3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375 10582097494459230781640628620899862

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

That we cannot measure the infinite that does not imply that it is not a fact. On the contrary things like the value of Pi demonstrate that the idea of the infinite can be inferred from what we can measure. I will leave believing that nothing is something to you

If PI were infinite then the value would be greater than 4. Anything can be divided into pieces of nothing to be infinite. Nothing is infinite. In the space between two words there is an infinite amount of nothing. In the time between two raindrops landing there is an infinite amount of nothing. Nothing is infinite everywhere, anytime, of any thing. There is no shortage of nothing. Nothing is infinite.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Not to me you didn't.

If you were a scientist or engineer you would know that nobody proves anything without doing the experiment themselves.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Who says I believe?

Oh sorry I hope I did not assume it. Perish the thought. I wasn't the one discussing unseen dimensions but I guess they are back off the table because you believe only in what you can see.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

A hypothesis does not a fact make. How do the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy explain the particles that make hawking radiation? Hawking radiation seems to be the opposite of entropy, something appearing from nothing. To quote Professor Sir Martin Rees, Britain's Astronomer Royal, "we have achieved remarkable things in the 200,000 years since we evolved for life on the African plains but it is probable we are just not adapted to see all there is to see." As we probe ever further into the mysteries of the universe we will force some adaptations, but even then new sets of questions will doubtlessly face us.

There you go again describing something that nobody has ever seen. Black hole thermodynamics and event horizon theories come from applying locally observed laws. Laws of science or laws of God... either way if I am wrong then produce the person who has seen and thus proved that Hawking radiation is counter to the observed laws of thermodynamics.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Have you seen seen the universe stop? Did you see it begin? You believe in God, where did that entity begin? We are only on the first tentative footsteps to finding a relationship between the atomic and quantum yet time after time you hold up one set of ideas as though they explain everything. They do not. But perhaps in time a breakthrough will indeed come that allows us to use what we do know for systems as chaotic as climate. In the meantime...have a slice of Pi.

Thank you, I'll give you a slice of cyber-pi: Thermodynamics is not just a theory. It is easily observed. What I state about entropy is more complex than just thermodynamics. In communication and information theory (and practice) if I wish to maximize a communication channel the goal is to make the signal look like pure white noise. A signal might need to be encoded to further achieve that, and then decoded on the other end. If you do not have the encoder or the decoder then the signal between them will look like garbage... pure noise. Just like you can look at two people speaking a foreign language and see nothing but noises. Applying thermodynamics to this act of encoding and decoding, each require an amount of energy and will thus also produce another copy of something that looks like pure noise. Generally we try to get rid of that noise with heat sinks. For example if you hit the delete key on your computer it takes a dissipation of energy to condemn the bits. The bits might dissipate and become mixed together so that they look like noise, but they are always still there. After being condemned they look like noise... pure garbage. That is because you and I do not have the decoder to see the bits after they are condemned. If we accidently condemn something like a piece of history then we can no longer see it with our eyes. While it is impossible that a decoder can physically exist, since thermodynamics requires the physical encoder and decoder to use energy, it is entirely possible that a non-physical decoder exists... a decoder that can see all of history. I have stated that the entropy is like a written book... until now I have not stated who or what can read that book. Until quantum mechanics, despite thermodynamics, it was assumed by scientists that everything could be measured. Shame on them.

If you like that slice then here is another. From control theory (and practice) I make use of feedback loops where energy is directed to perform something per a measured piece of information. A person utilizes control loops daily without even realizing it. But if you can not measure something then you can not actively control it. I take that and apply it to the entropy wherein nothing physical can decode the information in it. But if it could decode it then there would be a wealth of control available by it. That wealth is available to anyone who can decode it. The rest of control theory involves the use of energy in harmony with the acquired and decoded information. In other words though some of the book has been written, knowing the history and current state allows the use of energy to write the next page. I have witnessed that the one who can apparently decode the entropy that no man can see, can also write the next page despite what any man would like to see.

