No it's definite that in 1 second, everything will have moved to what it is currently predicted accurately. Sukmmybawls

>>16460865
but the heisenberg uncertainty principle goes against that idea - you can't know the true position of subatomic particles

>>16460868
It only requires that it be probable sometimes for the universe to be determinable. There may be minor inconsistencies in this report. However, the likelihood is that the current projected next step is what occurs next.

>>16460868
Heisenburg is beer faggot. Stop talking such drivel

Verification not required.

>>16460864
Yes. If you could accurately predict where exactly I would be in 1 hour, you could tell me the prediction and I could go somewhere else. Therefore the universe is not predictable long enough times in advance.

>>16460868
Heisenberg is true, you cannot measure, but it's possible you can determine.`

everything works through probability and selection
so just collect enough statistics and you can predict whatever you want.

>>16460864
its perfectly deterministic.

>>16460864
>Is the universe unpredictable?
Within what degree of precision?

>>16461206
so is that why chads always win and get pussy? while losers suffer and die all the time, its all just chance and luck? whoever made this was kind of a dick lol

>>16461737
really? what outcome will i get when i measure a qubit in unbiased superposition then?

>>16462055
>really? what outcome will i get when i measure a qubit in unbiased superposition then?
That's like saying which node of a weather vane labeled 1, 2, 3, 4 will you grab when you stick your hand in

>>16462507
Ok, so which ones since both are perfectly determinable in your perfectly deterministic universe?

>>16460868
suck my heisenberg

>>16461124
>Yes. If you could accurately predict where exactly I would be in 1 hour, you could tell me the prediction and I could go somewhere else
You're assuming the prediction doesn't take in the fact that you're going to try to change it.

I predict you will still post on 4chan after this. Try to prove me wrong faggot.

>>16464545
>Ok, so which ones since both are perfectly determinable in your perfectly deterministic universe?
Do you not see that it is determined by the precise moment you determine to stick your hand in, and at what speed you do so?

I suppose also the polarization of the vane, and it's speed of rotation comes into play

>>16460868
And yet they occupy a certain position in space and have a specific velocity at any given point in time, funny, eh?

>>16460868
That doesn't necessarily mean it's random. QM leads to random outcomes according to some interpretations, but there is no way at present to determine which if any interpretation is correct. By itself, the basic theory of QM is entirely deterministic. Classical ideas of a single-valued position measurement can only be implemented by collapsing the wavefunction or equivalent, which is where the interpretation comes in.

>>16465084
no they don't and you can't prove that they do since you can never measure it.

>>16465367
>>16465369
So you have to make an educated geuss, there are 2 options: something that exists is existing somewhere and traveling some speed.
Or something that exists is not exactly existing somewhere and not exactly traveling some speed.

What is your reasoning for your pick based on?

We can know a cars location and speed because of macro physics and machines:
Electrons are much smaller than cars so you could never reasonably expect to be able to clock and track it like a car, obviously:
That does not nessecarily by any means imply the electron is not at a location at a speed at all times.

>>16465719
>What is your reasoning for your pick based on?
Occam's razor, "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
The math says the particles are in a probability distribution.
to assume that there is an extra layer beyond the math, where they are "actually" fully determined, is to add in an extra assumption that isn't justified by the evidence or even needed to explain reality. The only reason people assume it exists is because of their "intuition" and because what seems reasonable to them, which is a complete fallacy as there is in reality no reason it should be determined.
I am not adding an extra assumption by saying that it really doesn't have a definite position. I'm just taking the theory at face value. I'm eliminating the extra layer of reality where it's really determined because it adds nothing to the theory's explanatory power and just makes more assumptions.

>>16465727
You are mistaking your limitations for realities limitations.

Reality Is.
Your knowing of it is limited.
That Truth comes first.
Keep that Truth in mind.

Now understanding that, reread and re think about my other post, reread and re think about your response to it. And then see if you understand.

>>16465727
Did you read this part:

We can know a cars location and speed because of macro physics and machines


Electrons are much smaller than cars so you could never reasonably expect to be able to clock and track it like a car

Do you get what that means? You had no right, no reasonable basis, understanding materials and the laws of physics and scale, to have any method of determining location and velocity as if it were a car.

