Good find.
The point about there not being natural circles in space is useful when religionists talking about Maths as something that exists in its own right rather than a way of approximating reality invented by humans. I always argued that you don't get a perfect circle because nothing can be smaller than the Planck length and because of quantum fluctuations, but you don't even need to be that exact because the distortion of spacetime is enough to stop any circle that exists from being perfect.
The section of one physical supplanting another is also useful when talking to religionists about evolution. There is so much evidence for the theory of evolution through natural selection that any hypothesis that they come up with also needs to explain this evidence. Much like how Einstein's theory of relativity can be used to come up with the same results as Newton's calculations when used at a similar level of approximation.
The point about there not being natural circles in space is useful when religionists talking about Maths as something that exists in its own right rather than a way of approximating reality invented by humans. I always argued that you don't get a perfect circle because nothing can be smaller than the Planck length and because of quantum fluctuations, but you don't even need to be that exact because the distortion of spacetime is enough to stop any circle that exists from being perfect.
The section of one physical supplanting another is also useful when talking to religionists about evolution. There is so much evidence for the theory of evolution through natural selection that any hypothesis that they come up with also needs to explain this evidence. Much like how Einstein's theory of relativity can be used to come up with the same results as Newton's calculations when used at a similar level of approximation.