How I have seen the control is unusual... energy from different directions get applied to make an event happen as if it were all working together on its own. Kind of like several birds that for no apparent reason fly to do things in a coordinated fashion to somehow make an event happen that they otherwise would not even have any interest in doing. There is no hallucination in the event, yet the synchronicity is outside the realm of physical communication and coordination. If I know from science that it is physically impossible, then I know that something metaphysical is responsible. That something, or more appropriately someone, can be interacted with via the energy and matter. The energy and matter obeys the laws, but is directed by something that is outside of them. But that is far more than what I originally stated... I merely indicate, with reason, that anything physical that must use energy is being recorded.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If PI were infinite then the value would be greater than 4.

As I get it it is not Pi in itself that is special but its relationship to other whole numbers and the way it keeps cropping up in nature. If, using your argument, you dismiss infinity in Pi because it is not a whole number and call the division of a whole nothing it makes no sense. Because as can be clearly demonstrated in the 1 and 1/4 trillion places it has been calculated to there is a lot of something there. Again as I understand it most numbers like this begin to develop patterns that become predictable, Pi steadfastly refuses to yield any pattern. It goes on infinitely generating apparently random digits.

If you were a scientist or engineer you would know that nobody proves anything without doing the experiment themselves.

And having it independently repeated

Oh sorry I hope I did not assume it. Perish the thought. I wasn't the one discussing unseen dimensions but I guess they are back off the table because you believe only in what you can see.

Who says I dont believe in them

There you go again describing something that nobody has ever seen. Black hole thermodynamics and event horizon theories come from applying locally observed laws. Laws of science or laws of God... either way if I am wrong then produce the person who has seen and thus proved that Hawking radiation is counter to the observed laws of thermodynamics.

Nobody had ever seen an atomic explosion when Einstein published. Many called the mere concept of a black hole ridiculous, yet they have been proven to be everywhere. Unfortunately as I write I have attempted to retrieve a piece from the current issue of New Scientist but the page keeps timing out. In it one scientist claims to have found evidence that Hawkins radiation is a fact and proposed a method to detect it directly. (something I think that would add weight to my idea that smbh's are cosmic string 'ends' or 'beginnings'. i.e. the particles would not just 'pop' into existence as Hawkins predicts but be forced into observable dimensions by the pressures created by the superstring.)

Thank you, I'll give you a slice of cyber-pi: Thermodynamics is not just a theory. It is easily observed. What I state about entropy is more complex than just thermodynamics. In communication and information theory (and practice) if I wish to maximize a communication channel the goal is to make the signal look like pure white noise. A signal might need to be encoded to further achieve that, and then decoded on the other end. If you do not have the encoder or the decoder then the signal between them will look like garbage... pure noise. Just like you can look at two people speaking a foreign language and see nothing but noises. Applying thermodynamics to this act of encoding and decoding, each require an amount of energy and will thus also produce another copy of something that looks like pure noise. Generally we try to get rid of that noise with heat sinks. For example if you hit the delete key on your computer it takes a dissipation of energy to condemn the bits. The bits might dissipate and become mixed together so that they look like noise, but they are always still there. After being condemned they look like noise... pure garbage. That is because you and I do not have the decoder to see the bits after they are condemned. If we accidently condemn something like a piece of history then we can no longer see it with our eyes. While it is impossible that a decoder can physically exist, since thermodynamics requires the physical encoder and decoder to use energy, it is entirely possible that a non-physical decoder exists... a decoder that can see all of history. I have stated that the entropy is like a written book... until now I have not stated who or what can read that book. Until quantum mechanics, despite thermodynamics, it was assumed by scientists that everything could be measured. Shame on them.

