Is a Perfect Circle Real?

[Sculptor]

Circles preceded mathematical circles and "perfect circles".
Humans named the shape of the wheel before they had any concept of mathematical perfection.
Thus gross "real" round things hacked out of wood led humans to ask more questions about how to model such things.

But since it is obvious enough that no perfect circle can exist in anything but conceptualising, the "circles" of nature are the "real circles", but only suggest the mathematical form and are gross approximations of them.

As for GOD, it is nothing more than a gross conceit of human frailty.
The analogy to a circle or wheel does not hold since God is his/he/it various forms is not a perfected empirical object. It is not in ANY sense empirical.

I suppose you could take a sculpture of a god, which reflects a perfect god, and like a real circle, or wheel leads us to a conceptual one.

The perfect circle is abstracted from observed circular empirical things.

The theists' thesis is this;
1. Empirical things [as observed] are created which has a creator, e.g. a watch is designed and created by a creator.
2. The perfect God as the perfect Creator is abstracted [pseudo rationally] from observed empirical creators. -The WatchMaker Analogy.

As you can see the analogy of the perfect circle fit to the above ending with an abstraction of an ultimate ideal perfection.

Thus if the abstracted perfect circle is impossible to be real, so the abstracted perfect God is also impossible to be real.

Btw, theists claim God is an empirical entity/being who listens and answers their prayers.
Many theists claimed to have experienced and communicated with God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

There are many of such theists.
When subject to psychiatric and psychological tests, it is found they have some sort of mental illness.

Agreed. At best theism is an illusion, bordering on a delusion, but for many it is a response to a severe mental illness. A crutch for the weak minded.

[Sculptor]

Notice how not only the questions cycle through eachother but also the words cycle as well...a perfect circle can only be assumed as one cannot see it circumference as it would be the edge of reality itself.

This is no different than assuming one assumptions, which is a loop, but never seeing beyond it.

The perfect circle, is assumed both as a proposition and the propositions that propositions contain.

This doesn't make it any less real, rather more "real", as all knowledge is assumed... thus the perfect circle as assumed exists dynamically through assuming phenomenon and statically as an image in the respect the observer is an image or variation of this Divine Plan or Divine Reason.

What do you think "real" means?

Polarity as localization. This may not make sense at first so I will have to explain it.

You have point 0, void, nothing, raw mass, etc.

It cannot be observed.

Now that point 0 splits into another point. How does it do this? But voiding itself into a form, volume, image. Its projection from one state into another begins with a simple line.

The point splits into point A and point B through the line. This line is not just the first progression of the point (going from left to right) but considering direction is relative it is also going from (right to left simultaneously). The line is going two directions at once, we only see one because of the angle we are observing it from.

This creation of the line results from the divergence of one point into two points....polarization

Considering the progression of the line goes both ways, the splitting of the points paradoxically shows both are connected through the same line and the points in diverging are actually convergence by a line considering the line is composed of points/lines...thus converging upon itself....polarization.

Polarization is thus the synthesis of points, through divergence and convergence, with all phenomenon as subject to both distance and size existing as points (car in distance, then parts car is composed of, then atoms parts are composed of, point particles, etc..."being" unfolding from nothing as the point is void).

It is the movement from a unified state, to a state of relative extremes.

This deals with the paradox of how space can expand, but considering all phenomenon are composed of space, it applies to all phenomenon.


Considering all phenomenon result from the synthesis of points, reality can be defined as polarization

Just answer the question.

[Eodnhoj7]

A formless being is still a being, thus something.

• In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith.[1] God is usually conceived as being omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present) and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
  -wiki -God

Energy is said to be formless, but scientifically it is still something.
It is the same for gravity, space, time, etc.

Actually you cannot define it as being without giving it form...you can say above being, or intrinsic to being....

Then your claim that god is formless is wrong.

All cannot be expressed without infinite definition thus definition itself is subject to equivocation and means nothing. Infinite being is a paradox.


Please dont tell me you plan to enlighten the world with wikipedia articles....I can just sense you are trying to hard now.

Wiki is merely a convenience with the hope for consensus.
In this case, the definition of God from Wiki is reasonably credible.

If you do not agree with Wiki then show me your claim and I can decide whether we can agree or not.

We cannot proceed with the argument if cannot agree on the definition, else it is apples and oranges again.

