2+2=4. Your view?

[SilentScope001]

You see, I realize that arguments on this forum usually tread into issues that are quite...conterversial. Many people argue with different things, and I decide that it might be better to realize that prehaps we do agree on many things.

 

For example: Many of us, I may be wrong, agree with this hypothesis that "2+2=4". I may excerise some doubt on that issue, and the country of Oceania may take up issue with this crisis, but I and Oceania have already expressed their views, and I decide that, for all intents and purposes, 2+2=4, and that Oceania is an non-existant entity and so his opinon does not count.

 

Now, some questions:

1) How does 2+2=4 effect world society?

2) Does 2+2=4 provide beniefts to society? Has this fact made our society more commericalized, less individualistic?

3) What will happen if 2+2=5? Can it effect other 'math truths'? Does 2+3=6 or will it still equal 5 as well.

4) Have we played God by declaring 2+2=4?

5) Why does 2+2=4? Is it an act of God, proving the existence of God, or is it an act of Man?

 

...Now, why I asked this? Because I am quite afraid of too many arguments and discussions, and while they should continued if mointored, we better have to establish some groundwork on which we can all agree with. So...here's a discussion that I hope won't erupt into violence.

[mimartin]

Science other than Chemistry was never my subject, but IMO 2 + 2 = 4.

 

I like to look at all sides of any augment. I enjoy the opportunity to glimpse into how other think and make their own decisions. I’m old enough to know that I’m not always right. I also understand that as a human I make mistakes.

 

Since you brought up Oceania I’ll use coconuts in my example. If you have two coconuts and I give you two more coconuts then you would have four coconuts.

 

You could argue that no two coconuts are exactly alike so what you really have is one 8 oz coconut, one 7 oz coconut, one 1 lbs coconut and a 9 oz coconut. You could also say you have 2 coconuts from tree A and two coconuts from tree B. You could even look at it a hundred different ways, but you’d still (IMO) have four coconuts.

 

In any topic people are going to disagree. We are all different even if we live next door to each other. I think people in LucasForums do a really good job of respecting each others views. On the rare occasion that things do seem to get out of hand the Moderators do an excellent job of ending it quickly. To me that is all you can ask for. Besides the world would be pretty boring place if everyone always agreed with each other.

[AJL]

But peoples always DO agree with majority... No one questions or challenges

the majority held doctrines... (No matter how absurd they are sometimes...)

Because the heresy "trials" are still on going... Only nowadays its much much

easier and faster... (All they need to do now is press some little BAN button

somewhere...)

[SilentScope001]

You could ague that no two coconuts are exactly alike so what you really have is one 8 oz coconut, one 7 oz coconut, one 1 lbs coconut and a 9 oz coconut. You could also say you have 2 coconuts from tree A and two coconuts from tree B. You could even look at it a hundred different ways, but you’d still (IMO) have four coconuts.

 

Prehaps, but it begs the question of what "4" means?

 

For example, 2+2=4 means: a combination of objects that we refer to as '2' combined with another combination of objects that we refer to as '2' will create a combination of objects that we refer to as '4'.

 

Oceania is able to contorl definitions, that why it is able to declare "2+2=5". Since Oceania has regulations of langauge, and the Party is able to decide whatever its followers believe in, it can easily state 2+2=5, without any fear, because it can easily call what we would call "4 the number "5", and it can call what we call the number "5", the number "4".

 

That's probraly the main reason I dislike 2+2=4, since if somebody contorls math, and gives different definitions to 2, and 4, and + and =, then the entire "truth" changes and it would still be 'true'. But I'm in the minority on this point.

 

Besides the world would be pretty boring place if everyone always agreed with each other.

 

True. Peace is boring but war tells a good story.

 

But peoples always DO agree with majority... No one questions or challenges

the majority held doctrines...

 

/shakes head.

 

Well, I think it is wrong. You for example is questioning a majority-held doctrine right now, that the majority is right. Achilles is questioning the majorty-held doctrine in religion. You are questioning the majority-held doctrine of death penatlies. I am questioning...well, I question a lot. lukeismyfather questions the majority-held doctrine of "realism"...etc.

 

But do people agree with them? I don't know. I would like more respect for minority views, no matter what they are (doesn't mean we have to agree with them, just 'tolerate' them, for a given value of tolerance). Kavar's Corner probraly does a fine job, but just in case, this topic is made.

 

I guess you need to define what you mean by majority. The majority of the world, or the majortiy of a community, like in LF?

[Achilles]

But peoples always DO agree with majority... No one questions or challenges the majority held doctrines... (No matter how absurd they are sometimes...)

Huh? When did this happen?

[tk102]

2, +, 4, = <- these are all logical symbols. They only speak to logical concepts not to things. You use 2 to describe a the number of things but you don't apply a definition to the concept of "2". They are axiomatic. No one controls math. You can control what squiggles on the paper are used to represent the concepts but that's as far as it goes. The logic behind the symbols is immutable.

 

2+2=5 can never be true unless you change the definition of what on of those symbols represents (eg. = is really <, 5 is really 4). Even if you do that, you have not changed the logic behind the statement.

 

@AJL: Do you mean to argue that mathematics is true because the majority believe it so? The thing is, "true" is a logical concept as well and is not affected by popular opinion. It is true, we use the word to describe situations that can be argued about (like in this sentence). But in boolean logic, there is no gray area for debate.

 

Now one could argue... if there is no consciousness in the universe to fathom the logical concepts, would logic exist? And if not, then you could argue logic is dependent on (but not defined by) consciousness. That's as far I'd go.

[JediMaster12]

Freedom is the ability to say that two plus two equals five. If that is granted all else follows- Winston ,1984 George Orwell

 

There will always be differing opinions. Being able to voice them in a manner that shows you have a stance while respecting others shows what kind of person you are. I am not fully understanding the question but I have always kept in mind the quote I mentioned above.

[Achilles]

There will always be differing opinions.

As tk102 eloquently points out above, there is a difference between opinion and fact. 2+2=4 is not up for debate unless we're discussing the reassignment of values for the respective symbols. That's the beauty of logic.

[SilentScope001]

Freedom is the ability to say that two plus two equals five. If that is granted all else follows- Winston ,1984 George Orwell

 

Actually, it's the ability to say that "two plus two equal four". Just felt a bit...er...needing to correct. Orwell is pro-2+2=4 crowd.

 

@AJL: Do you mean to argue that mathematics is true because the majority believe it so? The thing is, "true" is a logical concept as well and is not affected by popular opinion. It is true, we use the word to describe situations that can be argued about (like in this sentence). But in boolean logic, there is no gray area for debate.

 

Well, I suppose, but then why do the majority believe in boolean logic? What if they believe in some other system? Then would that be 'true'?

 

I'd just say 2+2=4 is true only in that framework of math. But is it useful outside of the framework of math?

 

/shrugs

[AJL]

Freedom is the ability to say that two plus two equals five. If that is granted all else follows- Winston ,1984 George Orwel

 

Freedom ? Free will ?

 

Free will is to make two plus two equal 5 or something else than 4...

To make something impossible to be true...

 

When we "decide" something, our brains simply put 2 and 2 togerher

and get number 4... The idea that we have free will and we decided

to do this or say that or... Is just an illusion which spawns from the

void between our conscious mind and the unconscious...

 

We are all heading to the one unavoidable future... There is no free

will, no choises... Obviously there is no good or evil either... And we

have no responsibility over our actions because we have no control

over them...

 

All those murderers and rapists and... are all "innocent" too... (They

don't have control over their actions anymore than anyone else...)

So punishing them for their actions is pointless...

 

Of course I don't mean they should be allowed to run around free.

They are like a disease on mankind and should be dealt with like any

other disease without sentiment. (Isolated, studied and destroyed)

Not to punish them, but to protect others... To heal mankind...

[tk102]

^ errm wrong thread.

[Ghost Down]

Ofcourse is 2+2=4 .. Yeesh...

 

- Ghost Down

[JediMaster12]

Ghost Down: We all know that. What Orwell was showing was that freedom enables you to say that it is different. It was talking about defying convention.

 

SilentScope001: I believe the way I quoted is correct. I have read 1984 quite a bit and that was the one thing that stuck out. If I am wrong than Achilles can keep score on that.

 

Achilles: If I understood better what the topic was about then maybe I would have been able to construct a better response.

[Gargoyle King]

You see, I realize that arguments on this forum usually tread into issues that are quite...conterversial. Many people argue with different things, and I decide that it might be better to realize that prehaps we do agree on many things.

 

For example: Many of us, I may be wrong, agree with this hypothesis that "2+2=4". I may excerise some doubt on that issue, and the country of Oceania may take up issue with this crisis, but I and Oceania have already expressed their views, and I decide that, for all intents and purposes, 2+2=4, and that Oceania is an non-existant entity and so his opinon does not count.

 

Now, some questions:

1) How does 2+2=4 effect world society?

2) Does 2+2=4 provide beniefts to society? Has this fact made our society more commericalized, less individualistic?

3) What will happen if 2+2=5? Can it effect other 'math truths'? Does 2+3=6 or will it still equal 5 as well.

4) Have we played God by declaring 2+2=4?

5) Why does 2+2=4? Is it an act of God, proving the existence of God, or is it an act of Man?

 

...Now, why I asked this? Because I am quite afraid of too many arguments and discussions, and while they should continued if mointored, we better have to establish some groundwork on which we can all agree with. So...here's a discussion that I hope won't erupt into violence.

 

2+2=4 because this is what we have been brought up to believe. 2+2=4 also because there is no other answer for this sum, you take 2 objects, add 2 more objects to it and it will always answer 4. However, there is always different ways at looking at things. I don't think we are playing God at all, if Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is anything to go by you begin see that maybe there never was a God anyway; a great work of fiction. Mathematical sums were always there, it just took time for mankind to discover them.

[Achilles]

2+2=4 because this is what we have been brought up to believe.

If I may, 2+2=4 can be observed by anyone that has the facilities to do so. Therefore I disagree that any enculturation is involved.

 

Did you mean something closer to: "2+2=4 because this is what we growing up knowing"?

[Gargoyle King]

If I may, 2+2=4 can be observed by anyone that has the facilities to do so. Therefore I disagree that any enculturation is involved.

 

Did you mean something closer to: "2+2=4 because this is what we growing up knowing"?

 

You would be correct, this what i meant - just you worded it better than me!

[Jae Onasi]

Put 2 jelly beans in a bowl. Now put 2 more jelly beans in the bowl. Add them up, there are now 4 jelly beans in the bowl. When my kids eat them, there will be 0 jelly beans in the bowl.

[Gargoyle King]

When my kids eat them, there will be 0 jelly beans in the bowl.

 

Too true...

Does this thread seem a little, well, strained to you; i mean how much can be talked about the idea os 2+2=4 that hasn't already been said?

[Vaelastraz]

I think the concept of 2+2=4 cannot be argued. The numbers are just terms for a certain uhm...

I'm afraid I lack the words to express what I mean.

 

Anyway, you could say, 4 is 5. then 2+2=5. The concept is still the same. There are 4 objects..

[SilentScope001]

Does this thread seem a little, well, strained to you; i mean how much can be talked about the idea os 2+2=4 that hasn't already been said?

 

Main goal is to have an argument where we all agree on a certain mathmetical truth, to show that we indeed are human beings who do share (usually) the same beliefs. Like 2+2=4.

 

Did it work?

[Darth InSidious]

Who can say?

 

Phenomenon does not equate necessarily to noumenon, so it is quite possible that 2 + 2 = fish pie, IMO

[Achilles]

Who can say?

 

Phenomenon does not equate necessarily to noumenon, so it is quite possible that 2 + 2 = fish pie, IMO

Exactly. So why would one even categorize something that is observable with something that cannot be? This argument has been made a few times, but I've yet to see the profundity of it.

Why would something that can only be thought of be equal or superior to something that can be observed, repeated, measured, etc? Perhaps you can explain?

[Darth InSidious]

Exactly. So why would one even categorize something that is observable with something that cannot be? This argument has been made a few times, but I've yet to see the profundity of it.

Why would something that can only be thought of be equal or superior to something that can be observed, repeated, measured, etc? Perhaps you can explain?

 

But those observations do not prove. They only gather evidence, and evidence that is fundamentally flawed, since it relies solely on the five 'normal' senses [i say this due to the grey area surrounding ESP et al.].

 

The point of this argument is that we aren't capable of *proving* anything by observation, measuring, etc. - any argument relying on this is something of a straw-man, particularly when used to counteract non-scientific arguments, over such things as ethics, etc.

[Achilles]

But those observations do not prove. They only gather evidence, and evidence that is fundamentally flawed, since it relies solely on the five 'normal' senses [i say this due to the grey area surrounding ESP et al.].

I have to say that this is a very strange position to see you adopt. You feign certainty on so many other things, so it's a little surprising to see you take this stance. Am I missing something or are you hoping to have your cake and eat it too?

 

The point of this argument is that we aren't capable of *proving* anything by observation, measuring, etc. - any argument relying on this is something of a straw-man, particularly when used to counteract non-scientific arguments, over such things as ethics, etc.

Supposing that I were to accept all these points (which I do not), you've yet to explain how this would be equal or superior to empiricism. You claim with great certainty that God exists yet seem to be willing to question the idea that gravity causes apples to fall to the earth. If "facts" are illusion, then I don't see how illusion itself can survive, let alone carry on to find itself on equal footing with that which can be repeated, predicted, etc.

[Darth InSidious]

I have to say that this is a very strange position to see you adopt. You feign certainty on so many other things, so it's a little surprising to see you take this stance. Am I missing something or are you hoping to have your cake and eat it too?

Please explain your use of the word 'feign'. It looks quite a bit like what I call 'loaded language' from here

 

I'm hoping to show that the cake may in fact be the M4.

Supposing that I were to accept all these points (which I do not), you've yet to explain how this would be equal or superior to empiricism.

It's not. It's just that empiricism is limited. This demonstrates the limits of it, and quite effectively, I think

You claim with great certainty that God exists yet seem to be willing to question the idea that gravity causes apples to fall to the earth. If "facts" are illusion, then I don't see how illusion itself can survive, let alone carry on to find itself on equal footing with that which can be repeated, predicted, etc.

Not so. I freely admit that God may or may not exist when it boils right down to it. Faith, personal experience, and a dash of reason point me in the direction I follow

 

I don't deny that gravity does, from my point of view, seem to make much sense. I just question it as an absolute, universal truth. Empirically, there is evidence for gravity. But there is always a possibility, however small and seemingly silly, that things fall because the floor is made of cake, and everything likes cake.