0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do you have a proof that it's indeed impossible to solve?
Philosophers would be out of business if they posed solvable problems. Their business is to pretend that other people don't understand what they are doing, and that philosophical problems require indefinite debate. Constructing a square with the same area as a circle is impossible. Proving it is impossible is everyday mathematics.
I don't get that one( maybe too old or too stoopid! ), surely I can make a circle or square with any arbitrary area? Or is some condition missing in the original statement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaring_the_circleSquaring the circle is a problem in geometry first proposed in Greek mathematics. It is the challenge of constructing a square with the area of a circle by using only a finite number of steps with a compass and straightedge. The difficulty of the problem raised the question of whether specified axioms of Euclidean geometry concerning the existence of lines and circles implied the existence of such a square.In 1882, the task was proven to be impossible, as a consequence of the Lindemann?Weierstrass theorem, which proves that pi (π) is a transcendental number. That is, π is not the root of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It had been known for decades that the construction would be impossible if π were transcendental, but that fact was not proven until 1882. Approximate constructions with any given non-perfect accuracy exist, and many such constructions have been found.Despite the proof that it is impossible, attempts to square the circle have been common in pseudomathematics (i.e. the work of mathematical cranks). The expression "squaring the circle" is sometimes used as a metaphor for trying to do the impossible.[1] The term quadrature of the circle is sometimes used as a synonym for squaring the circle, but it may also refer to approximate or numerical methods for finding the area of a circle.
When someone solves one philosophical problem, there are still many other unsolved problems.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 03:45:12When someone solves one philosophical problem, there are still many other unsolved problems. None of which is of any interest or value to anyone, and most of which are not really problems at all.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/08/2023 12:53:54Do you have a proof that it's indeed impossible to solve? Proof by induction:The area of a circle with unit radius is an irrational number (π). The area of a square with unit side is a rational number (1). Whatever radius you choose for the circle (and the radius is its only defining dimension), you can't construct a square with exactly the same area because you can't know √π exactly.
Quote from: alancalverd on 30/07/2023 09:54:55"Ought" is what you (or society in general) want, "is" is what you have.There are no cosmic imperatives - even the "laws" of physics are observations, not prescriptions.Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 29/07/2023 08:00:03If we expect anyone to be convinced by our derivation of ought from is, we need to start with the most convincing case of "is". The cogito as the first knowledge is the most convincing information there is.Let's start with a case where once upon a time, we're thinking about our own existence. This establishes the "is" case, which is there exist at least one conscious entity in the universe. The alternative for this case is : there's no conscious entity in the universe.How can this fact be used to derive the ought version of the same case?Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.From three logically possible "ought" cases, which one do you think is the most correct?
"Ought" is what you (or society in general) want, "is" is what you have.There are no cosmic imperatives - even the "laws" of physics are observations, not prescriptions.
If we expect anyone to be convinced by our derivation of ought from is, we need to start with the most convincing case of "is". The cogito as the first knowledge is the most convincing information there is.Let's start with a case where once upon a time, we're thinking about our own existence. This establishes the "is" case, which is there exist at least one conscious entity in the universe. The alternative for this case is : there's no conscious entity in the universe.How can this fact be used to derive the ought version of the same case?Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.
Some of things must be important to someone,
Ought implies that someone or something will benefit from the state or action. However you define a conscious entity it is part of the universe and a consequence of the physical laws that govern it. There is no evidence that its existence is of any benefit or otherwise to the universe.
As with all philosophy, your question is merely an instance of human vanity.
I think we have now dealt with and dismissed what you considered to be the most important question in philosophy.
3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.
Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.
Its existence can be said to benefit itself. It allows the pursuit of goals which would be impossible otherwise.
We can't say that humans are the only conscious entity in the universe.
Due to entropy, natural selection, and the great filters, conscious entities who will exist in the future
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 13:45:50Due to entropy, natural selection, and the great filters, conscious entities who will exist in the future Whatever your definition of consciousness, entropy will ensure that it ceases to exist. ΔS > 0, always.
It's not very common to find physicists who are skeptical about the second law of thermodynamics, but here we are.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=89Mq6gmPo0sQuoteI don't believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (The most uplifting video I'll ever make.)The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy will inevitably increase. Eventually, it will make life in the universe impossible. What does this mean? And is it correct? In this video, I sort out what we know about the arrow of time and why I don't believe that entropy will kill the universe. 00:00 Introduction1:00 The Arrow of Time3:04 Entropy, Work, and Heat7:07 The Past Hypothesis and Heat Death9:34 Entropy, Order, and Information11:38 How Will the Universe End?15:46 Brilliant Sponsorship
I don't believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (The most uplifting video I'll ever make.)The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy will inevitably increase. Eventually, it will make life in the universe impossible. What does this mean? And is it correct? In this video, I sort out what we know about the arrow of time and why I don't believe that entropy will kill the universe. 00:00 Introduction1:00 The Arrow of Time3:04 Entropy, Work, and Heat7:07 The Past Hypothesis and Heat Death9:34 Entropy, Order, and Information11:38 How Will the Universe End?15:46 Brilliant Sponsorship
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 13:31:57Its existence can be said to benefit itself. It allows the pursuit of goals which would be impossible otherwise.It sets goals which are of no importance to anything else - except possibly those entities it exploits in the pursuit of its goals.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/08/2023 13:35:49We can't say that humans are the only conscious entity in the universe. But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we can say that any importance we attach to consciousness is only a reflection of our own vanity and selfimportance.
Our existence is a scaffolding to enable the existence of future conscious entities. Otherwise, we're the immorals who are wasting precious resources.
"Scaffolding" presumes an external motivator. It doesn't erect itself with a purpose, but is put in place by someone with an intention to clad it with something else. There is no evidence of that someone or intention. It is indeed true that the land rises on the skeletons of its previous inhabitants, but they weren't created for that reason, nor did they intend to die for it.