Redhering....first you are avoiding the evidence of reality is consistent of loops...variations of a loop.

Second, I didn't avoid it your point: God is both form and formless.

If God is All in All, by definition...a defintion that negates itself as infinite definition...then God is both form and no form.

[Eodnhoj7]

What do you think "real" means?

Polarity as localization. This may not make sense at first so I will have to explain it.

You have point 0, void, nothing, raw mass, etc.

It cannot be observed.

Now that point 0 splits into another point. How does it do this? But voiding itself into a form, volume, image. Its projection from one state into another begins with a simple line.

The point splits into point A and point B through the line. This line is not just the first progression of the point (going from left to right) but considering direction is relative it is also going from (right to left simultaneously). The line is going two directions at once, we only see one because of the angle we are observing it from.

This creation of the line results from the divergence of one point into two points....polarization

Considering the progression of the line goes both ways, the splitting of the points paradoxically shows both are connected through the same line and the points in diverging are actually convergence by a line considering the line is composed of points/lines...thus converging upon itself....polarization.

Polarization is thus the synthesis of points, through divergence and convergence, with all phenomenon as subject to both distance and size existing as points (car in distance, then parts car is composed of, then atoms parts are composed of, point particles, etc..."being" unfolding from nothing as the point is void).

It is the movement from a unified state, to a state of relative extremes.

This deals with the paradox of how space can expand, but considering all phenomenon are composed of space, it applies to all phenomenon.


Considering all phenomenon result from the synthesis of points, reality can be defined as polarization

Just answer the question.

I did...polarizing a phenomenon results in it taking form. Mass is formless. When it becomes polarized it takes volume. Volume is the beginning of form. The interplay between volume and mass results in density.

What we deam as real is formlessness taking form by becomes polarized. Polarized is when something formless is divided, resulting in form. This division of formlessness occurs when the formless is directed.

So you have a piece of clay (or primordial ocean of mythology as today's quantum waves). It is formless. It takes form when the clay is molded. How it is molded? When the molder takes the formless and starts directing the clay. So a flat blob may be directing upwards. This upwards piece projects in multiple directions to form the arms, head, etc. The clay is further directed at a smaller level into the little projections that result in the crevices that form the definition for clothes, eyes, etc.

This is polorzation. Localizing the formless and causing it to project with this projection causing the formless center to take form through multiple centers.

[Sculptor]

Polarity as localization. This may not make sense at first so I will have to explain it.

You have point 0, void, nothing, raw mass, etc.

It cannot be observed.

Now that point 0 splits into another point. How does it do this? But voiding itself into a form, volume, image. Its projection from one state into another begins with a simple line.

The point splits into point A and point B through the line. This line is not just the first progression of the point (going from left to right) but considering direction is relative it is also going from (right to left simultaneously). The line is going two directions at once, we only see one because of the angle we are observing it from.

This creation of the line results from the divergence of one point into two points....polarization

Considering the progression of the line goes both ways, the splitting of the points paradoxically shows both are connected through the same line and the points in diverging are actually convergence by a line considering the line is composed of points/lines...thus converging upon itself....polarization.

Polarization is thus the synthesis of points, through divergence and convergence, with all phenomenon as subject to both distance and size existing as points (car in distance, then parts car is composed of, then atoms parts are composed of, point particles, etc..."being" unfolding from nothing as the point is void).

It is the movement from a unified state, to a state of relative extremes.

This deals with the paradox of how space can expand, but considering all phenomenon are composed of space, it applies to all phenomenon.


Considering all phenomenon result from the synthesis of points, reality can be defined as polarization

Just answer the question.

I did...polarizing a phenomenon results in it taking form. Mass is formless. When it becomes polarized it takes volume. Volume is the beginning of form. The interplay between volume and mass results in density.

What we deam as real is formlessness taking form by becomes polarized. Polarized is when something formless is divided, resulting in form. This division of formlessness occurs when the formless is directed.

So you have a piece of clay (or primordial ocean of mythology as today's quantum waves). It is formless. It takes form when the clay is molded. How it is molded? When the molder takes the formless and starts directing the clay. So a flat blob may be directing upwards. This upwards piece projects in multiple directions to form the arms, head, etc. The clay is further directed at a smaller level into the little projections that result in the crevices that form the definition for clothes, eyes, etc.

This is polorzation. Localizing the formless and causing it to project with this projection causing the formless center to take form through multiple centers.

