition can only be an illusion. In this case, it is not an empirical illusion which can easily be detected if we rationalize it BUT rather it is a transcendental illusion mocking you and not easy to detect.

So the illusion is mocking me...does that make it an anthropomorphic...do your illusions talk to you veritas? Do illusions "mock" you? Or are you above illusion?

Nah!
It is the neural algorithm of an existential crisis inherent within you [and all] that is 'mocking' you to end up with a transcendental illusion of a thing-in-itself.
Note the empirical illusion of the bent-stick-in-between-water-air. It is an instinct no human can avoid but can rationalized as an illusion.

Don't be a coward, expose and explain what is your ground that you are so sure will provide certainty you are 'right.'

I never said I was right, or wrong, rather that right and wrong are assumed.

So your argument is not from your point of view?

I stated right and wrong are grounded on soundly justified argument which in turn must be pragmatic.
According to MAYA it is 'assumed' all of reality is an illusion.
Surely it would be stupid to insist on this assumption if one is standing on the track where there is an oncoming train. In that situation, one will have to quickly shift to the assumption the empirical world is real and one is a real human being.

Your problem is you are unable to shift but stuck in a one-track-mind that

"right and wrong are assumed" or whatever that is in your mind.

The reality is you, me and all are human beings thus psychologically grounded - this we can be certain.
For all issues we face, i.e. intellectually, empirically, philosophically and the likes, the problem, and issue, must be reduced to the psychological and not the ontological nor metaphysics.

[Skepdick]

Never has a circle been seen?? What??

One can draw a circle [e.g. below] on a piece of paper using a pen, pencil, etc. by hand, using a compass, and various methods.

Idiot-philosopher.

You have hung yourself with your own words by drawing a distinctions without a difference.

The notion of a 'perfect circle' is made up. YOU made it up.
The way to uncover your sophistry is to ask you this trivial question: What is the difference between a 'perfect circle' and just a normal, regular circle'?

And the trivial answer is: There is no fucking difference! The word "perfect" is superfluous when talking about circles because ALL mathematical objects are idealised by default. Something is either a circle or it isn't a circle.

The thing you've shown is not a circle. Zoom in and you will see that it's actually a polygon - an approximation of a circle. Circles don't exist.

[Dontaskme]

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?

Never has a circle been seen.

So no, a circle is not real, and it doesn't matter whether the circle is perfect or not, makes no difference, a circle is not real within the field of sensibility + understandng + rationality.

Never has a circle been seen?? What??

One can draw a circle [e.g. below] on a piece of paper using a pen, pencil, etc. by hand, using a compass, and various methods.

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?

.

[Eodnhoj7]

No I am saying they are too obscure and not even right. I am saying they are senseless...as in you cannot see them empirically or understand them through reason and as such they come of as imaginary to your mind.

It would appear you are alluding 'they' as the thing-in-itself which exists independent of humans and are unknowable to humans.
Kant, one of the greatest philosophers of all times has proven things-in-themselves are transcendental illusions.
Note this current thread re Kant;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=27433

What I know whatever grounds you can claimed beyond mine is likely to be an illusion, as in Kant's the thing-in-itself independent of human condition can only be an illusion. In this case, it is not an empirical illusion which can easily be detected if we rationalize it BUT rather it is a transcendental illusion mocking you and not easy to detect.

So the illusion is mocking me...does that make it an anthropomorphic...do your illusions talk to you veritas? Do illusions "mock" you? Or are you above illusion?

Nah!
It is the neural algorithm of an existential crisis inherent within you [and all] that is 'mocking' you to end up with a transcendental illusion of a thing-in-itself.
Note the empirical illusion of the bent-stick-in-between-water-air. It is an instinct no human can avoid but can rationalized as an illusion.

Don't be a coward, expose and explain what is your ground that you are so sure will provide certainty you are 'right.'

I never said I was right, or wrong, rather that right and wrong are assumed.

So your argument is not from your point of view?

I stated right and wrong are grounded on soundly justified argument which in turn must be pragmatic.
According to MAYA it is 'assumed' all of reality is an illusion.
Surely it would be stupid to insist on this assumption if one is standing on the track where there is an oncoming train. In that situation, one will have to quickly shift to the assumption the empirical world is real and one is a real human being.

Your problem is you are unable to shift but stuck in a one-track-mind that

"right and wrong are assumed" or whatever that is in your mind.

The reality is you, me and all are human beings thus psychologically grounded - this we can be certain.
For all issues we face, i.e. intellectually, empirically, philosophically and the likes, the problem, and issue, must be reduced to the psychological and not the ontological nor metaphysics.

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.

[Impenitent]

the immaculate donut remains elusive...

-Imp

[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.

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.