Do you understand that?

If you close your eyes and someone throws a baseball perpendicular to your direction of facing, Noone could expect you to call out the location and velocity of the baseball at every t

It is already to be expected there is no measuring device that can reach out and reflect light off an electron and send it back to a machine and say the electron right now is at point x traveling speed y.

I geuss detectors that an electron collides with register the exact moment of impact (location) and knowing the electrons mass, register it's velocity as energy:

But obviously obviously obviously as it is freely traveling you don't have any way of seeing it, obviously obviously obviously that does not imply it is not there

>>16460864
We don't know.

>>16461737
So you've solved the Unified Field Theory, then?

>>16465369
>you can't prove that
Yes I can
A - there is an object
B - the object exists, thus by nature of existence it has some position in space at any given point in time
C - the object is in motion, thus having some velocity at any given point in time
>you can never measure it
You don't have to measure anything, the measurement is already done, the information of the specific state of any given point in reality is already recorded by nature of existence itself, otherwise there wouldn't be anything there

>>16465881
You just redefined existence to mean macrorealism and assumed the conclusion. That only proves you qualify for a brain transplant.

>>16465824
we assume that the baseball has definite position and velocity because newtonian physics says it does. whether you think it does only depends on whether you accept newtonian physics. If you accept Newtonian physics at face value, that is the conclusion you reach. For subatomic particles the theory says it doesn't have a definite position and velocity until after it is measured. If you accept the theory at face value, you accept that.

It's not about being practically able to measure or not measure the velocity and position of the baseball. Obviously if you just observe, there's almost nothing you can actually do. You require the theory to fill in the gaps, otherwise no assumptions would be justified at all. If you didn't accept Newtonian physics yes, it would be completely unjustified to say that the baseball travels always with a definite speed.

But quantum mechanics doesn't work like that. In both Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian Physics, you can't actually observe the particle at every point perfectly. But in Quantum Mechanics, assuming that the particle is in a superposition rather than a single point is actually NECESSARY to make accurate predictions, because the actual experiments show that where the observation will be is probabilistic. We assume that large objects are more definite because assuming that they have a definite speed and position at every point actually works, but in quantum mechanics it doesn't work, that's the whole fucking reason it was made and why the bohr model of the atom failed.

So the way quantum mechanics works is NOT due to our incapacity in observing. The incapacity is present in both classical and quantum mechanics, but only one REQUIRES you to say that it actually is indefinite.
>>16465818
>You are mistaking your limitations for realities limitations.
YOU are the one LIMITING reality by requiring it to always be perfectly definite and predictable because that's what your human reason says it should be.

>>16465981
>we assume that the baseball has definite position and velocity because newtonian physics says it does.
I'll read the rest after I make this reply, but if the rest of what you wrote follows from a faulty premise you shouldn't even want me to.

With video cameras and radar guns and a background graph grid a baseball can be tracked and clocked (we are forced to assume more accurately than without such).

There are only 2 options, you must educatedly geuss.

Everyone in the stadium and the clockers and trackers after numerous baseball throw trials are storing all the data, you are in the stadium with your eyes closed.

Only 2 options you must educatedly geuss:
Who is more likely to have more accurate data regarding the balls speed and real time location, you with your eyes closed, or the scientists and everyone in the stadium

>>16465981
>YOU are the one LIMITING reality by requiring it to always be perfectly definite and predictable because that's what your human reason says it should be.
Will read the above after and see if there is anymore inaccuracies I can point out but just scanned this small paragraph to see if commenting is needed first:

You are making a definite claim, about the indefiniteness of reality itself, I am attempting to point out the inaccuracies of your claim, I comprehend your side of the discussion, you do not grasp mine, purposefully or not obtuseness, a missing the point. Repeat back to me the comprehension of my side of the argument to prove you understand it

>>16465082
You should be able to model and predict this precise moment with 100% accuracy; after all the universe is perfectly deterministic

>>16466009
fuck off

>>16465932
No I define existence as any point in reality having a nonzero value

>>16466014
Look up a video with a weather vane North South East West being confronted by very strong wind, how many rotations per second you think?

