Pi, and other things I just learned about TODAY

 I saw a girl wearing a turtle necklace at the grocery store and I thought , "Turtles, all the way down." 

Before I get too far into that, I want to demand that someone, somewhere,  show an image of the fibonacci sequence over the golden ratio. 

Okay, phew. Now I thought infinite regress was a math concept. So I started to think about pi. I said it's infinite! But it's not. I just learned that today. The part to the left of the decimal is finite, therefore, because of the fascinating way the numbers to the right of the decimal present themselves, which is never repeating to infinity, it is called irrational.

I've played around with numbers a little lately and the tendency to repeat after the decimal (ie. .245245245) I noted. So that makes pi different. Pi repeats, well, never.

It isn't going to be March for a while but I can talk about pi. 

Also, pi has nothing to do with regress as I had thought. Instead it is a philosophical concept which is applied to the overarching study "philosophy" and also the branches, such as epistemology, a small reading of the subject made it sound like a logical fallacy. 

They have different terms for the same concept on Wikipedia. The concept being a premise which needs more and more proofs without ever becoming proved, but always getting new info. It's like trying to live a perfect life, it always needs something, it's never settled. 

I know nothing about this part of philosophy. But pi I seem to understand better. It was neat to imagine it as a wobbly bit of whatever in motion creating energy. That was cool. 

Like the spiral, dude, can it move.... like this!?

So I didn't know what an irrational number was, nor did I know what pi was. And frankly, I didn't know what infinite regress was, either. And in that order, reversed. 

I read about infinite regress once without really paying attention and applied it to math,  because it was mentioned on page one of "A Brief History of Time", which is probably a pretty interesting read, but like a lot of other books, unbearable to have to finish. So I assumed that Stephen Hawking, being a scientist, wouldn't open his science book talking about logical fallacies. But he did. 

Okay, it isn't listed here, but surely it's fallacious reasoning, or it would be resolved! Look at that, would you? 

Not a fallacy. What is it!?

Dear Stephen Hawking,

What is infinite regress?

Regards, 

Mary

One thing occurred to me, often we are so smart we become overly bogged down with information. It is like a dictionary vocabulary. It seems reasonable enough until you have to use it, and it doesn't have a purpose, at all.

Imagine asking for directions and needing to throw some SAT vocabulary words into the mix, to be sure the driver in the other vehicle has no clue where they're headed. Or we want to be incredibly healthy, so we take "all the vitamins". That seems clever enough until your dead.

It's like that. Smart is not being like that. And that's my argument for a lot of things, but it's definitely the argument for why someone who, say, wants to understand something complicated doesn't need 15 years at MIT. It's a joke, basically, anyway because the younger minds, fresh and unbiased, are like a person working for Krispy Kreme who's never stepped foot into a Dunkin Donuts. They do better and come up with the new material. My guess is that they don't get less intelligent with age, although math computation is a mystery to me. I think it's because they have no imagination. But maybe the brilliant part of the mind does get to heavy?

Which may or may not have anything to do with the exemplary but somewhat overzealous array of whatever you need to know in a whole lot of detail about everything. It is great to know about things, and the analogy before about knowing about vitamins is pretty important. You don't have to know everything about vitamins in order to be healthy, only you need to know the person who knows everything about vitamins. And that some of them might not go well together. 

But we're not talking about knowing everything. Because knowing everything is a degree of intelligence. It's memory. There are degrees beyond knowledge, one being understanding, and thanks to Leonardo Da Vinci, there is a 3rd degree called application, which expounds on and invents. That is a degree beyond the conventional which is smarter than what most people are used to. 

What I would like to prove is not that knowledge is unimportant, but that the degree to error or even miss something important becomes greater with such a breadth of unlimited potential. Simplified, things correspond to nature. That's how we hit the bullseye.

It's like editing a book or reducing a fraction. It still has the same contents, it is only most perfect. 

So I am off to read about epistemology and regress, but I will want to cry because it is too much and there are diagrams that make no sense, when some genius could come along, and like the stories of the saints, prove it all with one magic statement/moment. 

A picture to show what I am working on, for later, because I've said they went crazy in the 20th century with a label gun labeling everything. It is something that perhaps is of that branch of logic. 

One must know everything to know some things. Why must you know everything to know some things? Because the some things are in the everything. Why do you have to know everything to know some things that are in there if they are only some things? Because in order to know the some things you must know everything so you have something substantial to know, you know? But knowing one thing could be enough! It wouldn't be enough because you have to know more....