You guys are making my head hurt. Seriously.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Math itself is absolute. 2+2=4 does not change, ever. It must be so by definition. If you get a different answer your premises were wrong.[/quote]
2+2 is 11 in base 3. Just sayin’.
So maybe DoubleDuce was dreaming in base 3.
Ok I’m outta here. [/quote]
2+2=22 in base 3.[/quote]
How did you get this? I think the first was correct.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes it’s wrong. All uses of science have a tolerance for error though, it doesn’t make computers not work.[/quote]
No, not being provable beyond a shadow of a doubt does not mean wrong by default. The stuff of science is correct to degree. It’s that way because it’s empirical and cannot be proven deductively. That doesn’t make it wrong, it makes it subjective.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:"So then, how is 2+2=4 “universally binding” if you believe tomorrow it could equal 11?"Not for us. That’s not how we were designed.
[/quote]You know what God designed for you tomorrow? He could make it that way for him, but not for us? Could you clarify what you mean?[/quote]There is no ‘today’ or ‘tomorrow’ in metaphysics.[/quote]Very true Pat, but that’s not the same as saying that everything metaphysical is eternal as I think you’ll agree. There are metaphysical realities that have been created by God just as physical ones have.
[/quote]
It means eternal in the temporal sense. Not in the same sense the God is eternal. Don’t worry I am not saying it’s eternity is equal to God.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No, if he wanted to change it, he could and we wouldn’t be the wiser. What ever rules he sets forth, will be what it is eternally. If he changed the rules, we would not be aware, it will be what it is eternally and to us, it would be transparent. But that’s not what logic is. He made it what it is and that’s what we have.
[/quote]
So, he could change it, BUT couldn’t make us aware he had? He couldn’t make you realize tomorrow that 2+2 is in-fact 11, and that it was never 4 like you thought today?[/quote]
He can do what he wants, He’s God. But he hasn’t and the fact remains that if you have 2 anythings and you add 2 more to it, your will have a resulting 4 anythings. It’s true by definition and that definition is not arbitrary. No matter what the numbers represent, and no matter the symbols of constraints you put on it, you still have 4 anythings.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Math itself is absolute. 2+2=4 does not change, ever. It must be so by definition. If you get a different answer your premises were wrong.[/quote]
2+2 is 11 in base 3. Just sayin’.
So maybe DoubleDuce was dreaming in base 3.
Ok I’m outta here. [/quote]
2+2=22 in base 3.[/quote]
How did you get this? I think the first was correct.[/quote]
The numbering system in base 3 is 0,1,2. In base 3, 2+2 = 22. 1+1 still equals 2. 1+2=21… Now matter how you slice it, or represent it, at the end of the day, there are 4 if you add 2 and 2 together.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m enjoying the mental contortion act so far guys.[/quote]
It’s only a contortion approaching it the way you are approaching it. Trying to make the physical absolute and the metaphysical arbitrary. It’s not going to work, it’s flat illogical and a gross violation of Occam’s Razor. Keep it simple.
@ DD
You seem to be a nominalist about numbers, mathematics etc. Anyways I would like you to clarify something. Does something have to be physical to be real (i.e. have extension in space and time). You say this “It’s only true if we both agree it is.” which I hope you do not believe is true but believe you hold to the correspondence theory of truth.
Also I don’t think you seriously considered the problem of induction that pat has brought up.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No, if he wanted to change it, he could and we wouldn’t be the wiser. What ever rules he sets forth, will be what it is eternally. If he changed the rules, we would not be aware, it will be what it is eternally and to us, it would be transparent. But that’s not what logic is. He made it what it is and that’s what we have.
[/quote]
So, he could change it, BUT couldn’t make us aware he had? He couldn’t make you realize tomorrow that 2+2 is in-fact 11, and that it was never 4 like you thought today?[/quote]
He can do what he wants, He’s God. But he hasn’t and the fact remains that if you have 2 anythings and you add 2 more to it, your will have a resulting 4 anythings. It’s true by definition and that definition is not arbitrary. No matter what the numbers represent, and no matter the symbols of constraints you put on it, you still have 4 anythings.[/quote]
Whenever I think of 2+2 equaling 4 I don’t think of anything physical at all. This is more to DD by way of your post. The metaphysical reality of logic is before and over any material application of it’s principles. I must first posses this framework of intellectually consistent analytical thought BEFORE I even open my eyes to see what objects I might need to apply it to. This is what I absolutely failed to get DrMatt to see no matter how many ways I tried. He just stared at his screen, kept talking about the linguistic symbols we apply to numbers, which is entirely irrelevant to the point, and then wrote me off as unworthy of his time.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No, if he wanted to change it, he could and we wouldn’t be the wiser. What ever rules he sets forth, will be what it is eternally. If he changed the rules, we would not be aware, it will be what it is eternally and to us, it would be transparent. But that’s not what logic is. He made it what it is and that’s what we have.