If we know the initial conditions (do we know the initial conditions of quantum particle systems?) of the weather vane system I suppose theoretically it's possible we can:
Mass of all various parts
Size and shape of all various parts
Material of all various parts
Initial starting orientation
Successive trials:
Wind at speed 1
Wind at speed 1.1
Wind at speed 1.2
Wind at speed 1.3
Wind at speed 1.4
Wind at speed 1.5
.....
Wind at speed 200
Wind at speed 200.1
Wind at speed 200.2
...
Wind at speed 234
...

Then the vane stopper grabber,
Material of the vane stopper grabber
Mass of the vane stopper grabber
Shape and size...
Speed and force and distance from the vane
Various trials matching each vane variable to each vane grabber variable

>>16466015
>>16465981
>every point perfectly. But in Quantum Mechanics, assuming that the particle is in a superposition rather than a single point is actually NECESSARY to make accurate predictions, because the actual experiments show that where the observation will be is probabilistic.

Cart before the horse

Because you can't possibly know a particles location and speed

You must use a probability theory to make predictions

>>16462507
What kind of flerf nonsense is this? There have been no peer reviewed studies and catching weather vanes and therefor no empirical evidence. As far as the science is concerned, you may as well be saying that's like god did it

>>16466058
you can't possibly know where exactly the baseball is either, but you don't need to use probability to predict it.

>>16466288
>you can't possibly know where exactly the baseball is either, but you don't need to use probability to predict it
Read exactly what I wrote and comment next to the quoted line what is inaccurate about what I said.

>>16466246
See: >>16466023

>>16466288
>>16466004
>With video cameras and radar guns and a background graph grid a baseball can be tracked and clocked (we are forced to assume more accurately than without such).
>There are only 2 options, you must educatedly geuss.
>Everyone in the stadium and the clockers and trackers after numerous baseball throw trials are storing all the data, you are in the stadium with your eyes closed.
>Only 2 options you must educatedly geuss:
>Who is more likely to have more accurate data regarding the balls speed and real time location, you with your eyes closed, or the scientists and everyone in the stadium

Only 2 options, you have to make an educated geuss. Don't lose track of the balls of logic being juggled, keep your eye on the ball

>>16466329
Nice crackpot theory. How about you conduct the experiment and let the rest of us know what happens?

>>16466373
>Nice crackpot theory. How about you conduct the experiment and let the rest of us know what happens?
What's your hypothesis on what the results might be? I will record it in my notes, and if your intelligence is convincing I may not even have to perform the experiments

>>16460864
>Free will proponents should stop acting retarded.
>But there's no proof they could've done otherwise.
This is what some anons unironically believe.

Yes, but there is order even to chaos, so in-theory Everything can be assessed. It doesn’t matter if *we* ever get there.

>>16466328
your post didn't address my point so I had to restate it , I understand perfectly your argument.

>>16466441
This right here is the problem with the science. You believe you can think your way to answers. Get in the lab wagie.

>>16466515
You failed to meet or grasp the criteria of my post, making your response one of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty, only you know if that is purposeful or not

>>16466521
>This right here is the problem with the science. You believe you can think your way to answers. Get in the lab wagie
You are not speaking to me but to the strawman behind my back reflected off a mirror.

What is your theoretical hypothesis in regards to the experiment I will conduct with the weather vanes. What do you determine the result might be Einstein

>>16466525
Get.
In.
The.
Lab.
Wagie.

>>16460864
Nothing is unpredictable or random, everything in the universe is 100% logical.

>>16465082
>Do you not see that it is determined by the precise moment you determine to stick your hand in, and at what speed you do so?
Do you not understand how variables work?

>>16466781
>Nothing is unpredictable or random, everything in the universe is 100% logical
The only thing that can be illogical is minds, because the brain logic can mix random human symbols together and the result of that can be nonsensical, non sensible, pointless, non nessecary, this is how free will exists.