Meaningless empty metaphors, full of bluster and nonsense.

[Eodnhoj7]

Just answer the question.

I did...polarizing a phenomenon results in it taking form. Mass is formless. When it becomes polarized it takes volume. Volume is the beginning of form. The interplay between volume and mass results in density.

What we deam as real is formlessness taking form by becomes polarized. Polarized is when something formless is divided, resulting in form. This division of formlessness occurs when the formless is directed.

So you have a piece of clay (or primordial ocean of mythology as today's quantum waves). It is formless. It takes form when the clay is molded. How it is molded? When the molder takes the formless and starts directing the clay. So a flat blob may be directing upwards. This upwards piece projects in multiple directions to form the arms, head, etc. The clay is further directed at a smaller level into the little projections that result in the crevices that form the definition for clothes, eyes, etc.

This is polorzation. Localizing the formless and causing it to project with this projection causing the formless center to take form through multiple centers.

Meaningless empty metaphors, full of bluster and nonsense.

They were not metaphors. A metaphor is when I compare a quality to another quality to create a new quality. An example of this would be "putting a camel through the eye of a needle" to represent other qualities of "difficult", "rarity", etc. That is a metaphor.

What the above was is a description.

A formless quality is observed. This formlessness is polarized. Polarizing is taking it from one state and directing it into another. This inversion occurs by taking one center point and directing it away from itself into a new point. From the center point of a lump of clay a form is directed and manifested. From the formless comes form. From the blob of clay comes a loose form of a man (really just a shitty triangle before it is carved). From the center point of the clay blob comes the apex of the man's head.

One center point diverges into another, one point to another...hence the term "polarizing" or the "creation of poles", with poles being points and language itself (including this conversation) being subject to this same basic principle.

This occurs in everyday language as well. "Polarizing" is a common term in politics. With the increase in extremes of conservatism and liberalism comes a respective movement (of both) from a center point of moderation. Polarization is thus the taking of forms (for conservatives and liberal respectively in this case) with the create irony being these forms are symmetrical isomorphism of eachother as they both say the same things if you pay mind.

A line polarizing from a point is a universal example. One point projects from another and a line is born. This translates to counting and the number line of course, and other phenomenon.

It really is, as the ancients say, just geometry (the study of space) at the end of the day, even the taoist of eastern philosophy referred to "geomancy" (the study of lines) for divination.

Now you can go carve a meaningless statue, help remind someone horses exist by showing them a platonic form carved out of clay...I am sure it will get up and walk away it young think positive thoughts and give out free hugs....just believe in yourself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually you cannot define it as being without giving it form...you can say above being, or intrinsic to being....

Then your claim that god is formless is wrong.

All cannot be expressed without infinite definition thus definition itself is subject to equivocation and means nothing. Infinite being is a paradox.


Please dont tell me you plan to enlighten the world with wikipedia articles....I can just sense you are trying to hard now.

Wiki is merely a convenience with the hope for consensus.
In this case, the definition of God from Wiki is reasonably credible.

If you do not agree with Wiki then show me your claim and I can decide whether we can agree or not.

We cannot proceed with the argument if cannot agree on the definition, else it is apples and oranges again.

Redhering....first you are avoiding the evidence of reality is consistent of loops...variations of a loop.

Second, I didn't avoid it your point: God is both form and formless.

If God is All in All, by definition...a definition that negates itself as infinite definition...then God is both form and no form.

First you insist God is formless.
When I show you theists claim God manifest into forms, you change your tune.
As I had demonstrated, God whether is formless or has forms is a transcendental illusion driven by existential psychology.
God [as defined by theists] is the adult's security blanket.

Your point on 'looping' is common to all things, i.e. they all looped back to the subject and we can incorporate that as an assumption otherwise we cannot proceed to establish any knowledge for practical use.
If you don't agree, suggest you create a thread to argue for your "looping theory of knowledge."

It is stupid to bring this point in as a counter to the argument in this case.
In most case it is the mentally ill who are caught in a loop and cannot get out of it which is what you are doing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then your claim that god is formless is wrong.


Wiki is merely a convenience with the hope for consensus.
In this case, the definition of God from Wiki is reasonably credible.

If you do not agree with Wiki then show me your claim and I can decide whether we can agree or not.

We cannot proceed with the argument if cannot agree on the definition, else it is apples and oranges again.

