In astronomy, heliocentrism is the belief that the Sun is at the center of the Universe and/or the Solar System. The word is derived from the Greek (Helios = “Sun” and kentron = “Centre”). Historically, heliocentrism is opposed to geocentrism and currently to modern geocentrism, which places the earth at the center. (The distinction between the Solar System and the Universe was not clear until modern times, but extremely important relative to the controversy over cosmology and religion.) In the 16th and 17th centuries, when the theory was revived and defended by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, it became the center of a major dispute.
I am of course adding this so people understand that even though I espouse an underlying pattern to the nature of reality, it is not held to an ole dispute, but had taken on “new dimensions,” if one would like to call it that? 🙂
One other thing that is kind of weird if one faces mathematics with ‘reality’ is that we can’t actually determine any constant ‘exactly’. I mean, you’ll always have some kind of errorbar. E.g. take your example with Pi. You can define it mathematically, fine. Now you can go and measure it. Draw a circle, measure diameter and circumference etc. To get exactly Pi you’d have to measure infinitely precise.
Even more interesting: consider you could indeed measure arbitrarily precise. You’d find that the ratio is not Pi. Because our spacetime is actually curved and not flat. What would you make out of that? It makes me wonder whether any measurement that we could possibly make – if it were only done precise enough – already contains information about the laws of nature in our universe.
(Just made some spelling corrections, other wise verbatim.)
Not to think it has some “intelligent design” to it either, that you might quickly assume the map of the Hoyle’s paragraph above, to have some “alternate plan,” to who we are in terms of some conspiracy theory.
So historically it was important that people see this from “that standpoint” and then I will move back to the position I am currently holding. Do people understand the relation I am speaking about in terms of “Raphael’s painting,” as a model of introspective value? Although old for it’s time, it holds an important message about our dealings with the world.
That I place Aristotle and Plato at it’s centre is a “key point” to contend with from a “philosophical standpoint” as as well from one we recognize today in the patterns underlying our dealings.
The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein’s theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. (Hoyle, 1973, p. 78)1
1 Hoyle, Sir Fred (1973). Nicolaus Copernicus. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London. ISBN 0-435-54425-X