Well you can say it all has its reasons for occurring: the reason person A just said that particular string of 8367 words is because they are
1) aware of a finite number of words
2) those are the words that popped into their head in that moment
But the words they said don't make sense, it is an illogical, meaningless string of words, serving no purpose or function:
You can say the purpose and function it served was the individual playing, experimenting, proving a point about their ability to be illogical, letting of stream, exploring freedom of expression, making sound and noise

>>16466888
See:
>>16466023

>>16466023
Okay, I did the experiments, turns out everything checks out

>>16460864
Since everything in the universe can be described by laws of physics, any event and it's probability can be calculated. Thus, the universe obeys math.

>>16469293
Have you published them yet, other it's not science.

>>16460868
NO you just can't know where something is and where it's going. The SCIENCE is settled OK?

>>16469590
>Have you published them yet, other it's not science
Yes my friend started a science publishing journal and he has 70+ friends from college that peer review and accept or deny submissions

Not with anything but vague accuracy.

>>16466781
>Nothing is unpredictable or random, everything in the universe is 100% logical.
Then what do you predict is logically the last digit of pi?

https://youtube.com/shorts/qWuLcrzwV8I

https://youtube.com/shorts/aUDYWYqtAR4

>>16471761
Meant for
>>16472539

>>16472539
>>16472543
But one of those videos says that pi is approximated rather than actually logically predicted and the other says it is completely irrational, so how is something irrational and unpredictable the same as being completely 100% predictably logical?

>>16473144
One of them is approximation, a commenter even notes that some fraction maybe involving 22 is quite good enough aprox. But after much more than that it seems a fine line circle is made in the middle.

The other one is showing I geues how it is very close to perfectly aligning but just slightly off?

The circle is curious thing, the ideal circle, the ideal math circle, the circles nature can make, the circles man can make, the circles a computer screen can make,

The idea of that perfect arc, that meets itself perfectly, just so happens to not be composed of an even clean number of its radiuses,

To get more and more digits of pi, are you not taking that unclean ratio, and just pressing compute, compute, compute, compute, compute over and over again?

It's already known the radius doesn't go into the diameter neatly.

Good enough approxs of the ratio, determine the subtle fine grain resolution of the thickness and bit size of the line itself, in arcing, or where the radius actually touches the inner arc wall

>>16473172
>One of them is approximation
Yes which is why I accepted your concession, there was no 100% logical prediction, only a possible approximation to some arbitrary degree of precision.

>Good enough approxs of the ratio
No, it is not good enough to be 100%, you don't know what percent of the digits of pi have been approximated because you can't even approximate how many digits of pi there are let alone accurate predict the last digit in the sequence.

>>16473173
Why didn't you comment to the rest of my statements? Your assessment of my claims incomplete, your response, invalid

>>16473172
Imagine circle with diameter, and grabbing the center of diameter and pulling it down, because the diameter is not stretchy, you cant pull it straight down, so is it almost like saying, you can almost perfectly triangulate the inner circle by bending 3 diameters into triangles opposed to one another, but there is .14 room left making it impossible to fill the circle with 3 harmonious triangles 2 sides of which are sum of diameter?

>>16473658
And maybe that .14 is spread then between each triangle evenly, here we see:
.5 between A and B.
.5 between B and C.
.4 between C and A.

.1 shy of perfection.
Thus making perfection, in the circle.

>>16473670
>And maybe that .14 is spread then between each triangle evenly, here we see:
>.5 between A and B.
>.5 between B and C.
>.4 between C and A.
>.1 shy of perfection.
>Thus making perfection, in the circle.
3.14
22/7
3 with 1 left over

When you have 3 things you are trying to give an unequatable amount to evenly:
You will have to continously minisculize it to approach the notion of sliverality enough to pass it off as equality.

.14 spread through 3
4 and 4 and 4 is 12
There 3 4's, and still 2 to give evenly, how do you give 3 of something each, whatever is contained in 2?

