2+2=4. Your view?

[tk102]

Who can say?

 

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

Are you saying 2+2 is phenomenal? It's not. The concept is noumenal if anything is noumenal.

[EnderWiggin]

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.

 

The way I see it, if you put what you call '2' jellybeans in a bowl, and put in '2' more, you then say you see '4' jellybeans. The thing is, these concepts are just that - conceptual. You say there are 4 because you say that there were 2 and then 2 more and that 2+2=4. Not that I don't say that, however, just that none of these things are set up by nature.

 

Gravity is not a 'law of nature.' We have no idea as to what any law of nature is. We make observations of what we see in nature, make true generalizations in our own terms so that way it is expressible to humans.

 

All laws of nature are just man's (and by that I mean the species') way of interpreting what nature does.

 

But, again, all this arguing is somewhat moot, because if you refrain from making statements that could be false, and only make sure you accept the truth, you can't make many advancements. Sometimes we have to take a little bit of a leap to get to a place unaccessible if we just followed a logical progression.

 

And now, I leave you with the age old question that was asked to us by our teacher quite often in a class from High School:

 

"How does a rock know how to be a rock?"

And the response we used to get from the teacher was simply, "Nature made it."

 

So, how does nature know how to make that rock? And how do we explain that process?

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

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

1 a : to give a false appearance of : induce as a false impression <feign death> b : to assert as if true : PRETEND

 

If what you say here is an true representation of your views, then this would certainly be the most appropriate word to use. One of your sets of arguments cannot be your true viewpoint, therefore one of them is feigned. "hypocrite" would have also been appropriate but that term would presume that you're intentionally playing both sides of the argument and I would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

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

I'm not familiar with that term.

 

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

What do you mean by "this"? As far as I can see you've yet to offer any support for your argument. Could you please point me to what I seem to have missed?

 

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 can't help but notice of the portion of reason used.

 

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.

Interesting. Is it possible that there are others that have an understanding of gravity that is superior to you own? Would you be willing to take your cake theory into the laboratory? It seems to me that you are relatively comfortable casting aside concepts that you don't understand fully, rather than learn more about them and create informed opinions. This is especially surprising coming from one that wastes no time in taking a condescending tone with those he deems to be intellectually deficient.

 

Thanks for your response.

 

The way I see it, if you put what you call '2' jellybeans in a bowl, and put in '2' more, you then say you see '4' jellybeans. The thing is, these concepts are just that - conceptual. You say there are 4 because you say that there were 2 and then 2 more and that 2+2=4. Not that I don't say that, however, just that none of these things are set up by nature.

Are you suggesting that there is a supernatural explanation for 2 of something and 2 more of something being 4 of something? I'm not sure I follow.

 

Gravity is not a 'law of nature.' We have no idea as to what any law of nature is. We make observations of what we see in nature, make true generalizations in our own terms so that way it is expressible to humans.

Apples fell to the earth long before we observed that gravity was a force. The fact that it was there to observe at all speaks to its status as a law (in so far as we are speaking of Newton's law of gravity).

 

All laws of nature are just man's (and by that I mean the species') way of interpreting what nature does.

We give these laws names as we become aware of them, but that is not the same thing as creating them. Mathematics is considered the universal language because prime numbers will always be prime numbers, no matter where we go in the universe (I use primary numbers as an example).

 

But, again, all this arguing is somewhat moot, because if you refrain from making statements that could be false, and only make sure you accept the truth, you can't make many advancements. Sometimes we have to take a little bit of a leap to get to a place unaccessible if we just followed a logical progression.

Yes and no. There is a great deal of chance involved when it comes to which frontiers to chase. This is why scientists find their work so exciting; because it is risky.

 

And now, I leave you with the age old question that was asked to us by our teacher quite often in a class from High School:

 

"How does a rock know how to be a rock?"

And the response we used to get from the teacher was simply, "Nature made it."

 

So, how does nature know how to make that rock? And how do we explain that process?

