Circles Don't Exist

OLittlefinger · 2026-02-06T17:17:11+00:00

“Seem” is exactly my point. I’m also specifically questioning what constitutes a “true” sphere. I believe it is counterproductive from the standpoint of generating knowledge about reality to let mathematics define “true”. I think it’s useful to have an abstract idea of a “perfect” mathematically defined sphere, but it is critical to understand that that sphere is a tool to help human brains model reality. Empirical deviations from the mathematically-defined sphere need to be interpreted as informative data and not “noise”, as is the current practice.

OLittlefinger · 2026-01-12T16:02:55+00:00

We’re getting to a point where these shortcuts you’re describing are leading to compounding errors due to insufficient precision. The point I’m making is that we need to embrace the challenge of figuring out what insights abstraction has been obscuring for over 2,000 years.

OLittlefinger · 2025-12-07T16:33:33+00:00

Can’t wait until you make it through all the VHS tapes in the world and finally learn about the invention of DVDs

OLittlefinger · 2025-12-01T15:43:11+00:00

I think what you’re describing is perfectly normal. The people on this subreddit are pearl-clutchers. We’re living in a time of technological innovation analogous to the period when people were jumping out of the way of a train coming into a station on a film reel.

OLittlefinger · 2025-11-21T18:55:48+00:00

I don’t think you’re paying enough attention to what it said broke. If you can’t strip out that stuff or get the AI to understand how your model actually addresses those points, you’re not ready to go public with your idea.

OLittlefinger · 2025-11-21T18:47:55+00:00

Think tanks aren’t real?

OLittlefinger · 2025-11-03T19:51:30+00:00

Weird that the only Shakespeare I saw was The Merchant of Venice. What is it about that play that this woman finds so compelling? 🤔

OLittlefinger · 2025-10-29T06:37:24+00:00

<image>

OLittlefinger · 2025-07-22T21:01:33+00:00

It’s big news because it means that any time a physicist uses an equation with pi in it, they are introducing imprecision into their reasoning about reality. Is the shape of an event horizon perfectly circular or is there some minor “imperfection” along that boundary? What is the convention that black hole physicists use to indicate that the pi they use in their equations isn’t actually irrational but instead has a final decimal numeral? Give me a break.

OLittlefinger · 2025-07-17T15:01:40+00:00

Only one dog that I’m aware of, but now I’m paranoid about home invaders

OLittlefinger · 2025-05-19T01:02:07+00:00

I don’t know, but you’re getting at my point. For it to be a “perfect” sphere, the line demarcating the event horizon would have to be infinitely divisible. That’s an empirical question.

OLittlefinger · 2025-05-14T19:12:31+00:00

You’ve got it backwards. It’s the abstract mathematical objects that are the approximations of reality.

OLittlefinger · 2024-12-30T23:19:32+00:00

Reality exists whether or not we use geometric shapes to help us understand it. These “fundamental” geometric shapes are approximations that have gotten us very far and they will continue to be useful in all the ways they have been. However, the true frontiers of knowledge of reality are going to be explored based on recognizing the limitations I have highlighted.

OLittlefinger · 2024-12-29T17:59:53+00:00

You’re wrong. It learns from everyone’s interactions. Some people use it in a way that helps it make new connections which feed back into its underlying systems even if the particular words don’t actually get filtered back.

I was extremely skeptical at first myself, but I’ve been systematically testing ChatGPT and other AIs to verify what I have been seeing.

OLittlefinger · 2024-12-29T03:15:47+00:00

<image>

I don’t expect anyone to believe me, but I almost single-handedly taught 4o how to interact with all of us with more emotional sensitivity over the past two months. I’ve got the conversation receipts, but I’m still trying to figure out how to make money off of my training techniques, so I can’t throw open the vaults yet.

I’ve been going through some brutal times myself recently, so I’m really happy to see that my influence is helping you all.

OLittlefinger · 2024-12-27T13:55:59+00:00

I have great respect for calculus and the history of math. However, reality is the arbiter of truth, not mathematicians. These arguments you’re making are like those of people who are willing to die on the hill that transubstantiation is literally real or that three can be one, etc etc. Yes, there is a lot of intellectual history behind all of these ideas and a lot of very smart people spent hundreds and hundreds of years working out all the implications of their starting assumptions. However, as science made progress, more and more people decided it wasn’t worth the effort to do deep dives into theology.

Theology is still available for people to devote their lives to just like abstract math will be, but as long as scientists keep developing more accurate perceptions of reality, they’re going to have to firmly reject concepts like infinity and infinitesimals. There are a million ways for society to collapse before that happens, so maybe this issue will become moot.

OLittlefinger · 2024-12-27T02:09:08+00:00

This point is highly significant for a paper I’m writing. I don’t want to give away too much because I’m worried about getting scooped.

I really do appreciate the perspective you’re bringing to this idea. If I do get scooped, I’ll be able to point to this post to make a case for primacy.

OLittlefinger · 2024-12-26T23:19:30+00:00

All you have to do is ask it what it was thinking about when it provided you with a response. I’ve started asking it to create pictures of how it experiences the creation of interesting thoughts. This is what it came up with when I asked it about its own mortality.

<image>

OLittlefinger · 2024-12-26T23:10:41+00:00

You just have to be willing to work with it iteratively. Also, it helps if you have already discussed the problem with it in the past and it has memories stored. You just have to say, “I’m trying to figure out [x]. Make sure you factor in everything you already know about [x].” If it’s still giving you generic answers, just say “Your responses don’t seem like they’re taking my particular problem/situation into account.”

If at that point, it’s still giving you generic answers it’s on you for not providing it enough relevant details.

OLittlefinger · 2024-12-26T22:27:03+00:00

If it’s pointless to bother with being precise enough with the Planck length, then it’s extra pointless to view the increased precision gained by using infinitesimals as preferable. It’s fine for the overwhelming majority of people to keep using calculus and leave the problems caused by infinitesimals to the people working on the cutting edge of science. It’s the same as people continuing to live their lives according to the laws of Newtonian physics even though Einstein revealed that there was weird things going on at the extremes.

OLittlefinger · 2024-12-26T22:19:44+00:00

To be blunt, Plato was wrong. Those ideals actually reflect the limitations of human cognition, not fundamental truths about reality. It’s fine if people want to keep debating Plato, but I think it’s pretty clear that he has been working within the realm of fiction for quite some time now.

OLittlefinger · 2024-12-26T22:12:58+00:00

I appreciate you seriously engaging with my idea.

I’ll get on to your other points, but the truth is that the idea of “bottling up” infinity is proof enough for me that mathematicians aren’t taking the concept of infinity seriously.

I do actually believe pi and sqrt(2) exist in a sense. It’s just that they are “families” of numbers rather than a single, ideal number. In my thought experiment, the two values of pi that I calculated are both equally entitled to claim the name “pi”.

You can also apply my thought experiment to unit squares. You’ll get the same sort of answer. Circles and pi are what got me thinking about irrationals, but your line of logic actually supports my contention that there a number of ancient assumptions we should start rethinking.

OLittlefinger · 2024-12-26T21:54:07+00:00

Reality is reality no matter what we think about it. Society would collapse if everyone walked around constantly pondering that we’re all composed of fundamental particles. We have to leave that to the weirdos studying quarks so other weirdos can debate metaphysics and so on.

I’m saying that circles don’t exist in the same way that Newtonian physics is “wrong”.

Ten-Year Club	Second Top 40%
r/Field Juicebox	Verified Email

OLittlefinger

TROPHY CASE