Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
And I'm still awaiting your presentation of how my example contradicts the definition of a square and a circle.
You do realize that you are arguing a square is actually circle – equal to? And you criticize me for disagreeing?
Actually, I don't recall critisizing you at all, and I don't recall you actually disagreeing; you've just been making lots of disparaging remarks, and as yet have not offered a disproof of my assertion that a square with side length equal to zero is the same as a circle of radius equal to zero.
If I am as wrong as you seem to be implying, it should be "trivial" for you to offer a disproof of my assertion.
BTW, for the record, the implications of this Mathematical question with regard to the larger philosophical issue you are discussing has no bearing on the Mathematics. The philosophical point you wish to make with your "square circle question" doesn't change the answer to your question.
Lastly, let me try another approach to see if you can see what I'm getting at. What I am saying is equivalent to this: The intersection of the set of all squares and the set of all circles is NOT empty. The intersection contains the square of side length = 0, and the circle of radius = 0, which are identical, namely, a single point.
But if you still disagree, I eagerly await your refutation. Please specify the length of the side of my square that is non-equal, and the points in my circle that are NOT equidistant. That should suffice.
If you show someone a picture of a square they will not say, “nice circle”. A square is known by its ‘squareness’ and a circle ‘roundness’.
Now we can argue this all night but I will need to open the ‘rectangular’ door to my refrigerator and get a ‘cylindrical’ can of beer.
Please provide evidence for the explicit mention of 24 hours.
I'm arguing over the answer to YOUR question: can a square be perfectly circular and still be a square? I'm also pointing out that your philosophical argument that is "illustrated" by your question doesn't affect the answer to your question.
I'm saying the (Mathematical) illustration you used in your philosopical argument is flawed (assuming you want to be able to say "apples can't be both apples AND oranges" or something like that). Thus it DOES affect your philosophical argument. But the opposite is NOT true: your philosophical argument doesn't affect the Mathematics of your "can a square be a circle" question.
So, once again, I suggest you find a better illustration for your philosophical argument.
BTW, since you haven't provided any counter evidence to my example of a square with side length = 0 being identical to a circle of radius = 0, I assume you are now in agreement with me that there is, in fact, one case where a square can be both a circle and a square. Right?
And, if not, you'll post specific details pointing out how my example violates the previously provided definitions of "square" and "circle," right?
Me: And which part do you object to in that - the premise, or the conclusion?
You: Both.
Of course you are correct. It is foolishness.
Meretricious mendacity. Sad clown - turn that frown upside-down :^(
Exactly! Apples cannot be oranges… If an apple was an orange it would not be an apple. I think you are getting it. Hey, and you know what… a vegetable is not a fruit!
Once someone called me a scum sucking, no good, apple-headed – job shopper.
Of course I responded, “who are you calling apple-headed?”
BTW, since you haven't provided any counter evidence to my example of a square with side length = 0 being identical to a circle of radius = 0, I assume you are now in agreement with me that there is, in fact, one case where a square can be both a circle and a square. Right?
This is the same as asking you to admit the earth is square. Or red is green. Black is white. Or for you to state that the only truth is that truth does not exist.
Keep things in context. Again:
If God were to change His Law’s the ‘Perfectness’ or ‘Justness’ or other intrinsic qualities (depending on the change) would not apply.”
Ah, now see, there is that textual smile.
That the circle could not be squared with Euclidean tools was not shown until 1882 when Lindemann proved that pi is a transcendental number.
Oh, so you disagree?
Okay, first of all, nothing in what I've said suggests the earth is square or "red" is "green." That is a misrepresentation on your part.
The ONLY thing I've said is that I can describe a square that can be perfectly circular and still be a square; specifically, a square with side length = 0. It is identical to a circle of radius = 0. Therefore, it is both "square" and "circular", in accordance with the rigorous definitions of "square and "circle" previously provided.
If you believe my example conflicts with the definitions, please provide the specific deficiency, such as identifying which side of my zero-length square is unequal to the other sides, and which point in my zero-radius circle is some distance other than zero from the center. IOW, if you think my conclusion is wrong, show how my example violates the previously provided definitions of a square and a circle.
If my example is as flawed as you seem to be suggesting, it should be trivially easy for you to do this.
No tangents noted.
To refresh your mind here is the Rand quote from post 526 and my question from post 536 to her quote in your post----
FWIW, here's how Rand sees it:
It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of "value" is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of "life". To speak of "value" as apart from "life" is worse than a contradiction in terms. "It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible."
How can Rand talk about things above the physical without invoking something beyond the physical? If she remains in the physical world, a whirlwind is no different than "life", an organized conglomeration of physical forces. When she mentions "value" she steps out of the physical and into the mind.
Now to your assertion that it is intuitive that they are two sides of the same coin I ask, what coin are you talking about? To me you are asserting that the mind is a measurable property of matter. You tie yourself to Lewes viewpoint that ---Mental and physical processes, in other words, are simply different aspects of one and the same series of psychophysical events. When seen from the subjective point of view (e.g., when someone is thinking), the psychophysical series is mental; when seen from the objective point of view (e.g., when someone observes what is going on in the thinking person's brain), it is physical.
This is illustrated with the metaphor ---Lewes characterized the relation of mind to body as a curve that maintains its identity as a single line even though characterized at every point by both concavity and convexity.
However, there is a big problem here. I know of no other measurement that measures itself. So what we have here is something quite different from the line metaphor. As a "measurement" the mind is quite distinct from any other measure of matter.(if one asserts that it is a "measurement" of matter)
You are aware that AndrewC's post deals with "squaring of a circle with compass and straight-edge", a famous "problem of Antiquity" in Mathematics.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the question you posted: can a square be perfectly circular and still be a square?
Do you have a refutation to my example yet?
Could you be a bit more specific?
Your argument applies to all shapes, huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.