[/quote]
So, he could change it, BUT couldn’t make us aware he had? He couldn’t make you realize tomorrow that 2+2 is in-fact 11, and that it was never 4 like you thought today?[/quote]
He can do what he wants, He’s God. But he hasn’t and the fact remains that if you have 2 anythings and you add 2 more to it, your will have a resulting 4 anythings. It’s true by definition and that definition is not arbitrary. No matter what the numbers represent, and no matter the symbols of constraints you put on it, you still have 4 anythings.[/quote]
Whenever I think of 2+2 equaling 4 I don’t think of anything physical at all. This is more to DD by way of your post. The metaphysical reality of logic is before and over any material application of it’s principles. I must first posses this framework of intellectually consistent analytical thought BEFORE I even open my eyes to see what objects I might need to apply it to. This is what I absolutely failed to get DrMatt to see no matter how many ways I tried. He just stared at his screen, kept talking about the linguistic symbols we apply to numbers, which is entirely irrelevant to the point, and then wrote me off as unworthy of his time.[/quote]
Well, I can see his point if he was talking in the sense that learning the math teaches us the system. If he wrote you off, I am thinking it was more of your hyper-injection of religion in to the conversation rather than the analysis of epistomological concepts.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m enjoying the mental contortion act so far guys.[/quote]
It’s only a contortion approaching it the way you are approaching it. Trying to make the physical absolute and the metaphysical arbitrary. It’s not going to work, it’s flat illogical and a gross violation of Occam’s Razor. Keep it simple. [/quote]
I never said anything is absolute.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
@ DD
You seem to be a nominalist about numbers, mathematics etc. Anyways I would like you to clarify something. Does something have to be physical to be real (i.e. have extension in space and time). You say this “It’s only true if we both agree it is.” which I hope you do not believe is true but believe you hold to the correspondence theory of truth.
Also I don’t think you seriously considered the problem of induction that pat has brought up. [/quote]
I never said the physical is real. I said the abstract theory based on the logical flow of the physical world cannot be more real or absolute than the physical world is.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No, if he wanted to change it, he could and we wouldn’t be the wiser. What ever rules he sets forth, will be what it is eternally. If he changed the rules, we would not be aware, it will be what it is eternally and to us, it would be transparent. But that’s not what logic is. He made it what it is and that’s what we have.
[/quote]
So, he could change it, BUT couldn’t make us aware he had? He couldn’t make you realize tomorrow that 2+2 is in-fact 11, and that it was never 4 like you thought today?[/quote]
He can do what he wants, He’s God. But he hasn’t and the fact remains that if you have 2 anythings and you add 2 more to it, your will have a resulting 4 anythings. It’s true by definition and that definition is not arbitrary. No matter what the numbers represent, and no matter the symbols of constraints you put on it, you still have 4 anythings.[/quote]
Whenever I think of 2+2 equaling 4 I don’t think of anything physical at all. This is more to DD by way of your post. The metaphysical reality of logic is before and over any material application of it’s principles. I must first posses this framework of intellectually consistent analytical thought BEFORE I even open my eyes to see what objects I might need to apply it to. This is what I absolutely failed to get DrMatt to see no matter how many ways I tried. He just stared at his screen, kept talking about the linguistic symbols we apply to numbers, which is entirely irrelevant to the point, and then wrote me off as unworthy of his time.[/quote]
When you were a child you built the logic for the behavior of arithmetic playing with blocks and gathering stones. Without such reference in your past, the abstract notion of arithmetic is entirely impossible. It is no longer necessary for you to picture a physical object (as it originally would have been) but your brain is still referencing the notion of the behavior of the physical when you do it.
What do we do in order to teach a child math? Do you or could you start with abstract math? No. Put a child in a dark room without objects to touch and he could never build an understanding of even basic arithmetic. If there were an absolute logical foundation for building the understanding of math, it should be possible.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No, if he wanted to change it, he could and we wouldn’t be the wiser. What ever rules he sets forth, will be what it is eternally. If he changed the rules, we would not be aware, it will be what it is eternally and to us, it would be transparent. But that’s not what logic is. He made it what it is and that’s what we have.
[/quote]
So, he could change it, BUT couldn’t make us aware he had? He couldn’t make you realize tomorrow that 2+2 is in-fact 11, and that it was never 4 like you thought today?[/quote]
He can do what he wants, He’s God. But he hasn’t and the fact remains that if you have 2 anythings and you add 2 more to it, your will have a resulting 4 anythings. It’s true by definition and that definition is not arbitrary. No matter what the numbers represent, and no matter the symbols of constraints you put on it, you still have 4 anythings.[/quote]
Unless God says otherwise.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No, if he wanted to change it, he could and we wouldn’t be the wiser. What ever rules he sets forth, will be what it is eternally. If he changed the rules, we would not be aware, it will be what it is eternally and to us, it would be transparent. But that’s not what logic is. He made it what it is and that’s what we have.
