Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4

I'm not sure if it's just a flaw in English, but opening a balloon is not going 'through' the balloon. Opening it is not actually displacing the air inside the balloon, it is stretching the material, letting it drop. When I said to hold still, you are not going 'through' the city, it is moving to you. That's not the only way, but it's a possibility. So really, movement is relative. Everything moves, because otherwise, it would be at absolute zero, and could only do so until something comes near, and when it does so, it loses its total stability.

Originally posted by crazylozer
I'm not sure if it's just a flaw in English, but opening a balloon is not going 'through' the balloon. Opening it is not actually displacing the air inside the balloon, it is stretching the material, letting it drop. When I said to hold still, you are not going 'through' the city, it is moving to you. That's not the only way, but it's a possibility. So really, movement is relative. Everything moves, because otherwise, it would be at absolute zero, and could only do so until something comes near, and when it does so, it loses its total stability.

My point is that..without taking some sort of action against the balloon..
you can't get to the penny..

Doesn't matter if its untied, popped, stepped on whatever..you have to take some action against the balloon..to get to the penny.

The answer to the city example you give is centered around the same type of logic..if the capital moves..so does the city..right?

And even if you were standing still..if the capital building is in the center of the city..you'd be going through the city...as the capital building approached you.

Moving on..all the semantics have been kind of pushed to the side, however, with my follow up question..

How does one get to the center of a 3 dimensional object..without actually going through the object?

That's the real question being asked. Ush attempted to answer it with jargon and fantastical ideas based "spacial awareness" and "perception" and travelling back in time..and as I pointed out..

These would all be relevant theories.."IF" in the real world..one demonstrated the ability to travel back in time..mystically make the penny appear from out of the balloon and into their hand..etc.

Thus far though..the only thing he and others have given..is faith/fantasy based thoeries..which in no way could be deemed to be objective or scientific.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
If a scientist makes a comment such as

"I am a limited relativist, however..I don't believe that limited relativism is an absolute concept"

Then he is a moron..because he's asserting that he is indeed a true relativist. Seeing as how he has just asserted that he views everything that makes up life..from a moral/natural/etc standpoint..from a subjective viewpoint.

Maybe we are confusing words... He would be a philosophical relativist in the sense we are normally using in the thread, not necessarily a "true relativist" meaning someone who believes that the assumptions made by the scientific theory of relativity are absolutes.

The point is that he will not be agreeing absolutely to the "scientific" relativity, he will only be accepting that it will work in the case the premises are true, but he will not know if they are true or not. It is a relativist(philosophical) point of view to say that things like premises depend on what you think of them.

Actually they can be proved. Look around you..we live in a world full of written and natural absolutes.

The earth always revolves around the sun..

Gravity always keeps us stuck to the ground...if you jump out of a 3 story building..you are going to fall to the ground.

Our bodies need water/food in order for us to stay alive...if you don't eat and drink for at all for a long while..you are going to absolutely die.

If we die..we don't come back to life.(except if we are the creator of life...ie Jesus)

If we steal from someone..we are going to get put into jail..(at least if you are a minority or poor..😆😆)

These aren't merely opinions..these are facts my friend..

Go ahead and try these things for yourself..however..and if you do actually manage to come back from the dead..after being buried in a tomb for 3 days..then I promise you..I will have full faith in your position of "No absolutes" existing...and proclaim you to be my "lord and savior"

Fin.

These things you speak about can only be proved if you make a premise first, that premise is solely based on your faith, and it is called empiricism, which is the philosophical doctrine that all human knowledge ultimately comes from the senses and from experience. That premise you can´t prove, you must believe in it, so it is just relative to your opinion.

2+2=4 ok you cant say it isnt...
duh! 😠

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Maybe we are confusing words... He would be a philosophical relativist in the sense we are normally using in the thread, not necessarily a "true relativist" meaning someone who believes that the assumptions made by the scientific theory of relativity are absolutes.

I understand what you are saying, but it is still a bit oxymoronic.
If a person is truly a relativist..then they should believe in all aspects of life being relative. This includes Morality/Natural Science/Math/etc.

We generally use the categories Philosophical/Scientific etc to categorize a specific person's beliefs a bit better.

Case in point..it is contradictory to call oneself a "relativist" if you believe in some type of "absolute."

The point is that he will not be agreeing absolutely to the "scientific" relativity, he will only be accepting that it will work in the case the premises are true, but he will not know if they are true or not. It is a relativist(philosophical) point of view to say that things like premises depend on what you think of them.