If you like that slice then here is another. From control theory (and practice) I make use of feedback loops where energy is directed to perform something per a measured piece of information. A person utilizes control loops daily without even realizing it. But if you can not measure something then you can not actively control it. I take that and apply it to the entropy wherein nothing physical can decode the information in it. But if it could decode it then there would be a wealth of control available by it. That wealth is available to anyone who can decode it. The rest of control theory involves the use of energy in harmony with the acquired and decoded information. In other words though some of the book has been written, knowing the history and current state allows the use of energy to write the next page. I have witnessed that the one who can apparently decode the entropy that no man can see, can also write the next page despite what any man would like to see.

How I have seen the control is unusual... energy from different directions get applied to make an event happen as if it were all working together on its own. Kind of like several birds that for no apparent reason fly to do things in a coordinated fashion to somehow make an event happen that they otherwise would not even have any interest in doing. There is no hallucination in the event, yet the synchronicity is outside the realm of physical communication and coordination. If I know from science that it is physically impossible, then I know that something metaphysical is responsible. That something, or more appropriately someone, can be interacted with via the energy and matter. The energy and matter obeys the laws, but is directed by something that is outside of them. But that is far more than what I originally stated... I merely indicate, with reason, that anything physical that must use energy is being recorded.

You are so much more interesting when you are not telling people they are wrong!!
The trouble with recording everything is filing, classification and retrieval. Recording everything creates as many problems as it solves. And even if what is recorded is there the context, inspiration and purpose may not be apparent. None the less I like your Pi.

Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

As I get it it is not Pi in itself that is special but its relationship to other whole numbers and the way it keeps cropping up in nature. If, using your argument, you dismiss infinity in Pi because it is not a whole number and call the division of a whole nothing it makes no sense. Because as can be clearly demonstrated in the 1 and 1/4 trillion places it has been calculated to there is a lot of something there. Again as I understand it most numbers like this begin to develop patterns that become predictable, Pi steadfastly refuses to yield any pattern. It goes on infinitely generating apparently random digits.

There are more transcedental and irrational numbers than there are rational. e is another famous one. The golden ratio yet another.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Who says I dont believe in them

Nobody had ever seen an atomic explosion when Einstein published.

You have claimed incorrectly that nobody has seen God. Yet you can not prove that even an atomic explosion exists... can you. Neither have you proved that unseen dimensions exists... have you. You have taken it on faith in people that an atomic explosion even exists. You say that evidence of atomic explosions exists in the world, but you can not prove to me that an atomic explosion exists. The next step would be to do the experiment and witness it for yourself. Similarly it was with God for me, though God is more like a person than a deterministic machine.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You are so much more interesting when you are not telling people they are wrong!!

That is a problem for you. I find it more interesting when I am wrong, and the person who tells me I am wrong far more interesting. I noticed that my statements about the water cycle with global warming had a similar result with you.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The trouble with recording everything is filing, classification and retrieval. Recording everything creates as many problems as it solves.

Physically, yes... connectivity is required and it takes energy to sort, to file, and to retrieve. Non-physically... not a problem.

[Tao_Equus]

Ty Cyber,

Originally Posted by cyberpi

You have claimed incorrectly that nobody has seen God. Yet you can not prove that even an atomic explosion exists... can you. Neither have you proved that unseen dimensions exists... have you. You have taken it on faith in people that an atomic explosion even exists. You say that evidence of atomic explosions exists in the world, but you can not prove to me that an atomic explosion exists. The next step would be to do the experiment and witness it for yourself. Similarly it was with God for me, though God is more like a person than a deterministic machine.

I do not think I have ever claimed that nobody has seen God, only that they cannot prove that they have. Unseen dimensions, likewise, have no proof, but again I have only ever played with the concept and never stated them incontrovertible fact. As for atomic explosions, well now you are just being silly. And if you know of an experiment that would prove there is a God then please share that information.

That is a problem for you. I find it more interesting when I am wrong, and the person who tells me I am wrong far more interesting. I noticed that my statements about the water cycle with global warming had a similar result with you.

