Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4

Math is generally referred to as an "Objective Truth" in science.
Objective meaning.."absolute" in its existence or beginning.
By faith alone..numbers used to determine the results of simple equations are assumed to be 100 percent constant. "Constant" meaning..they represent "absolute" values...and are not subject to change.

There are some, however, who believe that everything in life is made up of "Relative Truths." Relative meaning..everything is subject to change, and truth is dependant upon an individual's circumstances/views.

Those of you who believe in "Relative Truths." Please provide for me an explanation..as to how the mathmetical equation.

2 + 2 = 4

Is a relative truth.

**You may not make any "absolute" arguments to prove this relative truth, doing such.. would be contradictory to your position.

2+2=0 when your calculator is broken 😖mart:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=291143&highlight=asylum

2 apples + 2 oranges does not = 4 apples, ,nor does it = 4 oranges.

due to the space-time theory if you start at earth and travel 2 light years, then travel two more theoreticly you would be 3.9999. light years from earth.

Say it im a geek 🤓

Originally posted by Clovie
2+2=0 when your calculator is broken 😖mart:

Originally posted by whobdamandog

"Constant" meaning..they represent "absolute" values...and are not subject to change.

Originally posted by whobdamandog

**You may not make any "absolute" arguments to prove this relative truth, doing such.. would be contradictory to your position.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
2 apples + 2 oranges does not = 4 apples, ,nor does it = 4 oranges. ]

Broken Calculator = constant
2 apples = constant
2 oranges = constant
2 light years = constant

Originally posted by debbiejoe
or a positive 2 and a negative 2 equals 0..

-2 is not = +2..

Moving on..using only "relative" arguments..prove 2 + 2 does not = 4

OK...negative 2...and a positve 2...meaning going up 2 is zero...

Originally posted by debbiejo
OK...negative 2...and a positve 2...meaning going up 2 is zero...

"Constant" meaning..they represent "absolute" values...and are not subject to change.

**You may not make any "absolute" arguments to prove this relative truth, doing such.. would be contradictory to your position.

Try again..😉

NO...Don't want to.

Originally posted by debbiejo
NO...Don't want to.

Are you absolutely certain about your decision?..😆😆

Yes

Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes

Fair enough. By using "absolute" values in your argument..you've contradicted it's "relativity"...

Next please..😆 😆

What is the point of this thread? The mathematical equation is correct, however it has never been proven and will never be proven. To prove that 2 + 2 = 4, you would have to run the calculation from the beginning of time, to the of time, to see if the answer is always the same. I think it would be correct but I can’t prove it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The mathematical equation is correct, however it has never been proven and will never be proven. I prove that 2 + 2 = 4, you would have to run the calculation from the beginning of time, to the of time, to see if the answer is always the same. I think it would be correct but I can’t prove it. [/B]

Originally posted by whobdamandog
By faith alone..numbers used to determine the results of simple equations are assumed to be 100 percent constant. "Constant" meaning..they represent "absolute" values...and are not subject to change.

So is it fair to say..that we the 2 + 2 = 4 is an "Objective Truth"

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So is it fair to say..that we the 2 + 2 = 4 is an "Objective Truth"

Before you can say something is an objective truth you have to prove it. I would say that, as far as my simple understanding of reality, I would call it an "Objective Truth". So, what is your point?

his point is intelligent design is a valid theory by way of this.......

Originally posted by soleran30
his point is intelligent design is a valid theory by way of this.......

That seems to be quite a stretch.

Wouldn’t that kind of truth be subject to the uncertainty principle?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That seems to be quite a stretch.

Wouldn’t that kind of truth be subject to the uncertainty principle?

everything that is subjective has that uncertainty ✅ 🐰

Originally posted by soleran30
everything that is subjective has that uncertainty ✅ 🐰

I do believe that there is a truth, but it cannot be known directly because the act of knowing would change it, but I could be wrong.