User Controls
Do circles objectively exist?
-
2021-10-26 at 10:17 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 10:19 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 10:40 PM UTCshapes are objectively real because i rotate them in my head all the time
-
2021-10-26 at 11:01 PM UTCman doesnt exist and op is an untermensch.
-
2021-10-26 at 11:02 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 11:05 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 11:49 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-10-27 at 12:02 AM UTC
-
2021-10-27 at 12:03 AM UTC
-
2021-10-27 at 12:08 AM UTC
-
2021-10-27 at 12:23 AM UTCCircles are so lame.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-10-27 at 12:30 AM UTC
-
2021-10-27 at 12:54 AM UTC
-
2021-10-27 at 1:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmG It's either a circle or it isn't. In this case there are no actual circles by geometric definition.
What is a circle by geometric definition? A set of all points that are equidistant from a center point? If so then sure, no physical circles because sets of points aren't physical objects, they're mathematical objects. They do seem pretty objective. So I guess it boils down to if "having a physical instantiation" is necessary for existence, but that's not how I use the word "exists", and would include non-physical things in "things that exist".
So yeah, hinges on the meaning of "exist", but I think you'd have a hard time saying circles don't exist according to the way we typically use the word "exist" in general, or specifically in mathematics (where "exist" has a technical meaning by which circles very much do exist)The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-10-27 at 2:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny What is a circle by geometric definition? A set of all points that are equidistant from a center point? If so then sure, no physical circles because sets of points aren't physical objects, they're mathematical objects. They do seem pretty objective.
Couldn't you call this the result of an intersubjective convenience we have developed to describe things we see in the world? Certainly the understanding of a circle as a concept existed before the concept of formalized geometry at all. We invented the wheel before we invented geometry. The geometric concept of a circle was constructed as a way to describe things we saw in the world that fit closely enough to fall into particular categories.So I guess it boils down to if "having a physical instantiation" is necessary for existence, but that's not how I use the word "exists", and would include non-physical things in "things that exist".
So yeah, hinges on the meaning of "exist", but I think you'd have a hard time saying circles don't exist according to the way we typically use the word "exist" in general, or specifically in mathematics (where "exist" has a technical meaning by which circles very much do exist)
Do you think it's possible that the idea of non physical things existing could be an illusion? -
2021-10-27 at 4:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmG Couldn't you call this the result of an intersubjective convenience we have developed to describe things we see in the world? Certainly the understanding of a circle as a concept existed before the concept of formalized geometry at all. We invented the wheel before we invented geometry. The geometric concept of a circle was constructed as a way to describe things we saw in the world that fit closely enough to fall into particular categories.
Well which thing is the one you're questioning the existence of? Are you talking about the rough and ready way in which the shape of the sun or a wheel is circular? If so the objection that examples of circles we find are imperfect is no objection at all, _that_ notion of a circle isn't formalized and is fully embodied by things we might casually say are circular. Cleary such circles exist.
The complaint that the physical substrata of the universe may not support perfectly circular objects requires that by "circle" you mean the formalized geometric concept, in which case see my former comment: sets of points are obviously not physical objects so talking about the physical possibility of them is pointless (heh).Do you think it's possible that the idea of non physical things existing could be an illusion?
I don't think it's illusory, I think it just depends on what you take "exist" to mean. If your definition of "exist" is "there's a physical object or collection thereof to which this word applies" then sure, non physical things don't exist. But again, that's not how I use the word, that's not how most people use the word in every day usage, and it's definitely not how the technical term "exists" works in mathematics, which is probably the most relevant definition to us here what with circles being mathematical objects. -
2021-10-27 at 12:35 PM UTC
-
2021-10-27 at 7:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Well which thing is the one you're questioning the existence of?
Circles. Things where their perimeters are equidistant from a midpoint. Be it formed from some intangible points in space or tangible objects in space.Are you talking about the rough and ready way in which the shape of the sun or a wheel is circular? If so the objection that examples of circles we find are imperfect is no objection at all, _that_ notion of a circle isn't formalized and is fully embodied by things we might casually say are circular. Cleary such circles exist.
Doesn't that just strengthen the argument that circles only exist subjectively?
I think it's obvious that the sun is of a shape that suggests a circle to us at the scale we view it at but that's just an illusion meant to approximate the truth. Indeed it is actually broadly a 3 dimensional object more similar to a sphere on the scale that we observe it at. But in truth if you look at the sun, at no given instant is it actually spherical: in fact its not really meaningful to give it a sharply defined perimeter at all, and the shape of what might sensibly defined as a good bound for its "surface" is genuinely absolutely not spherical or circular.
So those sorts of circles are constructed subjectively by us, the description of the sun as being circular has nothing to do with the sun itself. In truth the sub doesn't even exist as some discrete entity, it's just subjectively defined by us where find it useful.The complaint that the physical substrata of the universe may not support perfectly circular objects requires that by "circle" you mean the formalized geometric concept, in which case see my former comment: sets of points are obviously not physical objects so talking about the physical possibility of them is pointless (heh).
It seems that the very notions of something having some boundary equidistant from a fixed point is incoherent because the concept of a well defined boundary or a well defined point are subjectively constructed "useful fictions" that help us approximately navigate the world but have no actual objective correspondence with any objective facts about the world, only subjective perceptions.
So in that sense they don't exist.I don't think it's illusory, I think it just depends on what you take "exist" to mean. If your definition of "exist" is "there's a physical object or collection thereof to which this word applies" then sure, non physical things don't exist. But again, that's not how I use the word, that's not how most people use the word in every day usage, and it's definitely not how the technical term "exists" works in mathematics, which is probably the most relevant definition to us here what with circles being mathematical objects.
Sorry I mean the notion of circles doesn't correspond to any objective facts about the world. -
2021-10-27 at 8:58 PM UTCThe fact that people have a clear definition of what an ideal circle is. The notion of a circle corresponds to that.
-
2021-10-27 at 10:03 PM UTCThe author of this post has returned to nothingness