Why would it be a "problem" for me? I too find it most stimulating when I am wrong, sometimes it takes a while to realise it tho. As for water vapour and climate change i am not sure I understand, I'l need to dig out the thread, but as I recall you dismissed the influence of other catalysts and proposed drowning the poor. Sorry but I will never call you sage for that.

Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I do not think I have ever claimed that nobody has seen God, only that they cannot prove that they have.

I noticed several times you have stepped into stating what 'we' have seen, what 'we' can prove, and what evidence 'we' have. Your words on another thread were:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

There is not one single shred of real evidence been provided during the entire span of human history that there is a God.

That appears to speak even for the dead and what the dead have allegedly seen. I see a mistake regardless of the subject.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And if you know of an experiment that would prove there is a God then please share that information.

Seek and you will discover. Pray to the power that you do not see and do not realize you already know, and ask for guidance... with both general and specific, for personal and for others. Every day is a day in school. Realize there are virtues that a person lacks. Seek change, seek improvement, and do good. Seek with honesty of what is good and test whether it is in your own actions and state of mind. Find the person or place where you know the individual is in a pit that you already recognize, who seeks something better, and give. Give so that you are given. Upon being personally given you have received more than proof. It is repeatable, verifiable, and awesome.

I personally learn from the gospels (MMLJ, Thomas), Qu'ran... and I study some of the OT. Words and thoughts can come to rememberance at opportune times. Any rememberance or placement of thoughts is not necessarily your own action. God is inside and outside... the voice of God can be on the lips of anyone, and yet with control of events outside of any man.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Why would it be a "problem" for me?

Because it blinds. Pride finds the disagreement and opposing questions uninteresting... disagreeable. Find the good in disagreement as well as in the agreement.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I noticed several times you have stepped into stating what 'we' have seen, what 'we' can prove, and what evidence 'we' have. Your words on another thread were:
Quote "There is not one single shred of real evidence been provided during the entire span of human history that there is a God." unquote.

That appears to speak even for the dead and what the dead have allegedly seen. I see a mistake regardless of the subject.

I think you see a mistake because you dont like to consider it true, not because it is not true. The statement hinges on the words "real evidence". Real evidence implies something that can be shown to anyone to provide a compelling case. That simply does not exist.

Seek and you will discover. Pray to the power that you do not see and do not realize you already know, and ask for guidance... with both general and specific, for personal and for others. Every day is a day in school. Realize there are virtues that a person lacks. Seek change, seek improvement, and do good. Seek with honesty of what is good and test whether it is in your own actions and state of mind. Find the person or place where you know the individual is in a pit that you already recognize, who seeks something better, and give. Give so that you are given. Upon being personally given you have received more than proof. It is repeatable, verifiable, and awesome.

I can do all that as an atheist and still get the same buzz you call God.

. the voice of God can be on the lips of anyone, and yet with control of events outside of any man.

But if you go around really really believing that you get medication, and labelled a schizophrenic.

Because it blinds. Pride finds the disagreement and opposing questions uninteresting... disagreeable. Find the good in disagreement as well as in the agreement.

I do not seek out those that agree with me to prop up my ego and nor do I find disagreement boring. We often, in fact invariably, disagree but i do not read your posts and answer immediately, I always read...allow some time for digestion and then reply. I do not disagree or dismiss what you say glibly, but thoughtfully. I make no effort to attempt to make you believe you are wrong, only that I do not share your views. It is you who insists on trying to say that I should look for something that you see yet every time you explain it I find descriptions of things I have already considered at length. I have never pretended to have all the answers, how do your posts read? Yet here I am still talking to you. You may well be a bright cookie and received far better education in certain areas than I, I will not bow to that tho, you will remain my equal, no less, no more. So as an equal I would say to you that before you put pride on my shoulders first examine your own ways.

Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I think you see a mistake because you dont like to consider it true, not because it is not true.

