They’re one and the same, or at least our closest understanding and interpretation of infinity. Neatly summed up and expressed by — invicta
whatever Pi is not infinite believe what you want. — invicta
But before I leave to your own devices just a quick reminder of a couple of things. Pi is an irrational number, the circular circumference divided by diameter means that it will take roughly 3.14 diameters to recreate the circle. — invicta
Also, cutting the circle with metaphorical scissors creates a finite line, with finite length. Those scissors however don’t exist and neither does the circle as it’s just a close approximation or manifestation of such an infinity (and there are other ones too) — invicta
As for the infinity symbol being a twisted circle, just consider this. There are more ways than one of seeing the same thing. — invicta
keep believing that Pi is not infinite. I’m not here to change opinions but establish truth. — invicta
So Pi goes on infinitely buts it’s not infinite, whatever dude. — invicta
In mathematics, an uncountable set (or uncountably infinite set) is an infinite set that contains too many elements to be countable. The uncountability of a set is closely related to its cardinal number: a set is uncountable if its cardinal number is larger than that of the set of all natural numbers.
I don’t really care much what denotes what in mathematics but I do know that pi’s expansion goes on infinitely, hence me declaring it infinite. — invicta
I still don’t see how or even why you’d object to that. — invicta
I’m unclear — invicta
The former, yes, the latter no. — Christoffer
I take this as an admission then that pi goes on forever. Finally — invicta
They’re one and the same — invicta
Now then many have tried and many have failed in declaring pi as non-infinite…any other takers? — invicta
I'm not an Aristotle scholar, so that comment was just my general impression. But here's a quote*1 that seems to have it both ways : Causal Monism (general causality) and Causal Pluralism (sequential causes). I suspect that Plato might be more inclined to view the First & Final Cause as a Holistic, Ultimate, Ideal entity or concept. In any case, only an Eternal (timeless) Cause would put an end to the infinite regress (space/time) of causation. Perhaps Einstein's Block Time*2 would qualify as Causal Monism, since there is no cyclic time for sequential causes to do their thing. :smile:No. A closed loop does not answer Aristotle's quest for an explanation of Causation itself — Gnomon
I don't think Aristotle would have described his work that way. He was surrounded by those who rejected the idea of an intelligible whole. He fought them tooth and nail. — Paine
And that for the sake of which actions, changes, and movements take place they speak of as in a way a cause, but not in this way—that is, not in the way in which it is its nature to be a cause. For those who speak of understanding or love (philia) posit these causes as good, but they do not speak as if anything is or comes to be for the sake of these things, but as if movements arise from them. In the same way too those who say that the one or being is such a nature say that it is a cause of the substance, but not that anything is or comes to be for its sake, so that in a way they do and in a way they do not say that the good is a cause, since they do not say it is so unconditionally but coincidentally. — Aristotle. Metaphysics, 988b5, translated by CDC Reeve
But then if there is to be some being-itself and one-itself, there is much puzzlement as to how anything else will exist beyond these—I mean, as to how beings will be more than one. For what is other than being is not, and so, according to Parmenides’ argument, it necessarily follows that all beings are one, and this one is being. Either way, it is difficult. For whether the one is not substance or whether there is some one-itself, number cannot be substance. We said earlier why this holds if the one is not substance, but if it is substance, the puzzle is the same as that concerning being, For from what, beyond the one-itself, will there be another one? Indeed, it must be not-one. |1001b5| But all beings are either one or a many of which each is one. — ibid. 1001a28
Sorry, arguing with bear-trap is pointless. Each of you is looking at the question from a different perspective, so your views will never meet, unless at Infinity. :joke:So Pi goes on infinitely buts it’s not infinite, whatever dude. — invicta
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.