So during math I had the idea..

[Drakash]

Typhek is absolutely right.

*philosophy bomb*

No one is right. We all are right.

/discuss

[Ugluhk]

this is way beyond my knowledge...But I blame my age! I'm still just a pup!

[Hakon]

Typhek is absolutely right.

*philosophy bomb*

No one is right. We all are right.

/discuss

No, you're wrong.

/end discussion

[Drakash]

But A) You are right and therefore I am right or B) You are wrong and I am still right!

[Akesha]

Typhek is absolutely right.

*philosophy bomb*

No one is right. We all are right.

/discuss

Ah, the old relativist arguement promoted by Protagoras and the Sophists. You know something when you perceive it to be true. Therefore all knowledge is merely perception and man is the measure of all things. However perception is mutable, different people can experience the same event in different ways. This leads the Sophists to the conclusion that all truth is subjective.

Plato however, rejected this idea. If truth is changable, then it becomes meaningless. How can you describe some thing as white if everyone has a different idea of whiteness? In such a world it becomes impossible to know anything.

Instead Plato argued that there are truths which lie at the centre of all things. We may argue about the nature of a particular truth, but that is because we perceive it imperfectly. Simply because we cannot agree on truth, does not mean that the truth does not exist. Our perceptions lead to beliefs and our beliefs give us a foundation on which to build our own experience of the nature of knowledge.

[Claws]

SHUT UP

My head hurts 

[Drakash]

Typhek is absolutely right.

*philosophy bomb*

No one is right. We all are right.

/discuss

Ah, the old relativist arguement promoted by Protagoras and the Sophists. You know something when you perceive it to be true. Therefore all knowledge is merely perception and man is the measure of all things. However perception is mutable, different people can experience the same event in different ways. This leads the Sophists to the conclusion that all truth is subjective.

Plato however, rejected this idea. If truth is changable, then it becomes meaningless. How can you describe some thing as white if everyone has a different idea of whiteness? In such a world it becomes impossible to know anything.

Instead Plato argued that there are truths which lie at the centre of all things. We may argue about the nature of a particular truth, but that is because we perceive it imperfectly. Simply because we cannot agree on truth, does not mean that the truth does not exist. Our perceptions lead to beliefs and our beliefs give us a foundation on which to build our own experience of the nature of knowledge.

Good old Plato, I never liked him much . Very nicely written tho, the idea is far better explained in your post than in the school books I had although it still doesn't answer this time's philosophy bomb. Plato could be wrong. *flops around helplessly*

[Nergul]

.... I EATS ET!

[Claws]

 

[Nazhra Stormwolf]

Whee! Mathematiz! ^^ Iz think Chief' says good stuff n' Iz never seen that 1/9 proof 'fore!

'Bout that philosofizal stuff Iz wanna add Iz think thez no meaning ta anything withouz at leaz context n' ta give context ya need someone ta give it.

N' ta Greggar Iz wanna say that Pi is juz a tool. Ya sure can get exact soluzions by usin' it, but not if ya wanna convert it ta de 10-system! If ya juz let Pi be ya can juz give the answer o' x Pi n' it's really just there ta relate in circle-thingies.
Mathemat's juz abstrac' way ta think so ya can compare stuff n' give it meaning n' it doesn't really exiz'.

Foh' 1/9 thing n' infinity Iz think de real problem n' odd stuff come up when ya try ta use mathematizal thinking on somethin' that onli exiz in 'few ways in reality, bwit like the stuff Typh' said. 'Course Iz dunno if the theory of an unsplittable a-tom is true, buh aniwez doesn' mean anything or matter anything unless give it meanin'. ^^

[Ugluhk]

All discussions end with Nazhra. For one simple reason: noone understand what she writes. that is fact. That is different then truth.

[Drevan]

Doesn't change the fact that Kieth Jardine got KTFO by my man Wanderlei

[Akesha]

Ah, good old Pi. It does crop up in some surprising places. Sure it's all to do with circles, but when you think about it, there is something very fundamental about circles ... something that gets right to the heart of geometry and so right to the heart of how the universe works. It is true that it doesn't work well as a decimal, but then it does work as a fraction either, what with it being an irrational number and all.

Funny thing is, everyone assumes that the ancient Greeks called it Pi. It wasn't actually called that until relatively recently. It used to be called the Archimedian Constant, but that was a bit of a mouthful. Pie can be a bit of a mouthful too.

[Nazhra Stormwolf]

All discussions end with Nazhra. For one simple reason: noone understand what she writes. that is fact. That is different then truth.

Grr... Iz can write perfeczli FINE thankyouverimuz. Iz just talk this way ya know.

Pff...Ya juz lame-'xcusing yerself from all dese fun mathematizal stuff! More stuffz please Chieftain! =D

[Akesha]

Now here's a strange thing ... today we regard numbers like Pi as deeply significant, but to the ancient mathematicians, one of the most important numbers was 153. Why 153? Well it is down to the idea of sacred geometry and the strange properties that the number 153 has.

For a start, 153 is a triangle number. Triangle numbers are got by adding consecutive whole numbers, the first being 1, then 1+2=3, 1+2+3=6, 1+2+3+4=10 etc. 153 is the sum of the numbers 1 to 17.

153 also has the strange property that it is also the sum of the cubes of it's digits. 1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3X3X3 = 153.

Most importantly, at the time of Pythagoras, 153 was part of the best known approximation of the square root of 3, 265/153. This number was important to the Pythagorean philosophers as being the vesica piscis, the measure of the fish. Now, if you arrange two equal circles so that the circumference of each one passes through the centre of the other, then you get this sacred shape. They called it the vesica piscis because it looks a bit like the body of a fish, but it is also thought to have been considered sacred because of its resemblance to female genetalia. If you do the maths, you can calculate that the ratio of its width to its length is 1 to root three, or 1 to 265/153 if you're an ancient Greek.

Now here's the really interesting part. There is a story in the Bible about Jesus meeting the apostles after his resurrection. The apostles are busy fishing and do not recognise Jesus, but he asks them how many fish they have caught. They reply that they have been fishing all day but have caught nothing. Jesus tells them to cast their net once more and they pull it back into the boat to find it filled with a great number of fish. The wierd part is, the Bible tells us that they count the fish and there are exactly 153 of them.

Many people have commented that this cannot be a coincidence and that the story must be a referrence to the sacred number of the vesica piscis, something that an educated Greek audience would have recognised as being part of Pythagorean philosophy.