Pi and Platonism

Could a "perfect circle" even be possible in the World of Forms? All circles depend on π, an irrational, transcendental number - it has potentially infinite digits and to suggest that infinity could be actual anywhere just sounds insane. "Perfect circle" suggests "actually infinite pi", because a perfect circle is formed on the basis of perfect information, which includes "actually infinite pi". "Actually infinite pi" doesn't appear possible even in the World of Forms. Therefore "Perfect" circle also doesn't appear possible in the World of Forms.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    What a load of waffle. Might as well argue whether or not angels brush their teeth.

    • 2 years ago
      bodhi

      drooler take, this is to far beyond you pleb, go back to arguing about some pop sci moron shit you know nothing about in another thread. This is an adult thread

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Could a "perfect circle" even be possible in the World of Forms?
    What are the rules?

    >it has potentially infinite digits and to suggest that infinity could be actual anywhere just sounds insane.
    >1/3 has infinite digits. Therefore it's impossible to split something up into 3 parts.
    You're an idiot.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      NTA but you're legit 80 IQ.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Why?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Number
      No.

      >it has potentially infinite digits and to suggest that infinity could be actual anywhere just sounds insane.
      It also is what classifies it as "not a number"

      >"Perfect circle" suggests "actually infinite pi", because a perfect circle is formed on the basis of perfect information, which includes "actually infinite pi"
      It implies that geometry cannot be accurately described by math.

      >"Actually infinite pi" doesn't appear possible even in the World of Forms. Therefore "Perfect" circle also doesn't appear possible in the World of Forms.
      No. All it means is that it cannot be understood using math alone.

      >You're an idiot.
      Please quantify "1/3" as a value instead of a ratio. You won't though because you'll be writing "3's till kingdom come.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Please quantify "1/3" as a value instead of a ratio.
        A ratio is a value. You're an idiot.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >A ratio is a value.
          It contains values and is a comparison of them, moron. That's why you can't put "0" in it and have it come out with a value. So please tell me what value "1/3" represents (if you can)?
          >inb4, hurr no the comparison of numbers is a number!

          >Please quantify "1/3" as a value instead of a ratio.
          0.n, where n is any number you want it to be such that when multiplied by 3 it adds up to 1
          >inb4 it doesn't work
          Yes it does, all numbers are made up, you can just make up more numbers, the only limiting factor is your moronic brain incapable of creating better and more refined models.

          >0.n, where n is any number you want it to be such that when multiplied by 3 it adds up to 1
          Well that's not a quantity. That's just a sentence full of cope as to why you can't actually give me a value.

          >Yes it does, all numbers are made up
          And what I'm trying to tell you is that you can't even "make up" the number without making math pointless as you're suggesting it really is.
          >the only limiting factor is your moronic brain incapable of creating better and more refined models.
          It's true. Math really can't explain how the universe functions and is simply a language we reified.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >It contains values and is a comparison of them, moron.
            It's also a value. 1/3 and 0.333... are the same value. If you're going to sperg out about something it should at least be accurate, instead of semantic differences you invented.

            >That's why you can't put "0" in it and have it come out with a value.
            Where do you see a 0 in 1/3?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >1/3 and 0.333... are the same value
            Okay
            Let 1/3 be 0.333...
            1 - 1/3 = 2/3
            1 - 0.333... = 0.777...
            0.777... / 2 =/= 0.333..
            And thus 1/3 =/= 0.333..

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >It's also a value
            No, it's not. That's why there's this distinct word for it called "ratio". It potentially represents a value.

            >1/3 and 0.333... are the same value
            Neither are a quantity no.

            >If you're going to sperg out about something it should at least be accurate,
            You're the one who didn't finish those threes and lazily used the "..." symbol as placeholder for quantity when it's undefined.

            >Where do you see a 0 in 1/3?
            as in you can't put "0" in a ratio you dingus, it's meaningless/undefined. I was making a point of how a ratio COMPARES value, but is not an actual value itself.