You have to disect and disect and disect 2: in attempts to split it evenly amongst 3


And for in that triangulation attempt giving each an even amount of the .14 which makes a circle, do we imagine if we gave each a .5, the arc would miss connecting with itself and insteady formulate a tight spiral? Or expanding spiral?

The universe is knowable up to an isomorphism.

>>16473522
>Why didn't you comment to the rest of my statements?
It had nothing to do with the task you took on, you were asked a simple logic calculation question and you started rambling about geometry since you know for a fact you can not 100% logically predict that irrational sequence.

I predict that it is predictable, and that we will predict it.

>>16474580
OP clearly meant successful predictions, not your tard nonsense.

>>16460864
Niggers are unpredictable

>>16460864
If someone were to successfully predict that it is definitely unpredictable, doesn't that make it predictable by definition since they were able to successfully predict its exact nature of inherent unpredictability?

>>16474400
>fact you can not 100% logically predict that irrational sequence.
Yes it can be predicted, not precisely numerically, the prediction is:
If one desires to continously press "compute again" on an irrational (number) fraction, an irrational outcome in proportion to the irrational fraction will continue to occur until they stop pressing "compute this ratio again (but in a smaller manner degree)"

3.1 is pi.
3.14 is pi.
22/7 is pi.
3 with 1 left over.

All the compute compute compute crunch crunch crunch numbers after, are fractalizing that ratio, towards an infinitesimal space.

But ok because we exist macroly, and there is a vast amount of micro infinitesimal space in the world and computers, the brutishness of 22/7 or 3.14 can be useful to be further specified and clarified and precisioned.

If the Suns silhouette were a perfect circle, and an electron in the briefest of moments took on the shape of a perfect circle, how many digits of pi would their accuracy be?

How many digits of pi do super machined metal circle parts require for their perfect accuracy?

>>16474797
>How many digits of pi do super machined metal circle parts require for their perfect accuracy?
Anyone know?

>>16475465
"For most high-precision engineering applications, only about 10 to 15 digits of pi are needed. This level of precision ensures that measurements and tolerances stay well within acceptable limits, even for advanced, highly precise manufacturing of circular parts.

Here's why this suffices:

Tolerance limits: Manufacturing tolerances are rarely below the nanometer scale (1 billionth of a meter), which is achievable with around 15 digits of pi.
Real-world material limits: At atomic scales, uncertainties in atomic structure and thermal expansion make additional digits unnecessary.
Practical application: 15 digits provide an error smaller than atomic width for parts with radii as large as the Earth, so more precision would be superfluous.
In short, 15 digits of pi are typically more than enough for "perfect" accuracy in practical, super-precise engineering."

Pretty cool! 3.1
that 1 is the first digit of 15
Which means 14 more are used

>>16474797
>Yes it can be predicted, not precisely numerically,
IE the irrational sequence can't actually be predicted, so you have to change the subject to geometry and physical limits instead.

>>16475779
Apparently the universe thinks it's irrational to consider the digits of pi, let's give leeway and say past 60 digits. So what's your point, source, and motivation for intrigue past that?

Was it inaccurate for me to claim:
Something about those following following digits, is a proportional sectionung representation of the same ratio you start with?

You start with the fraction, the ratio, you don't start with All digits of endless pi.
So what is the process of acquiring the next digits?

>>16475940
The point is that the universe and its future outcomes can not be calculated with 100% accuracy like the dipshit claimed.

>>16475965

"2. The Ideal Line Bent Into a Circle
The challenge of taking an ideal straight line and bending it into a circle raises profound questions about geometry, symmetry, and continuity.

Equal Neighboring Shapes:
- When bending a line into a circle, the condition that "all neighboring points are of equal shape" essentially defines the constant curvature of a circle. This means that at every infinitesimal segment of the arc, the rate of bending is identical.

Joining Ends Seamlessly:
- To complete the circle, the line must meet itself in such a way that there’s no discontinuity or "kink" at the junction. This is only possible if the bending follows a smooth, uniform rule—which the circle uniquely satisfies.

