My Pi challenge

[Maxwell511]

Philosophers need to have their heads examined sometimes. Pi is liberally sprinkled throughout mathematics and physics, but some philosophers are not too sure it exists!

We could be making this stuff up. Does physics tell us truths about reality or are we just rationalizing reality for our simple ape minds?

Does this:

e^i(pi)=1

for example mean anything? Is a reflection of a truth or a "shadow" of a truth that the human mind creates?

If a greater "logical" mind than ours existed would it use deduction, or would all mathematical theorems be tautological to the axioms for it? Was Plato right? It really is not easy to know.

 

[Cabal]

Philosophers need to have their heads examined sometimes. Pi is liberally sprinkled throughout mathematics and physics, but some philosophers are not too sure it exists!

Why should it? Physics and mathematics are human constructs. And what does it mean for a number to "exist"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If Pi exists. It is not "true" if Pi does not exist. Unless we consider statements like "Leprechauns tend to where green" to be "true".

It is not as simple as you assume.

Sure it is. Pi is either rational or irrational. It has been proven that it is irrational. Therefore, pi is irrational. Therefore, the statement "Pi is irrational" is absolutely true.

Whether or not pi 'exists' is another question entirely. Pi is a number. Do numbers exist? Depends on what you mean by 'exist'. But pi exists inasmuch as any other number exists, so I don't see the problem.

We could be making this stuff up. Does physics tell us truths about reality or are we just rationalizing reality for our simple ape minds?

Does this:

e^i(pi)=1

for example mean anything? Is a reflection of a truth or a "shadow" of a truth that the human mind creates?

No, because it's false: it's e[sup]iπ[/sup] = -1 . That statement is as true as any statement can be, and its truth is far more secure than that of other, more empirical statements.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why should it? Physics and mathematics are human constructs. And what does it mean for a number to "exist"?

The number of apples on my desk is objective, not subjective. The rest is just layers of abstraction.

 

[Cabal]

The number of apples on my desk is objective, not subjective. The rest is just layers of abstraction.

Could one say that there's a difference between a number of objects existing and a number existing?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Could one say that there's a difference between a number of objects existing and a number existing?

I'd say yes. Some things are names for categories of things. Categories don't exist in and of themselves but rather is merely a word we apply to a state. For example, people always ask whether we can know that love exists. But, to me, it seems like the wrong question. There is no 'thing' that is love. It is a name for a set of behavior patterns that we call love.

Similarly, there is no thing '2' but rather it is the name of a concept indicating a certain answer to the question 'how many.' The symbol '2' exists. The concept exists as a brain state indicating a certain cardinality.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Could one say that there's a difference between a number of objects existing and a number existing?

Yes. Lewis Carroll explored this: you can have a cat without a grin, but how often have you seen a grin without a cat? 'Five apples' and 'five oranges' have something in common: five.

 

[driewerf]

I love that tricky word (highlighted in red above).
It's a great word for theists to use.
It's also a great word for non-theists to use.

And both sides have often "defined" that wonderfully tricky word to the point of meaninglessness.

Non-science thread (in the science forum) is full of non-science.

Apologetics (and its antithesis) no longer belongs on CF.

I don't think many nontheists use that word. I think it is very often used by fundamentalists, who think things are black or white, and can't handle the many shades of grey.

 

[driewerf]

I think you are being irrational

All my arguments are rational.

 

[driewerf]

I think the proper conclusion here is: God ≠ Pi.

I agree, but nontheless absolute truth is impossible, hence god is impossible.

 

[driewerf]

Nope, Pi still exists, it is just that we can not completely express pi.

That's my point exactly.

Or perhaps one could stretch things a bit and say since we cannot express Pi numberically we do not fully comprehand Pi.

I think we "understand" Pi very well.

Which is no problem at all as this is what Theologians have been saying from the earliest recorded musings about God.

But god will never be able to tell us the full and complete Truth (truth of course with a capital).

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree, but nontheless absolute truth is impossible, hence god is impossible.

Absolute truth -- (omniscience?) -- is humanly unobtainable; but is a natural attribute of God.

Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

 

[AV1611VET]

But god will never be able to tell us the full and complete Truth (truth of course with a capital).

Unless there are numbers that exist in Heaven that we don't know about.

What about expressing Pi in another base besides 10?

 

[driewerf]

Unless there are numbers that exist in Heaven that we don't know about.

What about expressing Pi in another base besides 10?

It will always have an infinite string of digits, whatever base you take.

 

[driewerf]

Just think of how long and how big the Bible would be had God put the true value of Pi in it. 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
4428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609....

Your memory verse today is 1 Kings 7:23 An estimate in this case was sufficient. After all not all arms are the same length .

Wich clearly shows the bible can not be inerrant. Because where ever it stops it string of digits, there will be the question "What is the next number?"

Oh, and while spending time (and ink and paper) on Pi, it will be neglecting the square root of 2.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wich clearly shows the bible can not be inerrant. Because where ever it stops it string of digits, there will be the question "What is the next number?"

Oh, and while spending time (and ink and paper) on Pi, it will be neglecting the square root of 2.

I guess it's time for me to put an end to this charade with a challenge thread.

 

[Tiberius]

Now look what you;ve done!

 

[lesliedellow]

"absolute truth is impossible"

Which presumably isn't absolutely true.

 

[driewerf]

"absolute truth is impossible"

Which presumably isn't absolutely true.

But very accurate.

 

[lesliedellow]

But very accurate.

Which presumably isn't absolutely true.