False. I see a mistake whenever someone says what 'we believe' or 'we see' or 'we know', etc... without really knowing every member of 'we'. That is regardless of the subject. You don't really know everyone who has ever lived, and what evidence existed in their time... do you.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Real evidence implies something that can be shown to anyone to provide a compelling case. That simply does not exist.

I am not stating without real evidence what you have seen, yet you are stating without real evidence what I and everyone who has ever lived has seen. Real evidence is all around you but the evidence alone is not even a proof, and whether or not you are compelled by anything is between you and God.

Imagine a day hundreds of years ago when someone committed a crime and claimed, "there is no real evidence". Yet today someone educated in science has the capability to see evidence that existed all along. So it is with the evidence of God... evidence is all over the place but you claim, "there is no real evidence".

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I can do all that as an atheist and still get the same buzz you call God.

False. God is not a buzz.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

But if you go around really really believing that you get medication, and labelled a schizophrenic.

If God were to permit that, then I would have to contend with the criminals.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

So as an equal I would say to you that before you put pride on my shoulders first examine your own ways.

Before you put that very pride on your own shoulders, first examine the way I am taking.

[wil]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If PI were infinite then the value would be greater than 4. Anything can be divided into pieces of nothing to be infinite. Nothing is infinite. In the space between two words there is an infinite amount of nothing. In the time between two raindrops landing there is an infinite amount of nothing. Nothing is infinite everywhere, anytime, of any thing. There is no shortage of nothing. Nothing is infinite.

Namaste Cyberpi

Is it your moniker that makes you so passionate about pi?

Do we claim Pi is infinite or that its decimal is infinite? If you feel the decimal is not infinite can you please tell us how many places it goes to and what the last number is?

Are you saying 'nothing' is infinite? Or 'no thing' is infinite?

Do define G!d as finite?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by wil

Is it your moniker that makes you so passionate about pi?

Am I passionate about Pi which does not claim to be atheist, or passionate about Tao who claims to be atheist?

Originally Posted by wil

Do we claim Pi is infinite or that its decimal is infinite?

We claim? If Pi is of this universe, and the universe is not infinite, then what makes we think or we claim the decimal of Pi is infinite?

Originally Posted by wil

If you feel the decimal is not infinite can you please tell us how many places it goes to and what the last number is?

The decimal of Pi can go for as many places as are permitted by the universe.

Originally Posted by wil

Are you saying 'nothing' is infinite? Or 'no thing' is infinite?

Yes I have said that.

Originally Posted by wil

Do define G!d as finite?

No. God is not a thing. The symbol or word comprised of 'G, o, d' is a thing of this universe, but the real God I refer to with the word is not. That will surely not help Tao... <sigh>

[wil]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Am I passionate about Pi which does not claim to be atheist, or passionate about Tao who claims to be atheist?

I was referring to cyberpi's passion about pi, which as a number can't quite claim to be anything as far as I know.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If Pi is of this universe, and the universe is not infinite, then what makes we think or we claim Pi is infinite?

Is something continually expanding finite? Is something we have yet to determine the edges of finite? That is a discussion for another thread, in this one we are speaking fof pi which doesn't take on area or mass, it is simply a number whose decimal goes on an infinte number of spaces as defined by the math that utlizes pi.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Pi can go for as many places as are permitted by the universe, which is permitted by God.

Permitted by the universe, does the universe permit? Are you equating the universe to G!d? (not that I mind mind you)

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Yes I have said that.

said what? I gave you two choices, you choose both?

Originally Posted by cyberpi

No. God is not a thing. The symbol or word comprised of 'G, o, d' is a thing of this universe, but the real God I refer to with the word is not. That will surely not help Tao... <sigh>

What is G!d? if not a thing? Would G!d then be nothing?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

False. I see a mistake whenever someone says what 'we believe' or 'we see' or 'we know', etc... without really knowing every member of 'we'. That is regardless of the subject. You don't really know everyone who has ever lived, and what evidence existed in their time... do you.

