>>12472067I'm not changing the subject.
You asked me
>How do you know? Surely it's not just because our current model uses the reals? I would be highly interested in knowing your reasons for thinking the reals are necessary for description of the world.to which I wrote a response here:
>>12471971In which I said we need irrationals to describe reality.
You said:
>I can change the units from ounces to (pi ounces)= oz* and then A becomes A=1 oz*. In one expression A looks rational while in the other it looks irrational, while both expressions denote the same constant, so what do you mean when you say that a physical constant with units is rational?I'm willing to concede that what I said about h is meaningless, if it will make you happy, since this is a pointless detour to the main point: that we need irrationals to describe reality.
It seems you have sensed that you are losing if we return to the mainpoint of discussion which was
>I would be highly interested in knowing your reasons for thinking the reals are necessary for description of the world.By going down this detour of "rational unit constant". I'm not willing to argue this detour, so im conceding that you are the "winner".
Now there are a few options:
- You can continue on the detour alone
- You can return to the main discussion, where the response to pi being needed to describe nature is awaited
- You can stop posting
I suspect you'll take the first or the third option, since the second seems to be "losing" for you.
Regardless, other anons will see the pi needed for reality discussion, and will bring it up in future threads, without mentioning "rational constants with units". In which case you'll only have option 2 or option 3. So you can avoid loss now and have it later, or you can have it now, whichever you prefer