These things you speak about can only be proved if you make a premise first, that premise is solely based on your faith, and it is called empiricism, which is the philosophical doctrine that all human knowledge ultimately comes from the senses and from experience. That premise you can´t prove, you must believe in it, so it is just relative to your opinion.

I understand..but when the premise has been observed as being true time and time again. Most generally accept it as being an "Absolute." truth.

Just because we can question or be sceptical about the premise..it doesn't take away the validity of it. As I stated before..that is a childish outlook on life.

It's almost like the little kid who says..

Kid: You're gay
Kid2: No you're gay..today is opposite day.
Kid1: No you're gay..today is opposite-opposite day..

That's really what relativistic thinking boils down too..

People die when they don't get enough to eat or drink..I can question this concept all the live long day..but it doesn't take away the fact that this indeed will happen.

We don't have any scientific evidence that validates someone being able to travel back in time, nor do we have evidence of an individual being able to jump to the ground..without being effected by gravity. This is fantasy land stuff..and requires even more faith then one would need in order to believe that there are "Absolutes" or is an "Intelligent Designer"

Read up on Cosmology, and a few other theories as to how life on earth originated. Scientist's now a days..are actually starting to allude that ALIENS created the earth and started the big bang..ALIENS!!!!

Other's are starting to talk about things such as PARALLEL WORLDS..UNIVERSES..and crazy stuff like that. How the hell is that any less fantastical..then believing that 2+2=4 or in a "Creator." I just don't get it.

This is what perplexes me the most about those in scientific fields who believe in "limited relativism" and other non-sensical/illogical/pseudo-scientific concepts. They say they don't need evidence to validate some "philosophical" theories(ie evolution. Big Bang/Cosmology/Macro Evolution/etc)..and then they state that they do need proof to validate others..(ID..Where is the Creator?)

More examples of the twisting subjective arguments that make up relativistic thinking.

Seriously. The scientific movement has just been taken over by a bunch of these Dogmatists who are nothing more than Humanistic Naturalists. Hell just read any thread on evolutionary theory..you'll see how indoctrinated peeps have become. It seems almost like they're quoting scripture when they assert their position.

Real scary stuff. Imagine if one of these nutjobs who ascribed to "Relativism" became president of the US or was put in a position of real authority. Hell..this kind of thing has already happened..look at Hitler, Stalin, etc..these guys were freaking relativists..Naturalists..Really people..get with the program..stop believing in this silly doctrine, it's only going to bring about mankind's ultimate demise.

Fin.

Originally posted by clever
2+2=4 ok you cant say it isnt...
duh! 😠

Or how about this one..I can question you or be sceptical of the argument..so that means it isn't true..😆 😆

yawn

Originally posted by debbiejo
yawn

I agree; what a stupid and boring thread.bored

Yes..that's why you all keep on posting in it..lol..so are you going to answer my question with the 3 dimensional object..come on Shaky..follow your perceptions..and reveal to me the "illusionary truth"

Originally posted by debbiejo
yawn

Its almost 1:00 A.M. where I live, I think I have nothing better to do than keep writing in this thread. 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I understand..but when the premise has been observed as being true time and time again. Most generally accept it as being an "Absolute." truth.

Just because we can question or be sceptical about the premise..it doesn't take away the validity of it. As I stated before..that is a childish outlook on life.

Continuing our discussion whobdamandog, I don´t think something is made absolute just because the majority of the world believes in that. If absolutes do exist they must be provable, and you can´t prove them just believe in them, or in something that makes possible for you to prove them, like empiricism.

The problem is not that if being skeptical takes away the validity of a premise, but you cannot say that a premise is valid if you did not prove it.

Fin. 😂

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes..that's why you all keep on posting in it..lol..so are you going to answer my question with the 3 dimensional object..come on Shaky..follow your perceptions..and reveal to me the "illusionary truth"

What are you talking about? Never mind, I don't want to know. 😆

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Continuing our discussion whobdamandog, I don´t think something is made absolute just because the majority of the world believes in that. If absolutes do exist they must be provable, and you can´t prove them just believe in them, or in something that makes possible for you to prove them, like empiricism.

The problem is not that if being skeptical takes away the validity of a premise, but you cannot say that a premise is valid if you did not prove it.

Fin. 😂 [/B]

Does being skeptical of Gravity's existence..give one the ability to fly?

Does being skeptical of ones mortality enable one to not eat/drink for 3 months and live?

You can question my argument all you want..but I don't understand how that hell that takes away the validity of it?

