Objectivists, what’s the point of calculating pi?

maybe necessary in astronomical calculations where we need to take into account rotary motion and we are talking of millions of light years ?
 
maybe necessary in astronomical calculations where we need to take into account rotary motion and we are talking of millions of light years ?

Quoting from the OP write-up
Mathematicians have estimated that an approximation of pi to 39 digits is sufficient for most cosmological calculations – accurate enough to calculate the circumference of the observable universe to within the diameter of a single hydrogen atom

So it is not that.
Reminds me of the famous reply, "Because it is there" to the question "Why do you want to climb Mount Everest?"
 
...for the heck of it. just like me planning to upgrade by devices and equipment .
My understanding is ,Pi is supposed to be Constant . A CONSTANT!
They are there to prove otherwise, every other year the value of Pi changes.
 
From a recent post by Archimago:
“…
One of the biggest problems of the anti-science "subjectivists" is that they act as if they are immune from every single known cognitive pitfall that is well established as being part of the human condition; effectively, they believe that any other argument is flawed, while being blissfully unaware of the malodorous manure that they swill about and wade in. If they can detect subtle changes in any tiny part of the “listening experience,” it is because they have the “training” and the Golden Ears. If they are unable to distinguish anything in a blind test, it is because science has failed them (yet they tout what proportion of correct identification they make on the odd test!). When they identify correctly it’s because they deserve the credit, but if they fail to do so it’s because the system failed them. It’s a willful, blind dissonance that is surprisingly proudly rallied behind. Just because the self-professed experts get something correct ought not to let one assume that they are always correct; after all, even a blind squirrel will sometimes find a nut. It is painful to see the disconnect in the following exchange, of which many a columnist is guilty (and proud) of:
Columnist: All true audiophiles trust their ears over measurements.
Rational audiophile: I’m an audiophile and I sure don’t trust my ears without listening blind.
Columnist: You can’t be a true audiophile because you don’t trust your ears.
While at first glance, it may seem that irrationality and dogma are gaining ground, it is somewhat comforting to see that these voices (loud and amplified as they are by the traditional megaphone of print magazines) are increasingly finding themselves in the minority. What we are seeing and hearing are the gasping death throes of people who are afraid of the increase in critical thinking, rationality, and accountability. In entrenching their indefensible views backed by their preternatural ability of self-delusion and self-deception, something particularly disturbing to see happens while in their positions as editors, the Atkinsons and Austins have abandoned rational skepticism in favour of preconceived beliefs. Calling out someone who doesn’t buy into the pile of pseudoscientific garbage as being an "objectivist" is similar to calling out someone who doesn’t collect stamps as a hobbyist. It is also interesting that Paul Miller, who does have scientific chops, allows this to continue as long as the page views bring in the dollars; it, after all, did not take long before the inimitable Mr. Arnott disappeared from the helm of Inner Fidelity once the readers abandoned ship in droves. While there may have been greater readership during the last while with pandemic restrictions on activity, it remains to be seen whether there will be a dwindling of readership that tires of the diminishing signal to noise ratio in audio magazines ahead.

Audio magazines are fetishizing equipment that is analogous to Swiss mechanical watches. The only problem is that they imply that one cannot possibly be getting the correct time using a cheap digital watch with a quartz mechanism, and that the time displayed by the former somehow “feels more right.” There is a cachet to owning and looking at and wearing an heirloom timepiece (I have a few treasured pieces), but it would be incorrect to say that they are more accurate than the Timex/Casio/smart watch du année. They are not! I do wear the aforementioned watch at some formal occasions, but I wouldn’t presume to state that the time on a digital display is less “right” than that displayed on my wrist; in fact I would gladly state the the converse is far more likely to be true. Audio equipment falling into the audio jewelry category is desirable, and has its place; it just isn’t required to attain the “absolute sound” and certainly isn’t any closer to a more faithful reproduction of music or audio signal than any other well-engineered piece of equipment.


There is no middle ground between untruths and facts. There is no mid-point between civil scientific discourse and peddling fantasies. There is no midrange between non-science and science. To quote Robert Reich:

“Speaking truth means responding to the world as it is and denouncing the poisonous deceptions and fantasies. It means repudiating false equivalences and 'both sidesism' that gives equal weight to faith-based fantasies and truth. It means siding with and advancing science, standing on the side of logic, calling out deceit and impugning baseless theories along those who abet them.”
 
Fact is all relevant designers/manufacturers use science to measure/design the equipment hence the science is given

The question is in how does the consumer decide on the already designed equipment
 
Fact is all relevant designers/manufacturers use science to measure/design the equipment hence the science is given

The question is in how does the consumer decide on the already designed equipment
Yes, it all comes down to how we decide, make choices and then “find out” for ourselves.
The mix of science, peer pressure, snake oil, information, disinformation is a volatile one. This is the world we live in.
Our good fortune is that at least we have music that we like?
 
What i don't like about such links is completely discounting of the original invention of PI in India. Such articles mis-lead the general population of its origins. Pathetic.
You just described the characteristics of those in "positions of power".
 
Last edited:
It seems the concept of Pi was recorded in use at several places in history. (The word itself is Greek, there maybe a sub continental term for it? IDK)

We all have the right to our own home grown subjective opinions; but facts are objective and need to be backed by evidence.

One perspective is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi(don’t shoot the messenger please)
 
I will shoot the messenger
It seems the concept of Pi was recorded in use at several places in history. (The word itself is Greek, there maybe a sub continental term for it? IDK)

We all have the right to our own home grown subjective opinions; but facts are objective and need to be backed by evidence.

One perspective is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi(don’t shoot the messenger please)
I will shoot the messenger here - my reference was to your link in the OP #1
 
(The word itself is Greek, there maybe a sub continental term for it? IDK)
There is! It's called Payasam. Invented in ancient Southern India and ingredients measured in extremely exacting (using pi {paya}) proportions. But then, the other ancient evil cultures of the world appropriated it and named it gruel. How cruel!!! :p
 
Last edited:
For excellent sound that won't break the bank, the 5 Star Award Winning Wharfedale Diamond 12.1 Bookshelf Speakers is the one to consider!
Back
Top