[/quote]
So, he could change it, BUT couldn’t make us aware he had? He couldn’t make you realize tomorrow that 2+2 is in-fact 11, and that it was never 4 like you thought today?[/quote]
He can do what he wants, He’s God. But he hasn’t and the fact remains that if you have 2 anythings and you add 2 more to it, your will have a resulting 4 anythings. It’s true by definition and that definition is not arbitrary. No matter what the numbers represent, and no matter the symbols of constraints you put on it, you still have 4 anythings.[/quote]
Whenever I think of 2+2 equaling 4 I don’t think of anything physical at all. This is more to DD by way of your post. The metaphysical reality of logic is before and over any material application of it’s principles. I must first posses this framework of intellectually consistent analytical thought BEFORE I even open my eyes to see what objects I might need to apply it to. This is what I absolutely failed to get DrMatt to see no matter how many ways I tried. He just stared at his screen, kept talking about the linguistic symbols we apply to numbers, which is entirely irrelevant to the point, and then wrote me off as unworthy of his time.[/quote]
When you were a child you built the logic for the behavior of arithmetic playing with blocks and gathering stones. Without such reference in your past, the abstract notion of arithmetic is entirely impossible. It is no longer necessary for you to picture a physical object (as it originally would have been) but your brain is still referencing the notion of the behavior of the physical when you do it.
What do we do in order to teach a child math? Do you or could you start with abstract math? No. Put a child in a dark room without objects to touch and he could never build an understanding of even basic arithmetic. If there were an absolute logical foundation for building the understanding of math, it should be possible.[/quote]And now that I’ve become a man I’ve put away childish things. Are you telling me that you cannot conceive of logic unless referenced through matter? That logic is then purely a function of matter?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No, if he wanted to change it, he could and we wouldn’t be the wiser. What ever rules he sets forth, will be what it is eternally. If he changed the rules, we would not be aware, it will be what it is eternally and to us, it would be transparent. But that’s not what logic is. He made it what it is and that’s what we have.
[/quote]
So, he could change it, BUT couldn’t make us aware he had? He couldn’t make you realize tomorrow that 2+2 is in-fact 11, and that it was never 4 like you thought today?[/quote]
He can do what he wants, He’s God. But he hasn’t and the fact remains that if you have 2 anythings and you add 2 more to it, your will have a resulting 4 anythings. It’s true by definition and that definition is not arbitrary. No matter what the numbers represent, and no matter the symbols of constraints you put on it, you still have 4 anythings.[/quote]
Whenever I think of 2+2 equaling 4 I don’t think of anything physical at all. This is more to DD by way of your post. The metaphysical reality of logic is before and over any material application of it’s principles. I must first posses this framework of intellectually consistent analytical thought BEFORE I even open my eyes to see what objects I might need to apply it to. This is what I absolutely failed to get DrMatt to see no matter how many ways I tried. He just stared at his screen, kept talking about the linguistic symbols we apply to numbers, which is entirely irrelevant to the point, and then wrote me off as unworthy of his time.[/quote]
When you were a child you built the logic for the behavior of arithmetic playing with blocks and gathering stones. Without such reference in your past, the abstract notion of arithmetic is entirely impossible. It is no longer necessary for you to picture a physical object (as it originally would have been) but your brain is still referencing the notion of the behavior of the physical when you do it.
What do we do in order to teach a child math? Do you or could you start with abstract math? No. Put a child in a dark room without objects to touch and he could never build an understanding of even basic arithmetic. If there were an absolute logical foundation for building the understanding of math, it should be possible.[/quote]And now that I’ve become a man I’ve put away childish things. Are you telling me that you cannot conceive of logic unless referenced through matter? That logic is then purely a function of matter?[/quote]
Absolutely. In fact logic is constantly being re-written. From magnetism to time dilation to quantum entanglement. “Logical” is just whatever we currently know the world to do.
This is absolutely false, but I cannot do it tonight.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Math itself is absolute. 2+2=4 does not change, ever. It must be so by definition. If you get a different answer your premises were wrong.[/quote]
2+2 is 11 in base 3. Just sayin’.
So maybe DoubleDuce was dreaming in base 3.
Ok I’m outta here. [/quote]
2+2=22 in base 3.[/quote]
I was just being a smart-ass, but in all seriousness, 2+2 in base 3 IS 11. 2+1=10 in base 3 (what is a 3 in base 10 is 10 in base 3), and just like when you add 1 to 10 in base 10 you get 11, when you add 1 to 10 in base 3, you get 11.
Google a base 3 calculator and see for yourself.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
@ DD
You seem to be a nominalist about numbers, mathematics etc. Anyways I would like you to clarify something. Does something have to be physical to be real (i.e. have extension in space and time). You say this “It’s only true if we both agree it is.” which I hope you do not believe is true but believe you hold to the correspondence theory of truth.
Also I don’t think you seriously considered the problem of induction that pat has brought up. [/quote]
I never said the physical is real. I said the abstract theory based on the logical flow of the physical world cannot be more real or absolute than the physical world is.[/quote]
It is absolute, by definition. It is more real because it is absolute. In metaphysics things are either absolutely true or absolutely false.