If this was a chemistry class, then your teacher should have been able to answer this one quite easily. Unfortunately, chemistry is not one of my strong points, so I'll have to take a pass on trying to answer this one, but hopefully I've at least pointed you in the right direction.

 

Take care.

[Jae Onasi]

Let's avoid the accusations of feigning, hypocrisy, lying, hating each other's guts, wanting to rip each other's heads off, considering the merits of poisoning, desiring to stake someone, and otherwise bearing negative sentiments towards each other and/or humanity. We can disagree without crapping on each other.

 

It's a darn math question that even my kindergartener has figured out, for heaven's sake.

[Achilles]

It's a darn math question that even my kindergartener has figured out, for heaven's sake.

It seems that the jury might still be out on this

 

That my kindergartener knows 2+2=4? Naw, she's pretty secure in that fact, especially if it involves more candy for her. --Jae

 

Whoops! I thought that said "a kindergartener". My apologies

[EnderWiggin]

Are you suggesting that there is a supernatural explanation for 2 of something and 2 more of something being 4 of something? I'm not sure I follow.

 

No, but I am suggesting that it is only so because that is how we choose to define it.

 

Apples fell to the earth long before we observed that gravity was a force. The fact that it was there to observe at all speaks to its status as a law (in so far as we are speaking of Newton's law of gravity).

 

I was really referring to the idea that no matter how much we say that gravity exists everywhere, is a stationary law, and everything must follow it, nature is still not bound by our words. It's possible that somewhere something can defy gravity and still exist, even though we say all things are within the boundaries of gravity.

 

We give these laws names as we become aware of them, but that is not the same thing as creating them. Mathematics is considered the universal language because prime numbers will always be prime numbers, no matter where we go in the universe (I use primary numbers as an example).

 

And I respond by saying that the idea of 2 might always exist, but the fact that 2 and the idea it represent are linked is solely of our doing. And because of that, we are able to change whether or not they are linked because we made the connection in the first place.

 

If this was a chemistry class, then your teacher should have been able to answer this one quite easily. Unfortunately, chemistry is not one of my strong points, so I'll have to take a pass on trying to answer this one, but hopefully I've at least pointed you in the right direction.

 

It wasn't a chem class, and the thing I think he was going for was sort of a question into how nature does what it does and how we explain these things. I can't imagine he really wanted the chemical process.

 

Take care.

 

To you as well, and thanks for the response.

 

_EW_

[Darth InSidious]

1 a : to give a false appearance of : induce as a false impression <feign death> b : to assert as if true : PRETEND

 

If what you say here is an true representation of your views, then this would certainly be the most appropriate word to use. One of your sets of arguments cannot be your true viewpoint, therefore one of them is feigned. "hypocrite" would have also been appropriate

You know those people who glare at you in the corridor? The ones who never speak to you, just look disgusted? This attitude is why.

but that term would presume that you're intentionally playing both sides of the argument and I would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you for your appeal to ridicule. Perhaps when you have a counter-argument, you would give it?

I'm not familiar with that term.

It's a motorway.

What do you mean by "this"? As far as I can see you've yet to offer any support for your argument. Could you please point me to what I seem to have missed?

Why does 2+2=4? By observation. Observation=phenomenal. Phenomenon does not necessarily equate to noumenon, therefore 2+2 may or may not =4.

 

You cannot use the phenomenal to prove the noumenal, or indeed anything. Only gather evidence in support or against an idea.

I can't help but notice of the portion of reason used.

Wording. Nothing more. And don't bother quoting Jung at me.

 

Interesting. Is it possible that there are others that have an understanding of gravity that is superior to you own?

Yes.

Would you be willing to take your cake theory into the laboratory?

There would be no point.

 

It seems to me that you are relatively comfortable casting aside concepts that you don't understand fully,

I didn't cast aside the idea of gravity, I presented an alternative.

 

rather than learn more about them and create informed opinions. This is especially surprising coming from one that wastes no time in taking a condescending tone with those he deems to be intellectually deficient.

Thanks for the insults, but speak for yourself, why don't you?

 

@TK: It is based on phenomenal observation, and thus is a phenomenal thing, surely?

