Pi

[amuse]

okay, so the reference is found in religious texts, but what i really wanted to discuss is this:

x/0 = infinity. and pi is ridiculously irrationally infinite. for some reason, when i was young, in my teens, and listening to my grampa (math instructor), i think i understood how to calculate it better than i do half my life later.
but i digress.
what fascinates me is that many of the old mathematicians were spiritual masters, pythagoras for example was well-learned in the mysteries. and like different religions can lead one to god, i think god's infinity can be mathematically expressed in different ways. i don't know what else there is besides x/0 and pi that capture this transcendentalism from the material to the infinite, do you?

i couldn't believe that my instructor wasn't as captured as i was...that he asked where i got 3.14159 etc. from. i was starstruck all over again when i started googling. i mean, grampa had a coffee cup with the digits allllll around it, lines stretching onward...

maybe it was just a really good cup of java that he brewed.

[subterranean]

sorry..what is Pi? :blush:

[amuse]

teehee
this is a start:
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/digits.html

and this:
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ma3adc/pi.html

[amuse]

it never ever ever repeats. it's mentioned in the bible. it fascinated ptolemy and archimedes. it's the most gorgeous number on the planet.

[subterranean]

oh that PI....i dont really get it though why it's related to religious texts..i have to read more to find out

thanks amuse

[rocksea]

oh that PI....i dont really get it though why it's related to religious texts..i have to read more to find out


if you take ANY circle and divide its circumference by its diameter, you get Pi.

as amuse mentioned, long back, philosphers dealt with all kind of things like mathematics, science, religion, astronomy, psychology, nature, etc. so it is no wonder if this gets into religious texts as well. it cud just be an acknowledgement that everything in this world is related in some ways,,

[mono]

I certainly agree with you, amuse, that much applied math, especially pi, seems beyond perplexing, being, at least as we know, infinite. Archimides, Ptolemy, and especially Pythagoras contributed to what one may consider now "spiritual" and "transcendental" mathematics. In fact, the Pythagoreans even considered, through the transmigration of souls, that each soul is composed of ONE-dimensional geometrical figures; we cannot perceive them since, even when we sketch a circle, for example, on paper, that circle has a height on the paper with the ink/led.
Nowadays, since Sir Isaac Newton and many Babylonians and Egyptians, math has its applications in universal concepts, literally! Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking have made breakthroughs that addle the average brain (like mine), continuing off concepts from Euclid, Pythagoras, and all of the other ancient Greeks and Romans.

[mono]

By the way, I just noticed one of my roommates, while I typed the last entry, is watching Pi, the film. How strange.

[amuse]

no! there's a film called Pi? must see.

how very serendipitous. :)

[Jay]

lol, when I said x/0 = infinity they went all grrrrrr at me cos for secondary schools x/0 is just that, x/0, end of the equation, means you can't keep on playing with all sorts of odd numbers :p

[amuse]

more of why i love pi:
48) Pi does not have to be written in decimal (base 10) notation (3.14159265....). Here it is in binary (base 2) notation: 11.00100100001111110110101010001000100001011010001 10000100011010011

You can do lots more stuff with Pi when it is in binary format - like drawing weird pictures of it, or even listening to it. As Pi has an infinite number of places, it is quite possible that any message you liked could be heard somewhere in Pi. It has even been suggested it contains the VOICE OF GOD. In Carl Sagan's book 'Contact' the places of Pi are found to contain a message from the beings that built the universe.
from http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/5945/facts.html

[rocksea]

Pi. It has even been suggested it contains the VOICE OF GOD. In Carl Sagan's book 'Contact' the places of Pi are found to contain a message from the beings that built the universe.


i think whatever beyond human understanding/intelligence has been placed as =god from long back,,
why shud god voice in such a particular way only :p

[imthefoolonthehill]

first of all... there x/0 is not infinity...but... x/infinty =0 x/0 is undefined...

Please correct me if i'm wrong... i'm only a lowly high school calculus student.

second of all... where is PI mentioned in the BIble? Show me. I've studied the Bible for the past 12 years of my schooling and i've never heard of this.

[Basil]

I don't know if this is what Amuse was referring to, but Kings 7:23 gives pi a value of 3:


And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other:it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.


And something else to ponder:

Number of days between Red Sox World Series triumphs: 31,459

value of pi: 3.14159

hmmmm . . .