Is \(\pi\) Essential?
\(\pi\) emerges as the natural constant when describing circles because it captures the relationship between a circle’s **curved structure** and its **linear dimensions** (radius and diameter). However:

- **Alternative Frameworks:**
- In some geometric or computational contexts, you might avoid \(\pi\) altogether by working directly with the **unit circle** or using numerical methods to approximate arcs and areas.

- **Why \(\pi\)?**
- \(\pi\) is the result of trying to reconcile the curved and straight aspects of the circle. It encodes the proportionality between the circle's diameter (a straight-line property) and its circumference (a curved property). Without \(\pi\), this proportional relationship would lack a universal measure."

>>16475965
"The idea of an "ideal line" or "ideal circle" has meaning within the realm of abstract mathematics and philosophy, particularly in the study of geometry and Platonic ideals. These constructs represent perfect forms that are defined by exact rules, free from the imperfections of the physical world. However, in nature and physics, these ideals are never fully realized.

### **Nature vs. Idealization**
1. **In Nature**: A perfect circle or line doesn't exist. All physical entities are subject to imperfections, measurement limits, and the quantum granularity of matter and energy. For instance:
- A drawn circle or a wheel may approximate a perfect circle but has irregularities when examined closely.
- A straight line on a microscopic scale reveals irregularities due to atomic structure or surface imperfections.

2. **Mathematical Validity**: In mathematics:
- A circle is defined as the set of points equidistant from a center in a plane, and this definition can be explored without physical constraints.
- The digits of π, extending infinitely, are a byproduct of this perfection. Yet, in physical computation or reality, only a finite approximation of π is ever usable.

3. **Dimensionality and Approximation**: Higher-dimensional analysis (beyond a plane) is not necessary to show the impossibility of realizing an ideal circle. Even within two dimensions:
- All polygons with finite sides are approximations of a circle, and their convergence to circularity (as sides increase) depends on how finely the curvature is measured.

The tension between ideal forms and approximations underscores a fundamental philosophical question:
- **Does the ideal have a form of existence beyond human abstraction?**
- Or is the ideal merely a conceptual tool we use to understand and approximate reality?"

>>16475977
>>16475984
see
>>16475779
Also, when you turn a line segment into a circle, you also lose the ability to know how many points there are since a line segment has [End Point - Beginning Point] number of points while circle has an infinite number of them.

>A perfect circle or line doesn't exist.
Then you can honestly tell your AI buddy that you and it really truly honestly can not ever possibly predict anything about the actual existing universe if circles and lines and numbers and values don't even actually map onto the universe and are just imaginary approximated idealizations.

>>16475987
What would nature have had to have done differently to produce a more detailed aprox of pi, making more digits needed

Well you mentioned atoms, looking at real pictures of atoms, they are kind of ball like, point like, and so a large sheet of atoms, you can connect the dots and draw circle, but then you have the bumps and grooves of spheres as your points
Which the ideal number line agrees points are valuable, to use in constricting.
So the ideal is imagining impossible unphysicalness of point-less curve or shape (which the classical macro world can have appearances of) but the trouble of calculating continua without utilizing a notion of paritcle, point, discrete,
Discrete limits, continua does not, how do you label continua without discreting it,
How can discrete ever be perfectly smooth

>>16475998
>how do you label continua without discreting it,
I accept your concession, you don't even know how to accurately measure the state of the universe, let alone predict its future states.

>>16475987
>while circle has an infinite number of them.
Not possible, a circle actually exists, therefore what exists of it must be labelable and definable, there are not infinite points in a circle, otherwise a circle would never exist or appear you'd still be drawing the first ever attempted one

>>16475987
>Then you can honestly tell your AI buddy that you and it really truly honestly can not ever possibly predict anything about the actual existing universe if circles and lines and numbers and values don't even actually map onto the universe and are just imaginary approximated idealizations.
no no, the universe exists, it happens to contain very close to correspondence with certain ideals, but the method of computing certain ideals, are meaningless and nonsensical at a certain point when attempting to relay that onto that which does and can really exist

>>16476005
>Not possible, a circle actually exists,
You literally just said >>16475984 circles don't actually exist.
How many points are in the circumference of a circle, then since as far as I have ever been taught, they are defined to have unlimited points just like a number line?

