Perfect imperfection, imperfections of our understanding, or…

If pi, 3.14…, is the ratio reached when dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter, how then is the result of this quotient an irrational number and not a quotient? The main quality of an irrational number I’m addressing here is that the left side of the decimal results in an infinite non-repeating sequence of numbers. Rational numbers, which all quotients of integers are, have either terminating or repeating decimals.

The problem is that if you take the circumference and straighten it out into a line, and then compare that length to the length of the diameter, the two lengths remain incommensurable. They can share no common measure. Meaning no matter how small you make a unit of measure, that measure will never produce a whole number value for both lines. This means one length must begin as an irrational number, which seems unnatural or inconsistent with how one initially thinks of “number” to be represented in the world.

This is not a problem unique to circles. Any geometric shape, either initially or when subdivided as a composition of other geometric shapes, will result in an incommensurable ratio between two or more sides. Although, pi does take things one step further, in that it is a transcendental number, but one thing at a time. What I’m currently contemplating, what does this suggest?

What do politicians do, in situations like this current crisis, when presented with questions such as how to proceed?

Politicians realize that it is both extremely difficult to accurately predict what to do, and potentially detrimental to their carriers should they act incorrectly. So, the first thing you have to understand is partisan politics. There are ideologies coming at you from the left and the right. These ideologies are interpretations of the actual situation with the proper spin applied to influence public opinion to one side or the other. Now, everything has limits, and you don’t know when you’ve reached or overstretched those limits without perspective. When I say everything, it means everything in my understanding including my understanding. So you have to step outside of your comfort zone. Now, if I don’t understand something as monotonous as lawn maintenance (why is my grass yellow?) or something as empirically observable as the cuttlefish (which is really a mollusk), how could I concede there could be nothing completely beyond my understanding? I’m not talking about advanced physics or even proper sentence structure (yes writing resource people, I don’t know what an adjective is or why its curtail to a sentence, but tell me again so I can promptly forget it). I’m talking about things beyond the natural world. God is a perfectly good example. You can’t explain such an unlimited concept with our limited concepts. Explain to someone, using the seemingly unlimited concept of omnipotence, that God is all powerful. That sly individual will then cleverly ask “Well can he create a bolder so heavy that he couldn’t lift it?” So now you’re trapped into negatively defining the concept of God, with something like He is not conceivable, not changeable, indestructible, and without beginning or end. Oh, but now by golly, he is unknowable, without faith by any means, and still beyond complete understanding so how should one come to know Him? And that, my friend, is what those politicians do.