User Controls
Do circles objectively exist?
-
2021-10-26 at 3:50 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 3:53 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 3:54 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 4:23 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 4:24 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 4:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe 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.
A perfect circle can be objectively defined and universally agreed on. You can't say the same for a chair. Therefore, just like you, your anology is pure shit. -
2021-10-26 at 5:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo 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
Anything where 100% of the perimeter isn't equidistant from the centre point, isn't a circle.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-10-26 at 6:05 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 6:37 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 6:41 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmG Definitely not. But it's a loop of some sort, sure.
You've known thats a circle since you read about it in your book about shapes when you were a baby. Your mind is programed to associate that general shape with the word circle. You're fooling yourself into not calling a circle a circle just because its not the ideal perfect form of a circle. -
2021-10-26 at 6:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe You've known thats a circle since you read about it in your book about shapes when you were a baby. Your mind is programed to associate that general shape with the word circle.
The rest of us (by that I mean 7.753 billion of us) call that a definition. Without them language is not possible.
Take a seat, be quiet, and maybe you'll learn something. -
2021-10-26 at 6:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe You've known thats a circle since you read about it in your book about shapes when you were a baby. Your mind is programed to associate that general shape with the word circle. You're fooling yourself into not calling a circle a circle just because its not the ideal perfect form of a circle.
Well it certainly suggest the idea of what an actual circle might be.
It is similar to how cartoons and people in costumes and children's drawings might suggest what an "actual" Santa Claus might be.
But of course we both know none of those are actually Santa Claus. In fact we both know that Santa Claus... Doesn't actually exist. -
2021-10-26 at 6:51 PM UTC°
This approximation of a circle breaks down on the level of like 1080p pixels or whatever you're viewing this one. -
2021-10-26 at 7:01 PM UTC
-
2021-10-26 at 7:12 PM UTCWhat you're suggesting is an "actual circle" is just an idealized fantasy inspired by circles that exist like the example I posted.
-
2021-10-26 at 7:20 PM UTC
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.
Any 4-sided shape where all 4 sides are not exactly equal in length is not a square. Pretty sure you aren't going through life questioning the existence of squares though, because that would be stupid. You question circles because that's the shape this masturbatory question stereotypically takes. That's the only reason you're asking. Simply reject the circle question out of hand the same way you did with the square, you pseud. -
2021-10-26 at 7:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe What you're suggesting is an "actual circle" is just an idealized fantasy inspired by circles that exist like the example I posted.
Originally posted by Speedy Parker The rest of us (by that I mean 7.753 billion of us) call that a definition. Without them language is not possible.
Take a seat, be quiet, and maybe you'll learn something. -
2021-10-26 at 7:36 PM UTCSpeedy once again failing to understand languages and definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive.
-
2021-10-26 at 7:43 PM UTCWhat if you take the teeniest tiniest smallest particle ever, and poke a little hole in the exact middle of it ?
Eh? EH?? -
2021-10-26 at 7:51 PM UTC