>>16476007
So the universe must contain circles because circles can't actually exist in the universe as defined?
Makes perfect sense.

>>16476005
>Not possible, a circle actually exists
does the circle actually exist or is there only a numerical approximation of a circle?

Language is more flexible than reality, what if we're over-interpreting it.

>>16476001
This is about deep fundamental question.

-Continua
-Discrete
-Idea of point (again usually a circle or sphere itself, turtles all the way down, spheres circles all the way down)
-Line
-Continua-points

-bent line, bent continua into cirlce
-orientated points into a circle

Any notion of many discretenesses, when trying to arrange into a circle, seems to nessecarily unavoid gaps/kinks/non smoothness

How can an actually ideally smooth line exist, what could be the meaning of this,
And then further more, to begin to bend it,
To begin to curve the ideally smooth line, you are already starting to differentiate locations of it by this curving.

But regardless, besides the apparent em field whatever and however it actually exists, nature seems to be saying it's hard to make an object that is fundamentally partless and smooth, that can be bent into a perfect circle,

You can use unit dot points, and add a quadrillion quadrillion together to get to our eyes the smooth continua curve of an apple,
But when you compute compute compute more digits of precision, you will see the atomic points that make up the number line of the objects curve.

>>16476013
I didn't say anything of the sort, a lot of people seem to have chicken and the egg, cart before the horse, causality problems.

The universe is exactly what it is.
Math both maps onto the universe, in all the ways it actually describes it; and uses the principles of these descriptions, to go beyond it in infinitely ideal precision.
The universe is limited, using ideas of the universe, to then symbolically imagine physically impossible actions, can maybe imaginally, or ideally, can glimpse at symbolic, occurances not achievable in the constraints of the real and possibly real

>>16460864
chaos theory

>>16476014
4 equal quadrant arcs can make a pretty real circle.

But I don't know if there is any meaning or can be any reality of them possessing the 60 millionth digit of pi.

Due to the difference between realness (physical conundrum of a possible reality of discretness vs continua) of a possible reality; and the "unrealness" of infinite symbolic manipulation

>>16460864
Yes because time travel is impossible.

>>16476026
>both maps onto the universe, in all the ways it actually describes it; and uses the principles of these descriptions, to go beyond it in infinitely ideal precision.
>The universe is limited, using ideas of the universe, to then symbolically imagine physically impossible actions, can maybe imaginally, or ideally, can glimpse at symbolic, occurances not achievable in the constraints of the real and possibly real
This is maybe the very notion of, video games, TV, movies, dreams, imagination, consciousness.

Using symbols, to symbolize, to fractalize, transcend the real.
Video games uses notions of a real baseline physics and math, and then symbolically manipulates and tweaks them, to achieve and perform ideals, things that are not physically possible or real.

>>16476037
If time travel is impossible then how come I posted this later than your comment?

Checkmate retard

>>16476040
Can't argue with that Mr. John Titor.

>>16476026
>I didn't say anything of the sort,
>>16475984
>A perfect circle or line doesn't exist.
>>16476005
>a circle actually exists
Wrong

>>16476034
>predicting the whole of the universe doesn't actually matter if I can predict a little bit of what happens in the small amount of area around myself.

>>16476057
>>A perfect circle or line doesn't exist
That was chatgpt
But ok we are getting to this situation:
Is a crude, physical, material, energetic, in nature approximation of the ideal circle to anything less than the last digit of pi, not qualify as a circle?

You see depends on definition leeway.

There are no circles in the universe in anyway at all, because pi never ends.
Or, an approximate circle made by nature and man is not an ideal perfect circle, but it's in the right direction, it's close enough, so we will let it count

>>16476059
How does that relate to:
-discrete
-continua
-real
-ideal
-physical constraints of reality
-symbolic ideal realm of less real constraint
-diameter
-circumference

>>16476059
How many digits of pi are needed to predict the whole of the universe, and it's the digits alone for predictions? Can you be more clear, the pi related spheres of planets and their warped sphere field gravity square law: how many digits of pi are used.