            >why you can't actually give me a value
            Because I was forced to learn a shitty mathematical system that can't accurately describe something that occurs in reality

            >Because I was forced to learn a shitty mathematical system that can't accurately describe something that occurs in reality

            That's not why you can't give me the value, you can't give me it because it's literally impossible and it's of no fault of your own. No mathematical system will provide certain values without contradicting itself, that's not to say that it's completely pointless. Reproducibility/redundancy is essential where it's needed.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >That's not why you can't give me the value
            I already gave you one, it can be anything you want it to be, as all mathematical systems are made up, given that our system doesn't work is very clear indication that something is wrong and we should adopt a better model

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >why you can't actually give me a value
            Because I was forced to learn a shitty mathematical system that can't accurately describe something that occurs in reality

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >So please tell me what value "1/3" represents
            a third

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Please quantify "1/3" as a value instead of a ratio.
        0.n, where n is any number you want it to be such that when multiplied by 3 it adds up to 1
        >inb4 it doesn't work
        Yes it does, all numbers are made up, you can just make up more numbers, the only limiting factor is your moronic brain incapable of creating better and more refined models.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >Please quantify "1/3" as a value instead of a ratio.
        Oh, that's easy!
        0.1
        I wrote it in base 3, because it doesn't really matter what base you write in, since that's just a way of notating actual quantities we made up.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >>1/3 has infinite digits. Therefore it's impossible to split something up into 3 parts.
      >You're an idiot.

      How could you divide something into three equal parts without some voodoo rules about infinite series?

      You divide it into 0.33, 0.33, 0.33 and you have 0.99, so it is not 100% divided. You could divide into 0.33, 0.33, 0.34, but then it is not equal. And then pattern repeats all the way, no matter how many 3s you put in front.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >How could you divide something into three equal parts without some voodoo rules about infinite series?
        I have three apples, take 1/3 of 3 and you have easily divided the three apples into 3 equal parts.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous
  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The world of forms is not an actual place, some museum of idealized shapes browsed by philosophers who meditate, die, or take psychedelics, as though behind the scene of a theater the rest of the fictional world could be found.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    That's an interesting question. It's said that pi to the 10th digit sufficiently describes everything in the observable universe. So let's take pi to the googlplex digit. What are you even doing with that? Why do you need more? Pi having infinite digits sounds nonsensical then.

  6. 2 years ago
    bodhi

    >Could a "perfect circle" even be possible in the World of Forms?
    Nothing is perfect in the worlds that is why the entire concept of platonic forms exist and the gnostic notion of the demiurge. Perfect things only exist in higher dimensions. not this one

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >"Actually infinite pi" doesn't appear possible even in the World of Forms. Therefore "Perfect" circle also doesn't appear possible in the World of Forms.
    Huh? Aren't forms literally perfect by definition?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Huh? Aren't forms literally perfect by definition?
      They should be. However we say that pi is an irrational yet transcendental number. That "irrationality" even subsists in the World of Forms goes against the Platonic spirit. Pi just appears to be the madman that just won't stop ranting and this is true in all possible worlds.

      To say "actually infinite pi is in the world of Forms" suggests there is such a thing as a perfectly rambling madman in a realm where there should be perfection. That makes the meaning of perfection meaningless.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        /thread

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Does pi being infinite mean that it isn't perfect? I feel like there's a leap in logic here.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Just define a circle as the set of all rational points equidistant to some center lmaooooo

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Stop shitting up math with infantile philosophy bullshit, morons.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    In the world of forms pi wouldn't be 3.14 etc... but the ratio between the diameter and the perfect circle. Decimal notation isn't a platonic representation of a number such as pi.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >14526425
    >Decimal notation isn't a platonic representation of a number such as pi.
    So it reduces to a definition game between those who love geometry against those who love arithmetic?

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >A real imperfect reality can't handle pi because pi is too perfect.
    >An imaginary perfect reality can't handle pi because it is not perfect enough.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    a perfect circle is already possible. A two-dimensional figure at a point, limited by a line, where any straight lines drawn from the point to the limit are equal.
    A perfect circle is possible in the world of forms, but not in the physical world because mathematical objects are ones of logic and axioms, many of which aren't true.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Always hide and ignore finitist threads.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >magical place where ideas work without material constraints
    >but how would you fit infinity in there lol
    sage

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *