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]
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]
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]
God hasn’t. So things are the way they are. [/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Bump. Still waiting on someone to define addition so I can disprove your notion of it’s absolute truth.
2’ + 2’ is anywhere from 0’ to 4’ in a relativistic universe (if general relativity is true)
Given a momentum for reference of 2.5E8m/s relative to the lengths, 2’ + 2’ is 2’.
It is ironic that I’m getting made fun of for disagreeing with something people won’t even offer a definition of.[/quote]
Thing is your thinking of addition as derived from experience while others are thinking of it in a apriori logical sorta of way with premises and conclusions such that no experience can defy the conclusion being true if the premises are. I guess that my mathematical education is certainly not as extensive as yours given that I am not an engineer and Cal 3 and Differential equations is as much math as I have taken, but I think Peano’s axioms define addition and subtraction and would still hold even if there was nothing physical.
I do find your position interesting though as I think you’re the only person I know who is nominalist about abstract objects, or at very least numbers.
I would say most people have ever considered it. And even fewer have enough knowlege about math to have an educated opinion.
I’m no mathematician by the way.
I found this book at B&N a few days ago on the bargain shelf.
“Throughout the whole book Kline explains the relation between mathematics and the other sciences (mostly astronomy and physics). While mathematics strived to reveal some truth about nature when it was young, it is today an isolated and fragmented discipline. Kline leaves no doubt that he dislikes the current situation of mathematicians ignoring the other sciences and playing with arbitrary formalisms.”
I’ve only just started the book, but it’s safe to say, I’m not alone in my opinion.
How can you hold something absolute that you cannot define? How can something be self evident if it cannot be described? How is it absurd to question the truth of something for which there is no proof?
I would say most people have ever considered it. And even fewer have enough knowlege about math to have an educated opinion.
I’m no mathematician by the way.
I found this book at B&N a few days ago on the bargain shelf.
“Throughout the whole book Kline explains the relation between mathematics and the other sciences (mostly astronomy and physics). While mathematics strived to reveal some truth about nature when it was young, it is today an isolated and fragmented discipline. Kline leaves no doubt that he dislikes the current situation of mathematicians ignoring the other sciences and playing with arbitrary formalisms.”
I’ve only just started the book, but it’s safe to say, I’m not alone in my opinion.
How can you hold something absolute that you cannot define? How can something be self evident if it cannot be described? How is it absurd to question the truth of something for which there is no proof?[/quote]
Seems like an interesting book I might check it out sometime. Anyways there seem to be many beliefs people hold to for which they cannot give justification or have ample justification for called properly basic beliefs.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Seems like an interesting book I might check it out sometime. Anyways there seem to be many beliefs people hold to for which they cannot give justification or have ample justification for called properly basic beliefs.[/quote]
Yup, and I consider it a win for me if I at least make people think about it. I’ll let you know how the book goes, it was the book that made me think of this thread.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:Bump. Still waiting on someone to define addition so I can disprove your notion of it’s absolute truth. [/quote]Try it without assuming it first. In other words let’s see you advance an argument against the logic that REQUIRES 2+2 to equal 4 for us in such a way that does not use that very logic. In further other words, let’s see you live one second of your life as if 2+2 were not certainly 4 where you live. okhmdgrh89-45hir[klhm[-j4uyh2g[30ofklnjkbfwgtnthknm That was my attempt. Let’s see yours.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:Bump. Still waiting on someone to define addition so I can disprove your notion of it’s absolute truth. [/quote]Try it without assuming it first. In other words let’s see you advance an argument against the logic that REQUIRES 2+2 to equal 4 for us in such a way that does not use that very logic. In further other words, let’s see you live one second of your life as if 2+2 were not certainly 4 where you live. okhmdgrh89-45hir[klhm[-j4uyh2g[30ofklnjkbfwgtnthknm That was my attempt. Let’s see yours.
[/quote]
Did you miss my length addition earlier?
I showed
2’ + 2’ = 2’
And again, you failed to offer a definition. How can I be expected to argue against a point for which there is apparently no definition?
4 garblediguk 6 = 99.39393
This is self evident and absolute truth. Please show me an argument that disputes the absolute nature of garblediguk.
YOU must define the term YOU are advancing as absolute.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:Remember abstract math is by definition supernatural and not part of science. [/quote]Science cannot even think ONE single syllable of itself unless 2+2 is pragmatically and certainly 4. You are making my point. You WILL see that in time. Groo already does. Don’t ya Groo.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:Remember abstract math is by definition supernatural and not part of science. [/quote]Science cannot even think ONE single syllable of itself unless 2+2 is pragmatically and certainly 4. You are making my point. You WILL see that in time. Groo already does. Don’t ya Groo.
[/quote]
Wrong, again. it’s the other way around. Science looks at some part of the universe, then comes comes up with a name for the way it functions. Observation and Hypothesis come first. If 1 photon striking another photon results in 20 photons, Science defines addition as 2+2=20 for photons. 2+2 is only 4 under narrow conditions. AGAIN 2’ + 2’ = 2’ in a specific reference. If 2+2 was absolutely 4, you are contending that the universe is wrong and doesn’t abide by your absolute truth (which baffles me then how it can be absolute).
And again, you’ve failed to even define your own term. It’s beyond absurd you are arguing the absolute truth of something that you are by default admitting you don’t know what it means.