[benjobong]

I'll admit, i havent read most of this arguement, but i thought I'd bring up a couple of points in case they havent already been mentioned.

 

First, we need to define the nature of the problem. Are you saying that one and one, plus one and one, does not make one and one and one and one? OR are you saying that one and one and one and one should not be referred to as four? If the latter there really is no mathematical arguement to be had, as four is defined as one and one and one and one. If you were to call it squig, it would still be the same thing, but im sure maths textbooks would be far more interesting. The arguement "we cant trust it because we defined it" is total rubbish. If you like we can just say "one and one and one and one" instead, all "four" is is a way of simplifying calculations.

 

If the former, its time to return to the first mathematic you did. Take a block. And another. Put them to one side. Now take another block, and another again, and put them on the other side. Now you have one-and-one on one side, and one-and-one on the other. If your put them all together again, you may be surprised to find a pile of one-and-one-and-one-and-one blocks. You may be mystified to find that as far as you can tell this is always the case! Thus, if we use the notation that we decided on earlier, so we can all compare notes at the end, two and two does indeed equal four.

 

And before one of you mentions quantum, dont. Numbers would work there too, if anything would stay still long enough.

[SilentScope001]

First, we need to define the nature of the problem. Are you saying that one and one, plus one and one, does not make one and one and one and one? OR are you saying that one and one and one and one should not be referred to as four?

 

Can you define One? How do we really know that one really is one? Or that one and one = two?

 

Prehaps because we came up with the definitions. If we call squib "one", thens squib plus squib plus squib plus squib would equal to what we would call four, or maybe "Blob". But why we call one "one" instead of some other number, as long as we give it the same definition...or even if we just redefine the definitions, changing the definition of one to mean the definition of say, four?

 

One reason this discussion may exist is to go and showcase how reliable/unreliable Math really is. It might be hard to figure out what is true. This does pose questions, for if 2+2=4 can be doubted...what else can? The existence or nonexistence of God? Science? etc.?

 

Somehow, however, I find this argument quite persuasive for the belief that 2+2=4, if we assume 2=one and one and 4=one and one and one and one. All we have to do now is to figure out if "+" is a symbol meaning combination and if "=" is a symbol meaning adding together and that is it possible that one and one really can be combined together or if they remain apart.

[tk102]

@TK: It is based on phenomenal observation, and thus is a phenomenal thing, surely?

No it's not an observation. It's a mental concept that I conceived in my own brain and has no external substance that is observed through the senses. Yet I cannot alter my conception of the logic 2+2=4 to make anything other than TRUE. Aren't noumena things that are what they are -- things in and of themselves? If I cannot change 2+2=4, I would think that meets the qualification of noumenon.

 

Alternatively, if you suspend logic as phenomenon, then there is no point in trying to distinguish between noumenon and phenomenon, since you use logic to do so. And for the same reason, there is no point to logically debate this further.

[Jae Onasi]

OK, let me be blatantly obvious.

Achilles, DI, you all are crapping on each other and I'm tired of reading it.

Play nice here and whap on each other by PM please, or I'll just start deleting both your posts where you snipe at each other rather than just snip out the flamey parts which is going to turn into way more work than I feel like doing.

 

Life is way too short for you two to waste time disliking each other or doing the alpha-male battle thing over a freakin' 2+2=4 math problem.

[Darth InSidious]

No it's not an observation. It's a mental concept that I conceived in my own brain and has no external substance that is observed through the senses. Yet I cannot alter my conception of the logic 2+2=4 to make anything other than TRUE. Aren't noumena things that are what they are -- things in and of themselves? If I cannot change 2+2=4, I would think that meets the qualification of noumenon.

Noumena are indeed things-in-themselves

 

But we know 2x2=4, or 2+2=4 because as our brains are shaped, we learn by putting together a block, and a block, and a block, and a block, and we are told that this makes four blocks. But this is, surely, a phenomenal observation? So the noumenal logic is founded on phenomenal observation, and therefore is in itself phenomenal, surely, since the noumena - the actuality of what is phenomenall observed - may be different?

