In his TV series on the connection between mathematics and both the inorganic and organic world, Marcus de Sautoy spends a segment on π. Speaking of Pi, Sautoy says, “Luckily, we only need the first 39 [decimal places of Pi] to calculate the circumference of a circle the size of the entire observable universe accurate to the radius of a single hydrogen atom” (34:35 min mark).*
“So?”
Nothing in our lives seems to be that accurate. Generally, we prefer the general. Figuring the circumference of the universe to the accuracy mentioned by de Sautoy isn’t what we do in our daily lives. We are more likely inclined to something akin to 3.1, or 3, and not to the dizzying 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197.
Again, “So?”
Maybe cosmologists and astrophysicists need the kind of accuracy de Sautoy mentions, but our rather crude measurements in daily life never seem to require it. That both saves us trouble and gives us trouble. Inaccuracy or imprecision keeps us from being overburdened with details when they contradict our beliefs. And, inaccuracy or imprecision keeps us from being overburdened with details when they contradict our beliefs. Yes, what saves us trouble also gives us trouble.
Rarely do we make the effort to pursue our self-contradictions to a high level of accuracy. In fact, most of the time we don’t even recognize our own contradictory nature. We accept the measurement of our own personal universe to the lowest level of detail. We apply more decimal places to the contradictions and hypocrisy of others. We love accuracy when it comes to the mistakes of others. Can’t be too accurate in the measurement of someone else’s universe, but in the measurement of our own?
Here’s a thought (in case you were looking for one): Think “π” the next time you spend time measuring another person’s life. How many decimal places do you use to take the measurement?
*The Code, Season 1, Episode 1. Available on Netflix.
“So?”
Nothing in our lives seems to be that accurate. Generally, we prefer the general. Figuring the circumference of the universe to the accuracy mentioned by de Sautoy isn’t what we do in our daily lives. We are more likely inclined to something akin to 3.1, or 3, and not to the dizzying 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197.
Again, “So?”
Maybe cosmologists and astrophysicists need the kind of accuracy de Sautoy mentions, but our rather crude measurements in daily life never seem to require it. That both saves us trouble and gives us trouble. Inaccuracy or imprecision keeps us from being overburdened with details when they contradict our beliefs. And, inaccuracy or imprecision keeps us from being overburdened with details when they contradict our beliefs. Yes, what saves us trouble also gives us trouble.
Rarely do we make the effort to pursue our self-contradictions to a high level of accuracy. In fact, most of the time we don’t even recognize our own contradictory nature. We accept the measurement of our own personal universe to the lowest level of detail. We apply more decimal places to the contradictions and hypocrisy of others. We love accuracy when it comes to the mistakes of others. Can’t be too accurate in the measurement of someone else’s universe, but in the measurement of our own?
Here’s a thought (in case you were looking for one): Think “π” the next time you spend time measuring another person’s life. How many decimal places do you use to take the measurement?
*The Code, Season 1, Episode 1. Available on Netflix.
RSS Feed