Is there objective Truth?

[Arkilogue]

Can you conceive of a possible world in which pi is not the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter?

Yes, this world.  There are no perfect circles in this world so pi is an idealization created by minds.  It doesn't exist anywhere but in mind.

A perfect circle can be physically made. And nature makes perfect spheres all the time as bubbles.

[Soldat Du Christ]

You're still peddling that same false dichotmy.  Its a poor argument no matter what you plug in.  20 pages in...I;d hoped we'd have gotten to the "does truth exist" point, by now.  This is disappointing. In a thread -about- truth, your failure to acknowledge this basic logical principle amounts to your own objection to truth...regardless of whether or not it exists as you might describe it.

Btw, kernal, that's where your approach is lacking, lol. It gives hope to fuckers regardless of how plainly and simply wrong their claims may be...and that hope is -all- they need to persist in idiocy. 20 more p[ages and you're not going to come to an understanding, these arguments will not be improved. The subject will just keep on keepin on.

I've noticed in all your posts you never feel the need to have clarity. This always makes it a difficult aproach and often not worth adressing.

Also you have no reason to dismiss the thread under the guise of getting to the point, as it's been covered exponentionally and by default will always boil down to opinion. Since then i've gone with the flow in trying to explain to others why it's important to conform to reality, to live by objectivity. I've tried to explain it's the only sane way to live.

Kernel isn't masking his arguments or questions in a bunch of filler and emotional brain barf, so it's quite easy to stay on topic and actualy make progress.

---

Yes, this world.  There are no perfect circles in this world so pi is an idealization created by minds.  It doesn't exist anywhere but in mind.

A perfect circle can be physically made. And nature makes perfect spheres all the time as bubbles.

This. Or you could throw a pebble in water and observe the programing of nature. Math is a tool we've developed to utilise this programing.

[The Grand Nudger]

I offered clarity a dozen pages ago.  That you chose to ignore it is your own problem.  Would repeating myself stop you from repeating yourself?  I hardly think so, or you wouldn't be repeating yourself now. Fix your arguments, or stop bitching and moaning about other people repeatedly pointing out their issues. It's always been your call.

Here's a fun q, how would you know that a pebble's wave is a perfect circle, unless you knew the exact value of pi and sat down to measure that very same wave? I'll just skip to the answer because I know you'll never get around to it.

You wouldn't, you don't, you haven't, and it isn't.

Doesn't even matter whether or not nature is programmed, or by whom, you're just wrong on the face of it, huh? Just like you have been regarding -every single claim- you;ve made in theis thread. There;s no need to answer any question, to determine the accuracy of any given detail, you're wrong regardless, for the very same reasons which provide us the only definition of truth that could possibly mean anything in a thread about whether or not truth exists. Reasons which you object to while invoking and butchering. So, if your earlier criticism of people who object to the existence of truth were true, self defeating in some sense...and frankly I don;t know why anyone would trust a word you say at this point...then you should probably stow all of this shit for the same reasons you yourself offered up.

-But you won;t. You know this, I know this, we all know this. Perhaps that;s what you meant by objective, immaterial truths? You came her for an intellectual sparring partner, did you? The kiddie pool is thataway ------>

[bennyboy]

Yes, this world.  There are no perfect circles in this world so pi is an idealization created by minds.  It doesn't exist anywhere but in mind.

A perfect circle can be physically made. And nature makes perfect spheres all the time as bubbles.

Except not.

Particles are moving.  That's what heat is.  So unless you've managed to find a bubble at 0 degrees Kelvin, and unless it actually IS as perfect as you say (it still wouldn't be), then nope. . . "perfect circle" is only a geometrical idea.

[Soldat Du Christ]

I offered clarity a dozen pages ago.  That you chose to ignore it is your own problem.  Would repeating myself stop you from repeating yourself?  I hardly think so, or you wouldn't be repeating yourself now.

Fix your arguments, or stop bitching and moaning about other people repeatedly pointing out their issues. It's always been your call.

Here's a fun q, how would you know that a pebble's wave is a perfect circle, unless you knew the exact value of pi and sat down to measure that very same wave? I'll just skip to the answer because I know you'll never get around to it.

You wouldn't, you don't, you haven't, and it isn't.

Doesn't even matter whether or not nature is programmed, or by whom, you're just wrong on the face of it, huh?