Alternatively, if you suspend logic as phenomenon, then there is no point in trying to distinguish between noumenon and phenomenon, since you use logic to do so. And for the same reason, there is no point to logically debate this further.

Yep. It's a rather pointless subject

[Achilles]

No, but I am suggesting that it is only so because that is how we choose to define it.

I disagree. 2+2=4, not because we will it but because it just is. It doesn't matter where you go in the universe, 2 of something and 2 more of something are going to be 4 of something. Rocks are rocks because they are rocks, not because we decided that they would be rocks

 

I was really referring to the idea that no matter how much we say that gravity exists everywhere, is a stationary law, and everything must follow it, nature is still not bound by our words. It's possible that somewhere something can defy gravity and still exist, even though we say all things are within the boundaries of gravity.

No, but then again you're still operating under the assumption that gravity is something that we somehow invented. As for your 2nd point, gravity is quite easy to defy. If it were not, you wouldn't be able to get up in the morning or pick things up off the floor, etc. Gravity, in the quantum terms, is a very weak force indeed. We still operate within the bounds of gravity, but we know what our limits are.

 

And I respond by saying that the idea of 2 might always exist, but the fact that 2 and the idea it represent are linked is solely of our doing. And because of that, we are able to change whether or not they are linked because we made the connection in the first place.

The concept of 2 existed long before we observed it or called it "two". I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that before we observed "two" that everything came in ones or threes, but I just can't.

 

It wasn't a chem class, and the thing I think he was going for was sort of a question into how nature does what it does and how we explain these things. I can't imagine he really wanted the chemical process.

My apologies. I thought scenario was your class asking the teacher a question, not the other way around.

 

To you as well, and thanks for the response.

My pleasure.

 

Why does 2+2=4? By observation. Observation=phenomenal. Phenomenon does not necessarily equate to noumenon, therefore 2+2 may or may not =4.

 

You cannot use the phenomenal to prove the noumenal, or indeed anything. Only gather evidence in support or against an idea.

I think this is addressed elsewhere in the thread.

 

There would be no point.

Sure there would. If you have a hypothesis that you think would unseat the hundreds of years of confirmed scientific theory about gravity, I think it should be tested. But I don't think it makes much sense to take pot-shots at something just because you don't understand it. If the evidence points to the cake hypothesis, then we should toss gravity aside and accept it instead.

 

I didn't cast aside the idea of gravity, I presented an alternative.

Agreed. Do you just accept this alternative arbitrarily? Why would anyone else be persuaded to accept this alternative? Shouldn't some effort be made to prove your hypothesis?

 

"Meh, science. It might be right, but I prefer this idea instead"? Or am I missing your point entirely? Thanks in advance for clarifying.

 

Thanks for the insults, but speak for yourself, why don't you?

No insults, sir. Merely observations. If you feel that my assessment is unfair, let me know and I'll be happy to PM you so that we might discuss it further (as is the case with the other comments not addressed here).

 

@benjobong & tk102: *applause*

[Darth InSidious]

Sure there would. If you have a hypothesis that you think would unseat the hundreds of years of confirmed scientific theory about gravity, I think it should be tested.

But it's unproveable. Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain the 'hypothesis' correctly. It is this: that, while from our limited perspective on the universe, it seems that things fall et al. due to gravity, it is in noumenal reality, due to attraction to cake. So it's unproveable (and, of course, very silly) - I mean, how would you test it? What parameters would you set? What the control? How would you measure it?

But I don't think it makes much sense to take pot-shots at something just because you don't understand it. If the evidence points to the cake hypothesis, then we should toss gravity aside and accept it instead.

I'm not. I wholeheartedly believe in gravity. I am, as it were, a fully paid-up member of the Gravity Party. I just happen to think that there is a chance, however, minute, that it may in fact not exist, and that the cake 'hypothesis' may be correct...

 

Agreed. Do you just accept this alternative arbitrarily? Why would anyone else be persuaded to accept this alternative? Shouldn't some effort be made to prove your hypothesis?

Think I answered this above...

