User Controls

Do circles objectively exist?

  1. #1
    mmG African Astronaut
    There are no perfect circles in nature because of the unsteady quantum nature of the universe. At some point any physically real geometry breaks down.

    So is the concept of a circle something that exists objectively? Or is it a useful subjective perception we share?
  2. #2
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    I don't know. I feel like this is something similar to Plato's theory of forms.
  3. #3
    Lanny Hard in da champaignet
    Yes
  4. #4
    Lanny Hard in da champaignet
    Or maybe not
  5. #5
    Lanny Hard in da champaignet
    How can circles exist if Cheerios don’t exist?
  6. #6
    mmG African Astronaut
    Originally posted by Obbe I don't know. I feel like this is something similar to Plato's theory of forms.

    Do you believe in universal Forms?
  7. #7
    mmG African Astronaut
    Originally posted by Lanny How can circles exist if Cheerios don’t exist?

    Do Cheerios objectively exist?
  8. #8
    RIPtotse African Astronaut
    Yes. Circles objectively exist because they’ve been socially constructed to.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  9. #9
    mmG African Astronaut
    Originally posted by RIPtotse Yes. Circles objectively exist because they’ve been socially constructed to.

    You can't construct a real circle, only an approximation of one.
  10. #10
    aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition
    Originally posted by mmG There are no perfect circles in nature because of the unsteady quantum nature of the universe. At some point any physically real geometry breaks down.

    I dunno, if you're talking about quantum effects making behaviour statistical when you get small enough, the same would apply to any standard shape...

    Originally posted by mmG So is the concept of a circle something that exists objectively? Or is it a useful subjective perception we share?

    circles might be the most likely to exist though, given gravity is (at least now) a universal constant
  11. #11
    Sudo Dark Matter [my hereto riemannian peach]
    Ovals objectively exist so the degree to which circles can objectively exist depends on the universal parameters we can collectively agree on of where an oval becomes a circle and to how fine a degree. There should be a governing body for deciding this and nothing else

    Reminds me of (IIRC) Timex's original creator who got a watch set to greenich mean and went village to village charging people to get the righ time, then when he died his daughter basically tried to copywrite time itself. Maybe that was a dream I had about a supervillan idk
  12. #12
    Originally posted by mmG There are no perfect circles in nature

    "How do you know something in nature is a perfect circle? You might know if you found one, but if you haven't found one, you haven't proved that they don't exist." — David Kinderlehrer
  13. #13
    Meikai African Astronaut
    Yes, circles exist. Perfect circles may not, but the issue there is perfection - not the circle itself. By the same logic a perfect square probably doesn't exist (is perhaps even less likely to exist). But squares exist. Perfection does not.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  14. #14
    mmG African Astronaut
    Originally posted by aldra I dunno, if you're talking about quantum effects making behaviour statistical when you get small enough, the same would apply to any standard shape…

    Sure do any standard shapes exist then?



    circles might be the most likely to exist though, given gravity is (at least now) a universal constant

    It propagates radially but the shape and distribution of the field wouldn't be radially perfect. For example for the earth, it varies widely enough that nuclear submarines, for navigation when GPS signals are unavailable under deep submersion and due to obstructive geographical situations, you can use a technique known as gravitational gradiometry to get millimetre-accurate navigation at any point on the earth, and the same technique can be used to scout for mineral resource deposits like untapped oil wells, with just a flyover from a gradiometric survey plane.
  15. #15
    mmG African Astronaut
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson "How do you know something in nature is a perfect circle? You might know if you found one, but if you haven't found one, you haven't proved that they don't exist." — David Kinderlehrer

    You can prove something doesn't exist deductively.
  16. #16
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Does a circle have to be perfect to say it exists?

    You're probably sitting on a chair right now. It might not be the ideal perfect chair, but you still call it a chair.
  17. #17
    mmG African Astronaut
    Originally posted by Meikai Yes, circles exist. Perfect circles may not, but the issue there is perfection - not the circle itself. By the same logic a perfect square probably doesn't exist (is perhaps even less likely to exist). But squares exist. Perfection does not.

    Consider "perfect circle" here to mean "actual circle" Vs something that might be approximately close enough to a circle to fool you into thinking it is one.

    Perfection in this case is an essential matter separating a circle from not-a-circle. After all you could easily be fooled into thinking an oval is a circle if you are just looking at it at an angle.

    A circle is an object where the perimeter is equidistant from a fixed point. In the physical world, no such structures exist.
  18. #18
    mmG African Astronaut
    Originally posted by Obbe Does a circle have to be perfect to say it exists?

    You're probably sitting on a chair right now. It might not be the ideal perfect chair, but you still call it a chair.

    Please refer to my reply to Lucy

  19. #19
    mmG African Astronaut
    Do any shapes exist objectively?
  20. #20
    Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by mmG Consider "perfect circle" here to mean "actual circle" Vs something that might be approximately close enough to a circle to fool you into thinking it is one.

    Perfection in this case is an essential matter separating a circle from not-a-circle. After all you could easily be fooled into thinking an oval is a circle if you are just looking at it at an angle.

    A circle is an object where the perimeter is equidistant from a fixed point. In the physical world, no such structures exist.

    Sure, but a circle doesn't have to be perfect to call it a circle. You aren't "being fooled" into calling your chair a chair just because it isn't the ideal perfect chair.
Jump to Top