It depends on how much emperical testing you demand to be convinced. Looking at a bubble, and a ripple in the water is enough for me, it's obviously all calculated under the hood. I think is actualy unreasonable to demand emperical evidence for everything, in much the same way i think it is insane to live purely by emperical evidence.

But of cource, if you have faith that we came from soup, it only follows to question your own rationality.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it doesn't. Fly off to some other subject all you like, "enough for you" doesn't make something a perfect circle. Obviously, what you consider to be perfect enough is a low bar. Please, tell me more about rationality.

[Arkilogue]

A perfect circle can be physically made. And nature makes perfect spheres all the time as bubbles.

Except not.

Particles are moving.  That's what heat is.  So unless you've managed to find a bubble at 0 degrees Kelvin, and unless it actually IS as perfect as you say (it still wouldn't be), then nope. . . "perfect circle" is only a geometrical idea.

Perfect enough for government work.

[pocaracas]

Damn... did I waste half an hour of typing to teach you how to properly quote people and you just ignored it all?!
You lost respect points there, my man...

"Our Universe's space-time can very well be expanding within the infinite space-time.
There's no way to know that it's not the case, so you can't shut down that possibility and insert a super powerful conscious entity in there."

I could just as easily say you can't insert an infinite space time theory when we have reason to believe this to be so. Cosmologists like sean carrol are on the defensive. I agree with alot of the off hand points he made about theism and general science, but wasn't impressed with his dissmisal of the contrary.

Indeed you could and can say that I cannot guarantee that things happened this way or that.
That's precisely the point!
WE DON'T KNOW!

Stop pretending you do know when you insert the super complex entity commonly known as god.

The only intellectually honest position to take is one of skepticism towards any definite claim towards how the big-bang could have come about.
I merely showed you an alternative. I'm sure that many more alternatives could be concocted. Which is right? Don't know!
Better wait until science gets there - didn't I use this sentence in my very first reply on this thread? Back when we were talking about "truth"?

"So you think that space-time existing since all eternity and for all eternity is more of a stretch than the existence of a conscious, Universe-creating, eternal entity?
Occam's Razor, dude... which is simpler?"

Seeing how eternal universe theory has been demostratedly unestablished (even by your friend sean carrol here), and just the impossability of self existing naturalism. I'll side with a creator. Where we find B, there is always and A. Why wouldn't the universe follow the same logic?

Dude... I'll have whatever you're having...


"demostratedly unestablished"... what an expression!! And you know what?... it is in agreement with my previous post. You should go read it again... it has some nice caveats inserted for absolution from absolute claims.

Then you dropped this other pearl "the impossability of self existing naturalism". Drich, is that you?
Why is it "impossable"?
Are you stuck on the "our Universe is all there is" idiocy?

[Angrboda]

Yes, this world.  There are no perfect circles in this world so pi is an idealization created by minds.  It doesn't exist anywhere but in mind.

A perfect circle can be physically made. And nature makes perfect spheres all the time as bubbles.

No it can't. A perfect circle consists of a line composed of an infinite set of dimensionless points. There is no such thing in the real world. Do you realize how big soap molecules are? It approximates a sphere, nothing more. You are constructing the sphere by imagining that the molecules in a particular layer are connected, forming the sphere. They aren't. They are just molecules arranged on a circular pattern. That you can't understand how there are no actual circles or spheres in the world does not bode well for the credibility of your 'theories'.

Is this a circle and a square?

[pocaracas]

A perfect circle can be physically made. And nature makes perfect spheres all the time as bubbles.

No it can't.  A perfect circle consists of a line composed of an infinite set of dimensionless points.  There is no such thing in the real world.  Do you realize how big soap molecules are?  It approximates a sphere, nothing more.  You are constructing the sphere by imagining that the molecules in a particular layer are connected, forming the sphere.   They aren't.  They are just molecules arranged on a circular pattern.  That you can't understand how there are no actual circles or spheres in the world does not bode well for the credibility of your 'theories'.

Is this a circle and a square?

Listen to Jorm.... she knows stuff.

Think about space as divided into 3D pixels.... voxels... each with a dimension of a Planck length, cubed.
The fact that we have a finite minimum length tells you that any circle made up by real particles, even really tiny ones, like neutrinos, would never ever ever ever be a perfect sphere.
For all our purposes, it would be as perfect as can be... but never perfect enough to yield the infinity of terms in PI.