"Meh, science. It might be right, but I prefer this idea instead"? Or am I missing your point entirely? Thanks in advance for clarifying.

 

My point was that while science is a useful tool, it has its limits. It is constrained by the phenomenal nature of all observation.

 

No insults, sir. Merely observations. If you feel that my assessment is unfair, let me know and I'll be happy to PM you so that we might discuss it further (as is the case with the other comments not addressed here).

If you wish, please feel free.

[EnderWiggin]

I disagree. 2+2=4, not because we will it but because it just is. It doesn't matter where you go in the universe, 2 of something and 2 more of something are going to be 4 of something. Rocks are rocks because they are rocks, not because we decided that they would be rocks

 

I guess that's true. While I was arguing the observations and commentary by the human race on these things, the fundamental principles of the matter are still true how you word them.

 

But, will 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 always make that 4? For all cases? We can't say that it will, because even if we cannot fathom it, hypothetically there might be an example somewhere. In the here and now, however, we must say that it will equal 4, because if we don't, we can't take that idea and use it as proof to make another assumption... such as 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 make 5.

 

So yes, for us, today, and millions of years ago, and for maybe the rest of time, 2+2 will equal 4. But we cannot say it's absolute fact, when we really think about it. We only can assume it is so.

 

And yes, the fact that we can never really be sure of anything is a weak argument, a cop-out of sorts. Yet we seem to forget it while it remains true.

 

No, but then again you're still operating under the assumption that gravity is something that we somehow invented. As for your 2nd point, gravity is quite easy to defy. If it were not, you wouldn't be able to get up in the morning or pick things up off the floor, etc. Gravity, in the quantum terms, is a very weak force indeed. We still operate within the bounds of gravity, but we know what our limits are.

 

Ok, so gravity was really a bad example, but I was trying to make the point that nature doesn't adhere to our laws that tell it what it can and cannot do. The being that controls the relationship, in this case, is still nature, and no matter how much we say we control nature, we cannot.

 

The concept of 2 existed long before we observed it or called it "two". I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that before we observed "two" that everything came in ones or threes, but I just can't.

 

Very true. I agree with your point that the underlying structure existed before we called it as such. But before then, it wasn't called anything, so because we called it something to begin with, we can change that connection and connect the concept with 2 to something else.

 

My apologies. I thought scenario was your class asking the teacher a question, not the other way around.

 

It's fine.

 

My pleasure.

 

I'm enjoying this sparring match very much.

 

_EW_

[SilentScope001]

I only wonder what would happen if I post this topic in Senate Chambers.

[Achilles]

But it's unproveable. Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain the 'hypothesis' correctly. It is this: that, while from our limited perspective on the universe, it seems that things fall et al. due to gravity, it is in noumenal reality, due to attraction to cake. So it's unproveable (and, of course, very silly)

If it isn't unprovable, then it isn't science. This goes back to my question about noumena being equal or superior to phenomena. IIRC, you've yet to address this.

 

I mean, how would you test it? What parameters would you set? What the control? How would you measure it?

Quite easily. The first test that I would run would be to find out if the world were really made of cake. If we found just one part where the world was not made of cake and gravity still applied, then we could immediately disprove our hypothesis and move on to something else.

 

I'm not. I wholeheartedly believe in gravity. I am, as it were, a fully paid-up member of the Gravity Party. I just happen to think that there is a chance, however, minute, that it may in fact not exist, and that the cake 'hypothesis' may be correct...

Based on what evidence though? With this thinking it may be that magic fairies or pixie dust keeps us from falling off the earth. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in His divine grace, lovingly holds us down with his invisible, noodly appendages.

 

Considering our inability to disprove any of these hypothesis, we have to consider them all equally valid. The question that I raise here and elsewhere, is why would we want to entertain such "silly" (to use your term) thoughts when another, superior explanation exists? Why would we, as a race, want to adopt lesser explanations when superior explanations are available?

 

Think I answered this above...

Parts of it, yes, but not all of it. I would appreciate it a great deal if you could expand a bit here.

 

My point was that while science is a useful tool, it has its limits. It is constrained by the phenomenal nature of all observation.