That's the most simple minded and illogical rationale I've ever encountered..

You Relativists think by asking a question or by doubting something..that you're waving some magic wand that takes away all the things that happen in the REAL world..

It would be like if you stood in front of a speeding train.. and said..

Ex

Relativist: I doubt that I'm going to get hit...so the train won't hit me..

*then all of the sudden the train mystically disappears..😆

Really that's what you guys seem to think the power of your "doubts" gives you. Some sort of damb mystical ability to change REALITY..😆

Friggin ridiculous..but you all can believe what you wish...

Sad thing is..none of you realize how foolish YOU sound, and the worse part about it is....that you all are so arrogant about your own foolishness/delusions...😆 😆

Gotta go to bed myself..

Night night all. 😖leep:

If one has a distorted sense of reality, then yes, aren't they flying? If say, someone was using a kind of hallucinogenic drug, and thought that there was a wall between themselves and a doughnut, and they walked through it, to them, there is a wall. But to anyone else, there isn't. Who are you to say to them that there isn't a wall? If you say that reality is based on the senses, and the senses are deceived by our own minds, reality itself changes from person to person. 2+2=4 usually does not.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
See..and that is the flaw in your logic again Wonderer...regardless of mode of transportation/distance/direction..you'll always be going through the city/state..
If you travel in the air by plane...you'll still be traveling through the state..
If you travel on the ground by foot...you'll be travelling through the state..
If you dig a tunnel underground..you'll still be travelling through the state...
Regardless of what position your in..you'll always be going through the state...
You follow?
How about you all try this one..
Get a Ballon..put a penny inside of it.
Is there anyway to get to the penny..without going through the balloon?
Simple yes or no answer will suffice

My dear friend, "The State" does not technically extend into the underground or into the air - it's only a name. Moreover, the "capitol" is a subjective, human invented mere name, a label...you cannot equate it too ultimate reality...as long as you do that, you won't understand the existentialism of Relative-Absolute-Truth.
You cannot equate everyday life, like baloons and political territory to the non-worldly rules of absolute reality and the Universe - that's plain short-sighted. You must realise that ultimate reality is not logical or illogical, but non-logical or rather, in a higher dimension than logic.

However, I doubt whether you'll be able to understand me via your limited, logical, closed-minded way of reasoning by numbers.

Originally posted by Wonderer
My dear friend, "The State" does not technically extend into the underground or into the air - it's only a name. Moreover, the "capitol" is a subjective, human invented mere name, a label...you cannot equate it too ultimate reality...as long as you do that, you won't understand the existentialism of Relative-Absolute-Truth.
You cannot equate everyday life, like baloons and political territory to the non-worldly rules of absolute reality and the Universe - that's plain short-sighted. You must realise that ultimate reality is not logical or illogical, but non-logical or rather, in a higher dimension than logic.

However, I doubt whether you'll be able to understand me via your limited, logical, closed-minded way of reasoning by numbers.

I do like the way you put it. Good job!thumbup1

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do like the way you put it. Good job!thumbup1

Thanks buddy!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
lol..A relativist can make up anything to support their argument..that's why its such a childish and illogical way to go about gathering information...or coming up with an objective conclusion. Particularly in Science. When conducting an experiment..can you imagine how impossible it would be for a relativist to come up with a result to a simple equation such as 2+2= 4

Ex

Relativistic Thinking Scientist: Well maybe it equals 5..or what if my perception of 2 isn't really 2..perhaps the number 2 is really just an illusion that my senses perceive..

Imagine how far off we would have been in the areas of Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology, Genetics..if a scientist couldn't get past the fundemental concept of 2 + 2 = 4.

Moving on..all of this would be relevant..if of course, an individual actually demonstrated in the real world...the ABILITY to actually make the coin appear in his hand after it was in the balloon..unfortunately..this hasn't been the case my friend. This hasn't happened in "REALITY" Unless you can give me a specific example of where this has occured.

lol..Time travel..you've been watching to many "Back to the future" movies my friend. Again..Give me an example, one that has been OBSERVED and documented to happen in Real life..of a human being..being able to go back in time. Give me evidence..not silly philosophy, fantasy, and conjecture.

Our REALITY is without an individual going through the balloon..we can't get to the penny. This is real to us. This is ABSOLUTE to us. Now unless you can provide proof of human beings able to do these things...I believe its pretty safe bet to say that logic points to these things not being possible to do..at least by someone/something that is subjected to the laws that govern the REALITY in which we exist.