[amuse]

ah, then i was mistaken when understand my prof. oof.

re: bible stuff:
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Pi_through_the_ages.html

btw, rocksea, my interpretation (mho, always liberal) wasn't that pi contained the entire voice of god, but that it could be heard in pi, as it can in things as simple as the note of a flute... :)

[imthefoolonthehill]

so... the Bible has something that was round, not necessarily circular... measured with cubits, which were basically a hand, not precise measurements... and they gave the measurments... and out of this you get pi? .... what nonsense is this? Get real people...I would also like to note that no one has corrected me on the x/infinity=0 instead of x/0=infinity... ...so i'm pretty sure i'm right...

[amuse]

well, there are plenty of math sites that do get pi from that! that wasn't the only one, fool. :p

[papayahed]

so... the Bible has something that was round, not necessarily circular... measured with cubits, which were basically a hand, not precise measurements... and they gave the measurments... and out of this you get pi? .... what nonsense is this? Get real people...I would also like to note that no one has corrected me on the x/infinity=0 instead of x/0=infinity... ...so i'm pretty sure i'm right...


Your correct. Wait I think. x/infinity = 0 and x/0 = undefined. We don't know how many times 0 can go into any number.

I remember watching a show about the eygptian pyramid builders, I don't know exactly how it fit in but they found pi in some of the calculations for the great pyramid. This occurred because the builders were using a circle to take their measurements. I wish I could remember how it all went though, it was very interesting.

[atiguhya padma]

Isn't maths a language we have developed? Or does it really exist in nature? Isn't it a way of seeing the world?

[amuse]

you know, i would have to agree. because its abstractions are so huge. like, lately in soc. and poly sci, these letters and numbers just fly across the screen in my mind.
and last night i zoned out (we'd discussed the Gita and balance earlier in the day) and thought of the hugeness of zero. how it can encompass nothing, or the balance of 1 trillion and negative 1 trillion. and how there's no negative zero - yet.

so yeah...i see what you're saying....

but! what about certain things that do have conformity? like the hexagonal (i think) tiles in yosemite's devil's den? or the hexagonal shape of liver cells and honeycombs...

i think this language explains more precisely in some ways than words do, and yet in others is more vague and imprecise (as in the case of imaginary numbers). and yet like words it's infinitesimally (sp?) varied and through it we can try to approach the language of the universe.

[imthefoolonthehill]

... math works... even high-end math... far beyond imaginary numbers. It is not merely a language or a way of viewing the world, it is both... It is a language that describes the way the world IS... it describes objective reality. Math only doesn't work when it is applied incorrectly. Math is the best argument for objective reality anyone can make... simply because it works, and always works.

[atiguhya padma]

<Math is the best argument for objective reality anyone can make... simply because it works, and always works.>

It would seem that you are confusing reality with appearance. Do we have percepual access to objective reality? I would argue that anything that comes to us via the senses is not unadulterated, and that the world that we perceive is the world of appearance.

[papayahed]

<Math is the best argument for objective reality anyone can make... simply because it works, and always works.>

It would seem that you are confusing reality with appearance. Do we have percepual access to objective reality? I would argue that anything that comes to us via the senses is not unadulterated, and that the world that we perceive is the world of appearance.


But if every single "percievers" past, present, and future "see" the same thing isn't that a reality? Planes are in the sky all the time, they are flying based on mathematical principles. A Planes has never fallen out of the sky because the math prinicples fail, that is a reality.

[atiguhya padma]

How do you know, without reference to perception, that each perceivers past, present and future "see" the same thing? Your still referring to perceptions, to the perceived world. Your whole statement refers to perception. It could be that every person perceives the same thing, but we would not know whether that were true or not without referring to perception.

[papayahed]

How do you know, without reference to perception, that each perceivers past, present and future "see" the same thing?

Circumstancial evidence. 2 + 2 has always been 4 and will always before(hehehe).

As you say:

"I would argue that anything that comes to us via the senses is not unadulterated, and that the world that we perceive is the world of appearance."

And I'm saying that our perceptions may be "adulterated" but if the total group has the say perception, isn't that perception a group reality? And what else do we have but out own reality to base this against. I believe it's all realtive. We can't know how our world of appearance compares to reality. It may or may not be similar.