I am not stating without real evidence what you have seen, yet you are stating without real evidence what I and everyone who has ever lived has seen. Real evidence is all around you but the evidence alone is not even a proof, and whether or not you are compelled by anything is between you and God.

I never said I did. But by your own words you cannot be sure that they felt as you. History is replete with the ignorant calling ignorance God. It shows that the highest religious authorities were no less superstitious and mistaken than the common man. If even they, with all their pursuit and claims get it so wrong how can any of it be trusted? The fact remains that not a shred of evidence has ever been presented that stands scrutiny by anyone, atheist or believer.

False. God is not a buzz.

Exactly!!

If God were to permit that, then I would have to contend with the criminals.

Criminals?

Before you put that very pride on your own shoulders, first examine the way I am taking.

Taking?


Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by wil

I was referring to cyberpi's passion about pi, which as a number can't quite claim to be anything as far as I know.

What passion... because of my name here? 2 digits is all that is really needed... I prefer 10... on occasion have had to use 16.

Originally Posted by wil

Is something continually expanding finite?

Yes. Infinity can not expand, nor contract.

Originally Posted by wil

Is something we have yet to determine the edges of finite?

Yes. The word and the thought of something is itself an edge... a division between that something and something else. Thus it is not infinite.

Try dividing anything into pieces of nothing and you will find an edge... that edge says the math and concept of infinity is an error.

Originally Posted by wil

That is a discussion for another thread, in this one we are speaking of pi which doesn't take on area or mass, it is simply a number whose decimal goes on an infinte number of spaces as defined by the math that utlizes pi.

Two lies. Show me a circle that has no area or no mass... do you remember the definition of pi? If you claim that pi can not claim anything then why do you say that math can utilize something?

Originally Posted by wil

Permitted by the universe, does the universe permit?

In the language of science, yes: Permittivity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by wil

Are you equating the universe to G!d? (not that I mind mind you) said what?

No.

Originally Posted by wil

I gave you two choices, you choose both?

I've said both. The difference between the two looks like a single, finite, space: (nothing), (no thing).

Originally Posted by wil

What is G!d? if not a thing? Would G!d then be nothing?

Not a thing, or nothing, of this Universe. Someone outside of it. Hence again the Universe is not infinite.

Infinity is an imaginary extreme that might look like good math on paper but in the real world it is as real as absolutely nothing. Try dividing anything into pieces of nothing and you will find a real limit... that limit says the math and concept of infinity is an error. An infinite amount of nothing does not even amount to anything.

[wil]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Two lies. Show me a circle that has no area or no mass... do you remember the definition of pi? If you claim that pi can not claim anything then why do you say that math can utilize something?

pi does not have area, pi is a constant that assists us in finding the area. 1/3 is not an infinite number it is 1/3 however its decimal equivilant goes on for an infinite amount of spaces. 0.3333333 if it doesn't please tell me how many spaces it does go on for. hehe and then double it, or cube it and you still won't be there.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Not a thing, or nothing, of this Universe. Someone outside of it. Hence again the Universe is not infinite.

G!d is 'Someone outside for our universe', interesting, hence we found another belief we differ on.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Infinity is an imaginary extreme that might look like good math on paper but in the real world it is as real as absolutely nothing. Try dividing anything into pieces of nothing and you will find a real limit... that limit says the math and concept of infinity is an error. An infinite amount of nothing does not even amount to anything.

Yes but an infinite amount of something is something. We obviously use a different math. And yes while I'll agree I only need a few decimal spaces for most of my work, I do know there are more available should I need to be more accurate and that they have use. And while you don't believe infinity exsits can you cite any others of your mind that are on that page? I am just getting used to the understanding that there are multiple infinities ie the infinite number of odd whole numbers is half that of the infinite number of whole numbers, and the infinite number of prime numbers is a fraction of that....what fraction I wonder?

But as you have been trying to prove your belief in the finite to no avail, do you have some corraboration, some other folks you can site?