Redhering....first you are avoiding the evidence of reality is consistent of loops...variations of a loop.

Second, I didn't avoid it your point: God is both form and formless.

If God is All in All, by definition...a definition that negates itself as infinite definition...then God is both form and no form.

First you insist God is formless.
When I show you theists claim God manifest into forms, you change your tune.
As I had demonstrated, God whether is formless or has forms is a transcendental illusion driven by existential psychology.
God [as defined by theists] is the adult's security blanket.

Your point on 'looping' is common to all things, i.e. they all looped back to the subject and we can incorporate that as an assumption otherwise we cannot proceed to establish any knowledge for practical use.
If you don't agree, suggest you create a thread to argue for your "looping theory of knowledge."

It is stupid to bring this point in as a counter to the argument in this case.
In most case it is the mentally ill who are caught in a loop and cannot get out of it which is what you are doing.

Actually you have not demonstrated anything, no scientific proof or studies where quoted or sources. You said "mirror neurons" (which are the most circular of all neurons ironically).
Do you have any mode of bitching other than repeating "off tangent", "off subject" or some variation of redhering? Your application of fallacies is becoming a fallacy at this point...you cannot even apply them right.

I did not change the tune at all, I have stated multiple times God is form and formless, and not only that but why formlessness still allows for form, but these infinite forms (due to being infinite) are still leading back to a formlessness. This was not only earlier in this thread but "God(s)" thread which provides a series of defintions, both positive negative and self negating (formless as inventiable)....none of which you addressed.

How about this negate the definition of God, within many religions including Islam, of God as "All in All".

Negate "All".

As to the looping,

[Veritas Aequitas]

Redhering....first you are avoiding the evidence of reality is consistent of loops...variations of a loop.

Second, I didn't avoid it your point: God is both form and formless.

If God is All in All, by definition...a definition that negates itself as infinite definition...then God is both form and no form.

First you insist God is formless.
When I show you theists claim God manifest into forms, you change your tune.
As I had demonstrated, God whether is formless or has forms is a transcendental illusion driven by existential psychology.
God [as defined by theists] is the adult's security blanket.

Your point on 'looping' is common to all things, i.e. they all looped back to the subject and we can incorporate that as an assumption otherwise we cannot proceed to establish any knowledge for practical use.
If you don't agree, suggest you create a thread to argue for your "looping theory of knowledge."

It is stupid to bring this point in as a counter to the argument in this case.
In most case it is the mentally ill who are caught in a loop and cannot get out of it which is what you are doing.

Actually you have not demonstrated anything, no scientific proof or studies where quoted or sources. You said "mirror neurons" (which are the most circular of all neurons ironically).
Do you have any mode of bitching other than repeating "off tangent", "off subject" or some variation of redhering? Your application of fallacies is becoming a fallacy at this point...you cannot even apply them right.

I did not change the tune at all, I have stated multiple times God is form and formless, and not only that but why formlessness still allows for form, but these infinite forms (due to being infinite) are still leading back to a formlessness. This was not only earlier in this thread but "God(s)" thread which provides a series of defintions, both positive negative and self negating (formless as inventiable)....none of which you addressed.

How about this negate the definition of God, within many religions including Islam, of God as "All in All".

Negate "All".

As to the looping,

To resolve the point God as "All in All" the best is to medicate the claimant.
Example;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

[Eodnhoj7]

First you insist God is formless.
When I show you theists claim God manifest into forms, you change your tune.
As I had demonstrated, God whether is formless or has forms is a transcendental illusion driven by existential psychology.
God [as defined by theists] is the adult's security blanket.

Your point on 'looping' is common to all things, i.e. they all looped back to the subject and we can incorporate that as an assumption otherwise we cannot proceed to establish any knowledge for practical use.
If you don't agree, suggest you create a thread to argue for your "looping theory of knowledge."

It is stupid to bring this point in as a counter to the argument in this case.
In most case it is the mentally ill who are caught in a loop and cannot get out of it which is what you are doing.

Actually you have not demonstrated anything, no scientific proof or studies where quoted or sources. You said "mirror neurons" (which are the most circular of all neurons ironically).
Do you have any mode of bitching other than repeating "off tangent", "off subject" or some variation of redhering? Your application of fallacies is becoming a fallacy at this point...you cannot even apply them right.