[atiguhya padma]

<I'm saying that our perceptions may be "adulterated" but if the total group has the say perception, isn't that perception a group reality?>

No. Its a group perception.

Firstly, I don't really see any reason why the amount of sameness regarding multiple perceptions should tell us anything about reality. It could tell us far more about how we can be fooled, or how we perceptually operate.

Secondly, I would argue that there are never multiple identical perceptions. It is only in the blurring of detail that multiple perceptions appear the same.

The generalisation of terms and the reduction of appearance fool us into thinking that perceptions can be identical. When we all see a 'plane' in the sky, we don't in fact all see the same thing. Our perceptions differ and our interpretations differ. What we think we have seen may be moulded into an experience we regard as the same experience everyone else is having, but because we operate from different spaces and we have different biological and psychological makeup, the true detail of our experiences will differ.

At least, that's what I reckon.:)

[papayahed]

but because we operate from different spaces and we have different biological and psychological makeup, the true detail of our experiences will differ.

How do you know this? You can only testify to your own perceptions. We may all see the plane differently, but the plane is still in the sky. Unless of course this is all a huge hoax and I'm dreaming this reality.

[seeker]

how do i know your not just saying that to make sure i stay in my own false reality and that this world isnt a big illusion created to observe and/or manipulate me?!?!?

fact is i dont though; i only can really truely know what i feel, touch, taste, smell and see, at least thats the idea.

except for as long as humans have lived we have written about the future, for as long as we have existed we have dreampt of the eternal. we draw, first with flat images and then with the perception of distance, of a never ending horizon, of what we see then what we feel; then we write, first about what we see, then what we feel, then what we cannot see but know, some how, that is out there.

we build, however imperfect, we inprove, as best as we can by our idiotic means and horrific mistakes, we expand, all in imitation of the eternity we cannot see but feel exists.

and what is a more perfect of example of eternity but the planet we live on? a sphere, not perfect as it should be but workable as it is, but representative of our perfect sphere. not invicible, most definatly not even eternal, but in fact expremely fragil, at least in the large scale of things, in the big scale of things, in the large picture of time. with evey atom in every person, on every planet, in every solar sytem, in every universe... the pattern is repeated into infinaty. the sphere that contains life.

how interesting huh?

-
seeker

[imthefoolonthehill]

Sometimes, i would like to invite all those who deny objective reality to go and jump off a cliff, and have them percieve that they can fly.

Math works, always has, always will... if you say i'm just imagining it, go imagine that you can fly.

[baddad]

Sometimes, i would like to invite all those who deny objective reality to go and jump off a cliff, and have them percieve that they can fly.

Math works, always has, always will... if you say i'm just imagining it, go imagine that you can fly.

Fool, you are the master..........I am not worthy..........but perhaps they could all jump together so the "group perception" would be that much more convincing to each participant.....................and the arm flapping and screaming that much louder ...

[atiguhya padma]

Samuel Johnson kicked his toe against a rock to deny the idea that the perceived world isn't the same as the objective world. Now let me see, how did Samuel Johnson come to that conclusion? In a crude synopsis, he had an experience of pain based upon his perception of action.

I agree with fool, those that deny objective reality should try jumping off a cliff. But what you will find is that few will do so, for denying our knowledge of objective reality is not the same as denying objective reality per se. Go read Kant, and you'll see that philosophies of idealism do not necessarily promote ideas of solipsism and nihilism.

[Taliesin]

This also reminds Us of Berkeley, who, if we are not mistaken, said that there might be no physical reality at all; that it could all our imagination. Or something.

But isn't this problem the milleniums-old conflict between the empirists and rationalists? - if the source of the truth are our senses or our mind. Kant made a synthesis of them, as We remember - that both of them are important.

This discussion is fun, We think.

[papayahed]

This discussion is fun, We think.


If there is a discussion.

[imthefoolonthehill]

Padma... I think your point is very valid... there is a difference between an athiest and an ignostic...

that was your point, except replace "I don't believe in God" with "I don't believe in Objective reality" and "I don't think we can know if God exists" with "I don't believe we can know Objective Reality Exists"

Perhaps this isn't the best comparison... because yes, many people believe that objective reality is impossible to see or understand or percieve...

For those people, I would recomend a wonderful game. Its called Minesweeper.

