↪Banno You're right, we can perhaps know some things completely. But we cannot know everything. so 'everything' should have been there instead of "anything completely". — Janus

Interesting thing is that while we cannot know everything, there is (arguably) nothing in particular that we could not know.

Do you mean Banno is alright just as he is now?

Interesting thing is that while we cannot know everything, there is (arguably) nothing in particular that we could not know. — Banno

Why not?

Interesting thing is that while we cannot know everything, there is (arguably) nothing in particular that we could not know. — Banno

True. Nothing that we know about anyway.

the only true expression of pi is that Janus is J's Anus

Well, tell us something particular that we cannot know...

:wink:

Sad, that you think that worth writing.

Well, tell us something particular that we cannot know.. — Banno

You asserted P
When I asked for your justification, you said
"Why not P?"

Does that sound rational to you?

What's it matter? We're grasping pi... — DifferentiatingEgg

It probably doesn't matter because, as you say, and as @Banno said, we grasp the concept.

It’s meant to be irrational.

Does that sound rational to you? — frank

Yep. It's an extension of "the world is all that is the case".

Does that mean it was intended to be so. God fooling with our minds?

heh ,no.

The thought that came to mind was how if the thread was posited this or the other way @Banno would say his bit, and I was thinking how it'd be right to say it -- whether it be against big knowledge claims or for small knowledge claims, it'd be right to point out those difficulties in relation to a philosophical question.

Yep. It's an extension of "the world is al that is the case". — Banno

That's just blatant idealism.

:up:

Which joke - that π is beyond our grasp or that Nietzsche is difficult? — Banno

Sad, that you think that worth writing. — Banno

Doesn't realize that shame/guilt doesn't work on someone who understands Nietzsche.

The joke wasn't for you, so much as on you... :wink:

That's just blatant idealism. — frank

How rude.

:smile:

...it'd be right to point out those difficulties in relation to a philosophical question. — Moliere

I agree, but feel like I shouldn't...

I agree, but feel like I shouldn't... — Banno

Welcome, brother! :D

To my circle of thinking that ends in . .. circles... of thinking......

To my circle of thinking that ends in . .. circles... of thinking...... — Moliere

Appropriate, given the topic...

Second page, and still no pi/pie joke...

What do we do with numbers like pi that go on forever? I can't deny that I live in a world where there are such shenanigans: numbers that can't be completed.

It's definitely not an aspect of counting, because I can't count to pi. I could say it's just a matter of arithmetic, but but what about that endless thing going on? — frank

There are infinitely more irrational numbers then there are rational ones, so it's not just pi. They're just regular old Joe Sixpack numbers. I guess we should get used to dealing with them. It is my understanding that all mathematics is based on counting, but there are many, many instances where it has gone beyond it.

Only if you relegate madness as a domain of God...

Ah, "Fecal Freakal," I understand.

The Left Rights - Take a Shit

There are infinitely more irrational numbers then there are rational ones — T Clark

Oh, far more than just that... :nerd:

It is my understanding that all mathematics is based on counting, but there are many, many instances where it has gone beyond it. — T Clark

How did that happen? If it's based on counting, how did it give rise to things that can't be counted?

Only if you relegate madness as a domain of God... — DifferentiatingEgg

To reverse the usual formulation: God may be sufficient, but not necessary, for madness.

a standard ploy that denies God some facet and experience or another that denies God omnimity.

For us God is a belief, positive or negative. Or a name for a kind of experience. So, what I said could be translated as "the belief in, or experience of, God may be sufficient for madness but is not necessary for madness".

How did that happen? If it's based on counting, how did it give rise to things that can't be counted? — frank

How did we get zero? How did we get negative numbers from natural numbers? How did we get rational numbers from integers? How did we get real numbers from rational numbers? How did we get complex numbers from real numbers? Humans invented them.

How did that happen? If it's based on counting, how did it give rise to things that can't be counted? — frank

I can't see an alternative to saying that the numbers are based on counting (apart from some platonic story about how they always already exist, though not in this world).

How did we get zero? How did we get negative numbers from natural numbers? How did we get rational numbers from integers? How did we get real numbers from rational numbers? How did we get complex numbers from real numbers? Humans invented them. — T Clark

But I don't think that "invent" is the appropriate description. The story of the irrationals shows that when we set up the rules of a language-game (and that description of numbers is also an idealization), we may find that there are situations (applications of the rules) that surprise us. Hence it is more appropriate to say that we discover these. When these situations arise, we have to decide what to do, in the relevant context - note that there can be no rules, in the normal sense, about what decision we should make, so I would classify these decisions, not as arbtrary or irrational, but as pragmatic and so rational in that sense.

Certainly, the eventual decision to simply incorporate the irrational numbers into the system of real numbers (I may not have expressed this quite correctly) was, in some sense, perfectly reasonable. In one way, order was restored in the world. In another way, the problem was simply labelled, rather than restored.

There is not one answer to your questions. We just need to pay attention to the actual, historical processes in each case, and give a more detailed description of what went on.