Re: BHA: Re: Pi and H2O

[h961138@xxxxxxxxxxx (bwanika)]

Hi Tobin !

  (They use various figures as their working approximation, but
>the values they choose are quite close, and I'd be willing to wager good
>money that every one of these cultures were aware that these figures
*were*approximations.)  I don't want to enter into the question of whether
>mathematical entities are real: whether they are or aren't, I'm simply
>saying that given the premise of plane geometry, a circle's C/D ratio must
>be pi, no more and no less.


I do not desipute those facts above. However if the facts are as stated
above then I must feel contended with the fact that method /ology definately
not  the only issue i.e. empirical fallacy in generating errors in
knowledge. But how experiences are interpreted and the isolation of
experiences from there (realistic) practicabilty from abstraction . Does
this mean were logged into something like epistimic fallacy and practice?
Besides I do understand the problem of over reliance on langauge statements
as  the problem has emerged  in grounded theory which I do believe has
attained a higher ground in given academic circles.
Must reasons are such that mathematics is here to stay, therefore a workable
alternative to a  realistic applicability of abstract knowledge can not be
isolated from social doing. Let us take an example of sociametrics
and econometrics.

I would like to learn more about this issue .

thanks

Bwanika

>
  Can pi enter into various and changeable relations with other things?
Yes, of course--but *that's not the question*.  The question is, can such
changeable relations with other things alter what pi is, i.e. the ratio of a
circle's circumference to its diameter?  If the
>answer is No, then at least one thing doesn't change.
>
>I see no problem in the fact that pi, H2O, and Planck's constant are
>different sorts of examples at different levels of reality, since the only
>thing they were meant to offer were candidates for invariants.  Even if only
>*one* of them stands up to argument, then Louis's claim that *everything*
>changes must collapse.
>
>---
>Tobin Nellhaus
>nellhaus@xxxxxxx *or* tobin.nellhaus@xxxxxxxxxxx
>"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bwanika




     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---