Minesweeper is great... if you make one illogical assumption, your view of the world is skewed, and you are screwed... however, you know your assumptions are true when they start to correspond with reality... you build this pyramid of logic, that, if one thing is false, it can all be false...however, it is entirely possible to win at minesweeper...

i think i'm getting a bit weird here... oh well.

[atiguhya padma]

Fool,

Yes Minesweeper is a great game. I used to have the best scores on all levels in the office I used to play it in, but haven't played for ages. Must get back to it sometime. However, I'm not convinced. The problematic term seems to be reality. 'Reality' as used in reference to Minesweeper is greatly different to 'reality' as used in reference to objective reality. Minesweeper reality would always be relative. Minesweeper is about making inferences from perceptions. When decisions based upon those inferences, lead to expected further perceptions, then we conclude that we have understood the 'reality' of the minesweeper situation. However, like our everyday experience, we are only dealing with perceptions and inferences. There is no direct access to objective reality - even a belief in extra-sensory perception still deals with perception in some form or other. We only have second-hand information.

[subterranean]

is the statement, "human can't live without oxygen" can't be considered as an objective reality? Or the term "objective reality" doesn't apply in science ?
And I'm not really sure about the statement that we only have second-hand information. Is this apply to all kinds of information?

[atiguhya padma]

Its just a statement of observation. You cannot be certain that there isn't a life beyond oxygen (ie an afterlife).

Would you care to give an example of first-hand information? I suppose inner reflection, introversive knowledge might be considered first-hand, but it appears to be wholly reliant on second-hand perceptual experience.

[subterranean]

Its just a statement of observation. You cannot be certain that there isn't a life beyond oxygen (ie an afterlife).

AP, i'm a bit surprised to read the words 'after life'. i dont expect it to come from you..as per my understanding, you don't believe in after life..right?!


Would you care to give an example of first-hand information? I suppose inner reflection, introversive knowledge might be considered first-hand, but it appears to be wholly reliant on second-hand perceptual experience.

how about when a cave man found the way to make fire..?did they know that when they clashed 2 rocks toghether for quite some time, it would spark fire? or this is considered as an" accidental" invention

[atiguhya padma]

SubT,

Of course I don't believe in an after life. However, I cannot say that anyone is certain that an after life does not exist.

The knowledge in your example resides in observation of perception and reflection upon remembered perception. That kind of knowledge might be said to be in Popper's 3rd world. It is a connection made within, using observed perception. I don't see that there is anything immediate and first-hand in this. I honestly can't see how we can get past the fact that we do not have experience of an objective world, we only have the perception of information from (or so we believe) the objective world. We only have perception and inference based upon perception.

[subterranean]

SubT,

Of course I don't believe in an after life. However, I cannot say that anyone is certain that an after life does not exist.

And that includes yourself?!


I honestly can't see how we can get past the fact that we do not have experience of an objective world, we only have the perception of information from (or so we believe) the objective world. We only have perception and inference based upon perception.


Your sentences sound familiar..was it Plato who stated such conception for the first time?

[atiguhya padma]

Of course it does. I cannot claim certainty of such knowledge.

[subterranean]

The knowledge in your example resides in observation of perception and reflection upon remembered perception.

AP, I don't get this..i was using the example of a cave man who discovered how to make fire for the first time. What sort of thing he used as an example for his observasion or what experience he could use as refference for his action..And how come he had remembered perception..
I dont get it..well perhaps i'm the silly one around here :)

[atiguhya padma]

OK SubT let me ask you this:

Without referring to perception or inference made upon perception, you tell me how the cave man gains this knowledge:)

[papayahed]

I honestly can't see how we can get past the fact that we do not have experience of an objective world, we only have the perception of information from (or so we believe) the objective world. We only have perception and inference based upon perception.

But that doesn't mean we can't have fundamental laws and theories, whether they're based on our perceptions or not they still apply in our collective reality.

[imthefoolonthehill]

There must be an objective reality. Why? Because without it, no one would ever be able to communicate. Its very simple... Things are the way they are, not the way people see them. Yes, it is possible to see objective reality if people use their senses and their brains...

For example... there is a box of tic tacs lying on my desk at this moment in time... another example is this: The earth is not entirely engulfed with flames at this moment in time. We can easily percieve these things... to say we have no way of knowing objective reality seems to me to be a little absurd.

[subterranean]

OK SubT let me ask you this:

Without referring to perception or inference made upon perception, you tell me how the cave man gains this knowledge:)

ehm, accidental invention?!


