Submitted by Andrew McCarthy, Sep 28, 2008 08:15

It has been about one year since we had our discussion on the 'mind'. And I suspect that Dr Y has gone about his career without a second thought to my challenge over the significance of Pi. And sadly I hear that the NYSun is going to cease operations at the end of the month. This is a sad time on both accounts. But since Dr Y or anyone else for that matter did not want to take up my challenge over the significance of Pi, I must answer it myself... Secular rationality, that idea that man is a real progressive intellectual being in a real world, brought to us by either Darwinian genetic selection or Intelligent Design, is an idea that permeates our world. Thus the right fights the left and visa versa but at the same time they both believe in our great intelligence and in our great ability to measure 'real' things. And thus they both believe in the greatness of our mathematics whereby we have one number line whereby we can measure 'real' things. Thus this 'real' number line is occupied by 'real' numbers. And there is continuity along this continuous number line whereby this line is occupied by both rational and irrational numbers. And thus this is how Dr Y gets so reassured about his invincible Darwinian rationality whereby rational numbers can occupy the same number line as irrational numbers. It is as Richard Dedekind so aptly put it a hundred plus years ago about how irrational numbers are 'cut' into the 'real' number line via his Dedekind cut, as per Wikipedia: "The Dedekind cut resolves the contradiction between the continuous nature of the number line continuum and the discrete nature of the numbers themselves. Wherever a cut occurs and it is not on a real rational number, an irrational number (which is also a real number) is created by the mathematician. Through the use of this device, there is considered to be a real number, either rational or irrational, at every point on the number line continuum, with no discontinuity. Whenever, then, we have to do with a cut produced by no rational number, we create a new, an irrational number, which we regard as completely defined by this cut ... . From now on, therefore, to every definite cut there corresponds a definite rational or irrational number .... —Richard Dedekind, Continuity and Irrational Numbers, Section IV. Dedekind used the ambiguous word cut (Schnitt) in the geometric sense. That is, it is an intersection of a line with another line that crosses it. It is not a gap. When one line crosses another in geometry, it is said to cut that line. In this case, one of the lines is the number line. Both lines have one point in common. At that one point on the number line, if there is no rational number, the mathematician posits or arbitrarily places an irrational number. This results in the positioning of a real number at every point on the continuum." Thus Dr Dedekind gives assurance to Dr Y that reality is continuous and real. All measurement is thus measurement of 'real' things. Thus consciousness comes from the brain. Evolution is dependent upon 'real' survival'. etc etc... The problem with this is Dr Dedekind is not correct about rational and irrational numbers occupying the same number line. They actually represent two different neuronal experiences with 'rational' or exact numbers representing our visual world and 'irrational' numbers or better said immeasurable numbers representing our tactile/atomic world. Vision is a constant phenomena. It has a constant velocity. But tactile sensation is entirely an accelerating/decelerating force. They are two totally different experiences. And they are linked via Pi. And we can actually understand how these two phenomena are linked by the concept of Pi. Thus the 'area' of a circle equals Pi times the 'area' of a square, r times r. And if you use 1 as r then the rational number 1 times pi (which is an irrational number) equals the 'area' of a circle, and that is always an irrational number. Going to the basic definition of a rational number, a rational number is always a ratio of something. And any number, no matter how large, is still part of something larger such as 8 or 8 billion of something is still not greater than the something it is measuring. And thus every number should be seen as 'part' to the 'whole'. And here is where we understand that there are 2 number lines and not just 1. The first line is made up by what we 'see' which is always 2 dimensional and thus it can always be measured exactly via square feet or square meters etc. The point is our visual experience can only 'see' what is on the surface of things or better said atomic forces and even if we 'dig' down into say an orange by peeling it, you still only see the 'surface', even of the interior. It still is a work of visual art and it is always measured in 2 dimensions. We can never 'see' an atomic force. At the same time your tactile sense senses an entirely different experience where you sense the force of boundary and weight. This is always a three dimensional experience and it can never be written as a rational number whereas the visual experience can only give rational numbers. So we can reframe our equation as this 3 dimensional experience (irrational number always) equals Pi (irrational number always) times 2 dimensional experience (rational number always) instead of A=pi rsquared as we know it by. And what you get by doing this is two number lines for they are two different experiences and never the same. Thus Dr Dedekind did understand that they are linked, just not by his cut but by Pi. So for every two dimensional rational number such as 1 , there is an irrational number 3.1415... . They are linked in that for every rational number there is a corresponding irrational number and thus these lines are two lines of entirely different numbers and of different neuronal/electrical experiences. And thus our great rationalists who think they understand what is 'real' will be completely fooled by their own definitions. If we truly believe that we understand what is rational then how can we make such an irrational mistake as putting rational and irrational numbers on the same number line? To do that is totally contrary to what rational means. You cannot make what is irrational into what is rational and just call them all real. And back to the whole idea where a number is a part of something and thus it cannot be bigger than that something. Thus what we see is always a smaller number than what we feel and you can see this when you see that if r is 1 then A is 1 squared times Pi which is 3.1415... . Thus our proper ratio of the relationship between our two experiences and our two number lines is that the rational number line is always 1/3.1415 of the irrational number line. And amazingly then our 'real' experience is really two neuronal experiences,one rational and able to be measured precisely, while the other only has irrational numbers along its experience and cannot be measured. And, most importantly this can be made into its own ratio whereby you have a rational 1 over an irrational 3.1415... . and that by obvious logic of mathematics makes even our rational numbers irrational just as a positive over a negative makes a negative. And I hope you are starting to get a little fear and trembling over what you all so casually take for granted as 'real'. Really you need to start to think that what we view as real is really simply a neuronal movie for if there are two lines (and probably more if you take into account all the sensory systems and their pathways), then reality must be in another place. I think that is why Pi has no end for it is the proof of how long this movie has been going... And it is a movie for no sensory experience in any of our senses is a direct experience for what we 'see' and 'feel' comes to us down virtual wires via at least 2-5 electrical wires, before we ever experience it in our consciuousness... It is all a bioelectric experience and what we view as rational and real is really inexplicable and immeasurable. There is another world that we cannot experience. Socrates was right when he said our 'world' and our 'body' imprisons our soul. It is all in the neuronal mathematics and Pi is the key. Sorry Dr Y and all the others who believe in one reality via one number line. You are incorrect and will always be incorrect. Comme il faut.... Andrew McCarthy MD

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.