I did not change the tune at all, I have stated multiple times God is form and formless, and not only that but why formlessness still allows for form, but these infinite forms (due to being infinite) are still leading back to a formlessness. This was not only earlier in this thread but "God(s)" thread which provides a series of defintions, both positive negative and self negating (formless as inventiable)....none of which you addressed.

How about this negate the definition of God, within many religions including Islam, of God as "All in All".

Negate "All".

As to the looping,

To resolve the point God as "All in All" the best is to medicate the claimant.
Example;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg

No scientific proof meds are available.

Off tangent as usual...

You do know your Islamic hate speech is offensive to my religion right?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No scientific proof meds are available.

Off tangent as usual...

You do know your Islamic hate speech is offensive to my religion right?

You are a moron in your inability to differentiate a critique of the ideology of Islam from 'hate speech'.

Note the ideology of Islam is hate speech itself, so how can a critique of hate speech itself be hate speech.

[Eodnhoj7]

No scientific proof meds are available.

Off tangent as usual...

You do know your Islamic hate speech is offensive to my religion right?

You are a moron in your inability to differentiate a critique of the ideology of Islam from 'hate speech'.

Note the ideology of Islam is hate speech itself, so how can a critique of hate speech itself be hate speech.

Derrr....duhhh....so what?

[Sculptor]

I did...polarizing a phenomenon results in it taking form. Mass is formless. When it becomes polarized it takes volume. Volume is the beginning of form. The interplay between volume and mass results in density.

What we deam as real is formlessness taking form by becomes polarized. Polarized is when something formless is divided, resulting in form. This division of formlessness occurs when the formless is directed.

So you have a piece of clay (or primordial ocean of mythology as today's quantum waves). It is formless. It takes form when the clay is molded. How it is molded? When the molder takes the formless and starts directing the clay. So a flat blob may be directing upwards. This upwards piece projects in multiple directions to form the arms, head, etc. The clay is further directed at a smaller level into the little projections that result in the crevices that form the definition for clothes, eyes, etc.

This is polorzation. Localizing the formless and causing it to project with this projection causing the formless center to take form through multiple centers.

Meaningless empty metaphors, full of bluster and nonsense.

They were not metaphors. A metaphor is when I compare a quality to another quality to create a new quality. An example of this would be "putting a camel through the eye of a needle" to represent other qualities of "difficult", "rarity", etc. That is a metaphor.

What the above was is a description.

A formless quality is observed. This formlessness is polarized. Polarizing is taking it from one state and directing it into another. This inversion occurs by taking one center point and directing it away from itself into a new point. From the center point of a lump of clay a form is directed and manifested. From the formless comes form. From the blob of clay comes a loose form of a man (really just a shitty triangle before it is carved). From the center point of the clay blob comes the apex of the man's head.

One center point diverges into another, one point to another...hence the term "polarizing" or the "creation of poles", with poles being points and language itself (including this conversation) being subject to this same basic principle.

This occurs in everyday language as well. "Polarizing" is a common term in politics. With the increase in extremes of conservatism and liberalism comes a respective movement (of both) from a center point of moderation. Polarization is thus the taking of forms (for conservatives and liberal respectively in this case) with the create irony being these forms are symmetrical isomorphism of eachother as they both say the same things if you pay mind.

A line polarizing from a point is a universal example. One point projects from another and a line is born. This translates to counting and the number line of course, and other phenomenon.

It really is, as the ancients say, just geometry (the study of space) at the end of the day, even the taoist of eastern philosophy referred to "geomancy" (the study of lines) for divination.

Now you can go carve a meaningless statue, help remind someone horses exist by showing them a platonic form carved out of clay...I am sure it will get up and walk away it young think positive thoughts and give out free hugs....just believe in yourself.

Please refer to the post I made above.

[Eodnhoj7]

No scientific proof meds are available.

Off tangent as usual...

You do know your Islamic hate speech is offensive to my religion right?

You are a moron in your inability to differentiate a critique of the ideology of Islam from 'hate speech'.

Note the ideology of Islam is hate speech itself, so how can a critique of hate speech itself be hate speech.

Derrr....duhhh....so what?

Please refer to the post above.

[jayjacobus]

Perhaps the point of the questioners was to say without any points the circle has no boundaries and is therefore 0 or infinite or any dimension in between. And then again it may be an octagon without any boundaries.