And Fool, perha[s u should read Plato first...it may change ur opinion about objective reality :)..it's interesting

[subterranean]

There must be an objective reality. Why? Because without it, no one would ever be able to communicate. Its very simple... Things are the way they are, not the way people see them. Yes, it is possible to see objective reality if people use their senses and their brains...

For example... there is a box of tic tacs lying on my desk at this moment in time... another example is this: The earth is not entirely engulfed with flames at this moment in time. We can easily percieve these things... to say we have no way of knowing objective reality seems to me to be a little absurd.


Fool, something that i read today:



Can We Know Objective Reality?
The subjective is characterized primarily by perceiving mind. The objective is characterized primarily by physical extension in space and time. The simplest sort of discrepancy between subjective judgment and objective reality is well illustrated by John Locke’s example of holding one hand in ice water and the other hand in hot water for a few moments. When one places both hands into a bucket of tepid water, one experiences competing subjective experiences of one and the same objective reality. One hand feels it as cold, the other feels it as hot. Thus, one perceiving mind can hold side-by-side clearly differing impressions of a single object. From this experience, it seems to follow that two different perceiving minds could have clearly differing impressions of a single object. That is, two people could put their hands into the bucket of water, one describing it as cold, the other describing it as hot. Or, more plausibly, two people could step outside, one describing the weather as chilly, the other describing it as pleasant.

We confront, then, an epistemological challenge to explain whether, and if so how, some subjective impressions can lead to knowledge of objective reality. A skeptic can contend that our knowledge is limited to the realm of our own subjective impressions, allowing us no knowledge of objective reality as it is in itself.



And further:



Does Agreement Among Subjects Indicate Objective Knowledge?
Measurement is allegedly a means to reach objective judgments, judgments having at least a high probability of expressing truth regarding objective reality. An objective judgment regarding the weather, in contrast to the competing subjective descriptions, would describe it as, say, 20°C (68°F). This judgment results from use of a measuring device. It is unlikely that the two perceiving subjects, using functioning thermometers, would have differing judgments about the outside air.

The example of two people giving differing reports about the weather (e.g., “chilly” vs. “pleasant”) illustrates that variation in different subjects’ judgments is a possible indicator of the subjectivity of their judgments. Agreement in different subjects’ judgments (20°C) is often taken to be indicative of objectivity. Philosophers commonly call this form of agreement “intersubjective agreement.” Does intersubjective agreement prove that there is objective truth? No, because having two or three or more perceiving subjects agreeing, for example, that it is very cold does not preclude the possibility of another perceiving subject claiming that it is not at all cold. Would we have a high likelihood of objective truth if we had intersubjective agreement among a large number of subjects? This line of reasoning seems promising, except for another observation from Locke about the possible discrepancies between subjective impressions and objective reality.

[atiguhya padma]

It all seems to be nothing more than perceived reality to me. What other knowledge can we have, other than knowledge of perceived reality? What mechanism can we use to determine knowledge of objective reality? No-one denies the existence of objective reality. Some of us deny the idea we can know objective reality.

The examples regarding John Locke: read Berkeley's criticism of Locke. Physical extension in space and time is a perception.

[baddad]

.....oh my, my, my..........me thinks (I think I think) there are a few Philosophy students here in this forum. What kind of jobs do philosophy students usually end up with?

[mono]

The examples regarding John Locke: read Berkeley's criticism of Locke. Physical extension in space and time is a perception.

Yes! I highly recommend anyone interested in philosophy Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous and A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. I think highly of John Locke, and his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, but Berkeley's criticism (*gasp), wow!

[subterranean]

.....oh my, my, my..........me thinks (I think I think) there are a few Philosophy students here in this forum. What kind of jobs do philosophy students usually end up with?


nothing..that's why most of them are poor lads :)

Nah, i'm no philosophy student. I'm just a smart arse


And AP, I'll read Berkeley's first before give comments. I wonder if Hume also wrote about similiar issue.

[fayefaye]

.....oh my, my, my..........me thinks (I think I think) there are a few Philosophy students here in this forum. What kind of jobs do philosophy students usually end up with?

hehe. :)
"Things aren't as happy as they used to be down here at the unemployment office. Joblessness is no longer just for philosophy majors. USEFUL people are starting to feel the pinch." - the simpsons