If you're referring to something else, how are the digits of pi read into and applied to make predictions.

Okay might be something to this:

"While the right angle property between the tangent and the radius is a defining characteristic of circles, it is not unique to them in a broader context. Ellipses and some other curves may exhibit this property at certain points, but only the circle consistently maintains this right angle at every point on its circumference. Thus, if you observe this property universally along a curve, it could suggest or help prove that the curve is a circle, but more information (such as the shape being equidistant from a center) is usually required for complete certainty."

>>16476034
>4 equal quadrant arcs can make a pretty real circle.
>>16476137
The uniqueness of circles, right angles at 4 axis, prove circle, no other curve shape has this condition?

"So, to answer your question: Yes, in Euclidean space, no other curve satisfies this right-angle condition across multiple axes in the same way a circle does. This is why circles are considered a unique, fundamental shape in geometry."

I geuss that's all simple, pure, fine and dandy:
But pi comes into play, how do you construct and form from scratch such a shape that achieves that condition.
How are you certain the arc is perfectly smooth and equal all around

>>16476151
>I geuss that's all simple, pure, fine and dandy:
>But pi comes into play, how do you construct and form from scratch such a shape that achieves that condition.
>How are you certain the arc is perfectly smooth and equal all around
Central point, surrounded by points/line equidistant from it,
Compass ruler

>>16462507
It's not. A weather vane and associated atmosphere is composed of trillions and trillions of qubits and the quantum of action doesn't get involved in the dynamics of wind direction.

>>16476255
The trillions of cubits of a weather vane are united as a macro solid object of 4 rigid potentialities, at a steady equidistant apart, that's a contral, the spokes are rather equal in weight, if even off by a quark or two here and there,
And probability is still at play, 1 of 4 options. 8 if you include the 4 exceptional rarities of directly hitting a spoke as opposed to landing in the larger space inbetween them.
A river is made of many more qubits, but has observed and known limitations, and generalities that allow its possible travels to be more and less predicted

>>16476582
There's not a weather vane in the world with a horizontal arm mass tolerance of ± 0.000000000000000000308507 milligrams. It's not a relevant factor anyway, since all weather vanes are designed with an inhomogeneity so that they align to the direction of the wind.

Of course everything is still probabilistic, both in theory and in practice. The fundamental laws of physics as we understand them have been probabilistic for ~100 years now. The chance that I die of a heart attack before the experiment can be completed or that some psycho appears and smashes the weather vane to bits can't be excluded either. It doesn't change that the probability distribution isn't uniform and free of statistical bias, and that the outcome can be predicted with a confidence of 10 sigmas or so unlike 0.5|0> + 0.5|1>.

>>16466023
>>16477082
^^^^^
That's the set up of the experiment that would give you some sensible parameters on probabilities
Big difference is being able to know the starting position
Which if this is all analogy for electron motion around atoms, yeah that's the kicker, you don't know starting position:
But you can still try with whatever method youre probing, to go through motions of variables distance and speed of perturbation to try to eek out rules and patterns:
And use magnetic fields and location and speed to electron input into the system as more variables.

Any ideas on what else you can do? Is this convo about quantum computers, how are they coming along?

>>16477390
>>16466023
You can know the starting position of an electron by measuring it, but then you have have no idea what its momentum is.
One of the initial conditions is not observable as per Heisenberg uncertainty.
However, Bell's theorem proved that the if there are hidden variables, they are nonlocal.
Meaning you need to know the initial conditions of the entire universe in order to predict position and momentum of the electron (if it isn't truly random under Copenhagen interpretation).
This is the Many World's Interpretation of QM.

>>16460868
>le i am le danger man
Reddit

File: 55696442.png (54 KB, 981x949)

54 KB PNG

>>16477440
50 years later Everettians still can't write down candidate absolute universal state vectors consistent with the Born rule without hand-waving away maverick branches, nor a privileged metric/measure on Hilbert space that would allow them to decompose one into worlds. It really is just an ill-defined secular religion.