Hi,
To TheHermit:
Regarding taking poles on the word "universe". That activity is no different than citing dictionaries in an attempt to define the word. Both establish a words meaning by giving it's general use. I contend that I could go out into the world and use my "universe" and always be understood. Your "universe", on the other hand, many people will find counter-intuitive.
<<
> (1) Do you think "circles" exist in this universe.
(snip) If you mean some kind of platonic-prototype, no.
>>
Then we are agreed. The perfect circle, as such, does not exist. By my definition, a "circle" is thus not in the universe, although it (somehow) remains in yours. I would prefer if you consistently used "univeral set" to denote your universe, as that is much clearer. This is the real source of our disagreement.
<<
> (2) Do you think the-idea-of (definition of) circles exists in this
> universe. If so, in what form?
Yes. In the form of the definition. In the set of all circles and
things
with circular properties. In the tensors which describe our space
time. The
formulation doesn't matter. Space-time defines the ability to create a
"circle", and whatever attributes that it has. For any symbols.
Encoded in
any fashion. When you go "Ah Ha!" here, it will be a good time to come
back
and try to talk some more about this. See below.
>>
Maybe space-time does. I don't doubt that the definition of a circle is an important and useful peice of knowledge. I also think that many natural processes strive towards (are attracted to) the limit defined by "circle" (or "sphere"), but I would not agree that this means such processes "define" a circle. They just are; they just happen -- it is only us humans who "see" the circle so defined. It takes a symbolic system and a frame of reference to jump from "almost a circle" or "attempting to be a circle" to "circle".
<<
Hint 1: You are seeing a perfect circle every time you look at the
function
of a circle.
>>
Wrong wrong wrong. Utterly wrong. You are seeing the *defintion* of (or the *idea* of) a circle when you look at the function of a circle. It is this mistake that you have constantly made, and it reflects a profound misunderstanding of the difference between existants and truths.
Remember:
All statements of truth are embedded in a frame of reference.
All existants, on the other hand, exist.
<<
A few years ago a physical circle might have been out by a couple of
angstrom. Now we move electrons on the surface of atoms. And a
eucledian plane drawn through that cloud can yield a perfect circle.
But there is a much more convincing if wierd proof.
>>
Even if you position all the (n) atoms exactly where they should be for a circle, that still only defines an n-sided polygon approximation to a circle. The center of the "lines" joining each atom are *closer* to the middle, and so it's not a perfect circle.
A similar effect occurs in your meson cloud: each "evaporates" exactly at the boundary to the circle (I'm taking your word for that), and so each evaporation can be said to define one point on the circle. However, since a circle is a continuum, all you can ever acheive of it is a *quantized* version, with the number of evaporations now defining the number of (unequally spaced) sides in the polygon. To jump from that "discrete circle" to a theory about *exactly* where the next meson would evaporate (assuming it doesn't hit a point already defined) takes a symbol using, frame of reference holding being who possess the *idea* of a circle. Each meson is unaware of the "discrete circle" it my be helping to define -- each meson is just a little stimulus-response system which understands (intentional stance alert) only "I'm too close".
<<
Space-time is. It does not require "understanding". It does not
require
"proper frames of reference". Space-time just is. Space-time needs no
reference. Space-time needs no reason.
>>
Agreed, thus far. Space-time is the existant.
<<
Space-time is the reference.
>>
Our *understanding of* or *preception of* space-time is the reference.
<<
Without space-time the universe would not exist. It came into being
with the Universe, and enforces the "nature" of the universe.
Space-time is the reason for the universe and everything in it.
>>
Agreed, although that last seems a bit grand. Are there not other causes for "everything in it" in addition to space-time?
<<
Including circles.
>>
Circles are "caused" by our idealization (conversion into ideas which may or may not reflect the way the universe is) of space-time -- they are not contained in the universe (the set of all existing things)
<<
Which require Eucledian planes, and the concept of distance, and more
than one dimension. Which are all properties of Space-time.
>>
Wait, now the universe is *dependent* on some guy named Euclid? What prattle is this? You've gone off the deep end...
<<
To all the above; you obviously discount space-time as a frame of
reference.
You have a few words you are playing back and forth, and no matter how
I
reply, you play back the same. I am obviously doing such a lousy job
you
can't see what I mean. So I just quit the game.
>>
Space-time is not a frame of reference. Our *understanding of* space-time is a reference. Space-time is an "existant", not a "truth".
<<
There are words for people who construct their own universi and
believe that this then forces the "real universe" to bend to their
will. Delusional is one that most people would think of. What do you
think people will say?
>>
Well this seems rather negative. As I said above -- I think a lot of people will look at *you* pretty strangely if you tell them that their "universe" contains non-existent things. You're the one who has "delusions" about the existence of things nobody can see; the existence of things which can *never* be instantiated in the real universe.
<<
The idea of PI appears in all the continents. If it were a function of
some arbitrary "proper frame of reference" it would not have done so.
But it isn't arbitrary at all. In a thing which is a "circle", the
circumference has a fixed relationship to the diameter. Would you
care, without discussing space-time or counting theory to explain why
this should be so?
>>
Sure. We humans share our cultures to a large degree. One can trace the "circle" back to before the beginning of recorded history. It was probably invented (discovered if you want to play fast and loose with language) by some caveman who found it useful in his dealing with his environment. Possibly independently invented by many. The circle, like many other concepts we commonly use, is the (assumed) limit of natural processes that humans often observe. To that extent, it is derived from the "natural world" (space-time), even though it never occurs there. As regards the fixed ratio, that is a property of the definition of a circle, and is therefore not an artifact of space-time but rather an artifact of our symbolic system. "Pi" in the real world (for "discrete circles") is always a rational number. (22/7 was commonly used all over the world)
<<
> It is my contention that a circle, as such, does not exist, and > therefore does not interact with the universe. (despite the fact > that's it's definition does so). If you can point out a place wherea
> *circle* (not it's definition) actually interacts with the universe, > you'll have won this debate, but don't hold your breath while > looking...
See the example of a euclidian plane drawn through a meson cloud
above...
Now repeat your silly expression and I will taunt you again!
>>
Keep holding your breath...
<<
You really think that atoms approximate the shape they are because
"blanked out"? You think that the earth approximates the shape it is
because "blanked out"? You think that high pressure vessels are the
shape they are because "blanked out"? You think that a point soucre
charge field is the shape it is because "blanked out"? You think a
star is the shape it is because "blanked out"? Galaxies? How do you
replace "blanked out"? And what reason (no, you may not use Space
time) do you have for answering the way you do?
>>
Atoms, planets, pressure vessels and other related objects *approximate* a circular (or spherical) shape becuase of the forces acting on them -- not becuase they have some Platonic urge to be a Perfect Circle. It is a case of stimulus-response. The fact that our *idea* of a circle allows us to (accuratly) explain or describe what happens does not mean that space-time contains circles.
I do not expect a response to this post from TheHermit.
ERiC