Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00119)

In a message dated 03/06/05 5:10:52 AM, forums@sova.us writes:

>Sunday, March 6, 2005, 11:43:14 AM, leonmaurer wrote:
>
>> I was referring to a specific "path"...
>
>Aha... Then OK. And I was talking about "distance". :-) But anyway,
>originally "length" is measurable only along a straight line, as long
>as it means "distance". And if you bind yourself to a "path", then
>you'll have to approximate the path's length to a sequence of however
>small straight pieces, whose lengths are measurable directly.
>
>I guess that's why Pi is not a "rational" number -- it is not a ratio,
>it is an approximation of such, however close to its aim.

OK... So far as finite materialistic thinking goes. 

So, lets get down to ABC's and clear up all these misunderstandings once and 
for all. :-)

A) Every measurement of matter fields on the physical plane is neccessarily 
an approximation. (The Planck distance netween the zero-point and the smallest 
quantum particle always gets in the way and screws up the exact length of our 
rulers or rollers. :-)

B) If you wind through the park on your way home from work -- the "length" of 
-your "curved" path is the "distance" you traveled... (Approximately. of 
course -- give or take the vacuum between the particles. :-) 

C) Also, from a theosophical metaphysical standpoint and considering the 
nature of fundamental reality -- Pi is an "exact" ratio if you carry out the 
fraction to an infinite number of places. [Mathematics can have exact limits -- 
even to an infinite set of infinities according to Cantor, Minkowsky, Einstein, 
Bohm, et al. :-]

How else can we consider Absolute space to be infinitely divisible and 
infinitely extendable? (Would theosophy be true if that were not the case? :-) 

Best wishes.

Leon...