It certainly does have limits, but I don't think it's limits are what you say they are. If the thrust of your argument is show that science is not perfect, then I think we can just agree here and move on. If the your argument is that science is held together by wishes and twine and can only produce crack-pot explanations, then I'd say we still have a lot more ground to cover.

 

If you wish, please feel free.

Only if you're contesting my observation

 

But, will 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 always make that 4? For all cases?

Actually that would be 3, but I take your meaning

 

Unless we have good cause to think otherwise, it would stand to reason that 2+2=4 anywhere. Take computing for example. Everything that happens inside a computer occurs in 1s and 0s. A computer program is interpreted by your computer as a really complex math problem. If mathematics were not universal, then it would seem that computing would have died at the starting line. In other words if 2+2=4 were strictly a human endeavor, computers would not be able to use it as part of a language.

 

We can't say that it will, because even if we cannot fathom it, hypothetically there might be an example somewhere. In the here and now, however, we must say that it will equal 4, because if we don't, we can't take that idea and use it as proof to make another assumption... such as 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 make 5.

I think we're now starting to branch out into the scientific concept of uncertainty. We only have cause to question 2+2=4 if we believe that there is a probability that 2+2 would not equal 4 in some cases. For your example, we would need to calculate the probability of 2+2=5. But as benjobong points out earlier, even on the quantum level we have to no cause to suspect that 2+2 will equal anything other than 4. The probability of another answer is so insignificantly small that we could solve 2+2 forever and never come up with anything other than 4.

 

Ok, so gravity was really a bad example, but I was trying to make the point that nature doesn't adhere to our laws that tell it what it can and cannot do. The being that controls the relationship, in this case, is still nature, and no matter how much we say we control nature, we cannot.

Agreed. The purpose of science it to better understand nature, not to define it. The mechanics behind the atomic bomb was not something that we invented, rather something that exists naturally that we sought to understand and thereby harness. I think we're close to being on the same page now.

 

Very true. I agree with your point that the underlying structure existed before we called it as such. But before then, it wasn't called anything, so because we called it something to begin with, we can change that connection and connect the concept with 2 to something else.

Agreed that it wasn't called anything. Again, we discover and then apply labels to aid our understanding. There is nothing saying that we couldn't have called "two" "three" instead. It would still represent the same thing, we would just use different sounds to express it to one another.

 

Thanks for reading.

[EnderWiggin]

Unless we have good cause to think otherwise, it would stand to reason that 2+2=4 anywhere. Take computing for example. Everything that happens inside a computer occurs in 1s and 0s. A computer program is interpreted by your computer as a really complex math problem. If mathematics were not universal, then it would seem that computing would have died at the starting line. In other words if 2+2=4 were strictly a human endeavor, computers would not be able to use it as part of a language.

 

And yet, computers were made by humans, so if 2+2=4 were a human endeavor, then it would stand to reason that computers being a human endeavor could use this.

 

I think we're now starting to branch out into the scientific concept of uncertainty. We only have cause to question 2+2=4 if we believe that there is a probability that 2+2 would not equal 4 in some cases.

 

Which we have no reason to suspect. I guess this makes my argument moot, by my own admission. Your next two points are shaky, but well taken.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Anytime. I didn't have much to argue with here, and I doubt you will either, considering I wrote about 4 sentences. I believe we've come to a type of agreement here.

 

Thanks again!

 

_EW_

[Achilles]

And yet, computers were made by humans, so if 2+2=4 were a human endeavor, then it would stand to reason that computers being a human endeavor could use this.

The point is that if it weren't non-negotiable, then computing wouldn't work. The "translation" would break down. We could test this by communicating with an alien culture as well, however since we have yet to make contact with one, this will have to do.

 

Which we have no reason to suspect. I guess this makes my argument moot, by my own admission.

Fair enough.

 

Your next two points are shaky, but well taken.

If you don't mind, would you be willing to provide your arguments anyways (via PM if need be). Pointing out flaws in my reasoning helps me learn.

 

Thanks in advance.