If you look up the meaning of the phrase “square the circle” you will find that it means to “construct a square equal in area to a given circle.” Why such a goal interests anyone illustrates the uniquely human trait of curious inquiry. It seems such a task should be a piece of (square) cake, or as easy as (a round) pie, and humans have applied their curiosity to this problem since the days of the ancient Greek mathematicians.
But easy as pie is not the same as simple as pi, and in 1882 a German named Lindemann proved the task impossible. It seems that the objectively determined numerical value of pi is the problem. Approximately 3.14, reality demands pi to be an irrational number, meaning that its decimal form neither ends nor becomes repetitive. To complicate matters a bit more, pi is also transcendental, meaning it is not the root of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It had been known for decades that squaring the circle would be impossible if pi were transcendental, but that fact was not proven until Lindemann did so in 1882.
Despite anyone’s desire to square the circle, the irrational nature of pi makes any rational attempt impossible. But what if we, curious humans that we are, simply reversed things a bit? What if we declared pi rational and made our attempts to square the circle irrational? What if we simply redefined the seemingly fixed nature of pi by legislative fiat to fit personal desires of those wishing to square the circle? Problem solved!
Of course, to ignore objective truth and compel desired truth among those trained to think rationally requires the power of fiat: an arbitrary decree or pronouncement, especially by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it. And in 1897 one group of people attempted just that. That year the Indiana General Assembly voted on bill #246, introduced by physician Edward J. Goodwin, who had discovered a novel way of squaring the circle. His solution and the proposed law to enforce it? Simply redefine pi to equal 3.2, a rational number.
The Indiana bill did not pass, but we must all wonder how the human trait of curiosity on this objective topic ever became the subject of legislative consideration. Is the fixed, mathematically defined nature of pi not established beyond redefinition? In pondering this seemingly absurd attempt at using the power of civil government to redefine natural reality, we also must soberly consider what almost happened. A group of people with the authority to enforce an arbitrary decree on other persons almost declared an objective reality to be subjective.
What could go wrong?
The consequences of redefining pi to an arbitrary value of 3.2 to satisfy one group’s desire to achieve an otherwise natural impossibility extend far beyond indulging a human desire. Yes, squaring the circle becomes possible, but at what cost? What about every other area of reality in which pi plays a role? Are we to believe that legislative fiat can malform reality for one group in ways that remain non-harmful to the rest of society?
Engineers use pi to calculate the stress and strain on materials, including in the design of bridges and buildings. Would a legislature really let one doctor’s redefinition of pi risk broad public harm due to incorrect bridge and building design? How can we allow some people to redefine pi to satisfy their subjective desires without imposing the consequences of that definition on everyone?
If nature exhibits a true reality, then wisdom lies in recognizing and living within the constraints such a true reality demands. Failing to be wise regarding the value of pi would no doubt have been short lived, possibly lasting only until the first deadly bridge failure. Despite the wishes and desires of anyone seeking to square the circle by any means necessary, ignoring the reality of the identity of pi would quickly prove disastrous.
But what about failing to be wise about more important natural realities? If God created the world as recorded in the Bible, certain realities of human nature and identity exist objectively. For one, God created two genders, male and female, with objectively physical traits to identify and inform the role of each.
Imagine one wishing to “square the gender circle” by achieving the naturally impossible: changing objective God-given gender for subjective desired gender. Rather than conforming the subjective gender thoughts to the objective gender traits, one might exchange rational truth for an irrational lie. And one might engage the force of government to enforce acceptance by all of this exchange. And truth by government fiat might prevail.
What could go wrong?
(C) 2024 Creation Reformation
Roddy Bullock’s book: Without Excuse: Evidence for Creation by God. Together with a Study Guide and Leader’s Guide, this book is ideal for group study. Available from your favorite online bookseller, get it today. Enjoy!