However if you want to start talking about the "Supernatural"..then I believe we should be opening up an entirely different thread.

I don't have to give examples, because my relatavist is not talking about absolutes, only possibilities.

You cannot prove that these things are NOT possible, however, so to the relatavist, they contain a degree of possibility, hence he does not reject them.

Your contempt for their position is irrelevant. Their logic still holds- their scepticism still destroys any chance you have of logically proving the existance of an absolute. The fact you might be wrong IS a possibility; your argument ends there.

That's why the validity of your argument is lost. It doesn't matter how unlikely any of these things are, the logic that counters your attempt to fix absolutes holds. After all what is 'likely'? Just another perception. You say they are impossible, how do you know, have you gained all the knowledge of the entire Universe? Maybe we just haven't seen them yet. A few hundred years ago, much of what we take for granted now would seem magical and impossible; the idea that such things might be possible in the future is certainly conceivable.

So once more, you will never win that argument, The relatavist can keep doing this to you.

-

"Actually they can be proved. Look around you..we live in a world full of written and natural absolutes.

The earth always revolves around the sun..

Gravity always keeps us stuck to the ground...if you jump out of a 3 story building..you are going to fall to the ground.

Our bodies need water/food in order for us to stay alive...if you don't eat and drink for at all for a long while..you are going to absolutely die.

If we die..we don't come back to life.(except if we are the creator of life...ie Jesus)

If we steal from someone..we are going to get put into jail..(at least if you are a minority or poor

These aren't merely opinions..these are facts my friend."

-

Those are all perceptions. Perceptions can be flawed. Hence they might be wrong. Hence they are not absolute. We only ASSUME they are.

And now you are twisting the whole point of this argument- which has been laid out for you neatly in this thread, if you had bothered to read it. Scientsits, of course, would NOT be total sceptics, otherwise they could not do their job. But the point is, when you try and use a scenario to try and logically prove absolutes, that scenario can simply be countered by someone invoking sceptcism. No matter how useless it is, or how childish you think it is, they can still do it. So your efforts are doomed.

Parallel universes, by the way, are a very serious area of study, and your contempt bounces off there as well. It's easy to see that you are scared of where modern science is leading- scared of the truth, perhaps?

And also, scepticism never claimed to give anyone any 'power' to do anything. It's just a point of view, is all. Your confusion as to why it doesn't seem to 'do' anything is simply a measure of your own very childish view of the nature of philosophy.

If you want to say that all the achievements of science would not be possible if we were all such sceptics... then yes, I agree with you, and I have made this point before. That doesn't change the point of using the scpetical view in this thread. I am glad, though, that you see the importance of taking these basic things for granted- perhaps you won't use them as evoidence that science is a 'faith' any more, as you tend to do so. By any meaningful definition, assuming these things that a sceptic doubts isn't enough to make something a 'faith' because without those assumptions we simply could not function at all.

So again, the relatavist answer to your question is 'maybe'.

Hence, whob, your question has been answered.

However, once more, Whob, I have stated clearly that I am not a relatavist, yet once more you have deliberately ignored that and tried to make out that I am chained to hat Descartes says.

I have already asked politely for people to pay proper attention to people's posts, and you have not. If you keep doing this I will make that an official warning to you, whob, and if you still ignore it we shall take it on from there. Again- have the courtesy to read people's posts properly, and do not make up such lies.

Meanwhile, moving this to Philosophy, as it clearly belongs there.

Ushgarak, you talk a lot of sense, but really my friend, not even logic can proove that there are facts in life - all is interpretation, as no 'fact' can be absolutely proved.

If we are really honest and realistic, we must admit that we are nothing more than sets of beliefs.

Before i said if you mix 2 and 2 parts of radioactive materials, you get a whole lot that 4.

If you mix 2 ltrs of water with 2 ltrs of alcohol, you get less than 4 ltrs of liquid.

Arent these 2 examples enough to say that in certain cases 2+2 does not = 4 ?

Originally posted by Wonderer
Ushgarak, you talk a lot of sense, but really my friend, not even logic can proove that there are facts in life - all is interpretation, as no 'fact' can be absolutely proved.

If we are really honest and realistic, we must admit that we are nothing more than sets of beliefs.

Well that's fine, but I still make these basic assumptions. I don't think I ever actually said any of it WAS provable, that is why I am throwing it at whob.

If we are going to function in life, we have to accept that first of all, the whole concept of 'absolute; is one that we can only assume, not prove, because you cannot prove something with something that is only true if you prove it, if you get what I mean.