Originally posted by The Black Ghost
2+2 does equal 4! Do I win a prize for figuring it out! It took me quite a while to find an answer to this one. 😂--Actually, the only reason 2+2=4 is because humans created a mathematical system and decided that having one thing and then another of it was 2 and that two 2s makes a word called four.
No, you didn't get the point. 🙄 😆
Actually the reason of why 2+2 = 4 is eight axioms that anyone who studied a little of linear algebra should know. These axioms just are in the way they are because someone defined them like they are. It is one of the most basic thing that any mathematician or physicist should know, and anyone of them would agree that 2+2=4 is not absolute.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Actually the reason of why 2+2 = 4 is eight axioms that anyone who studied a little of linear algebra should know. These axioms just are in the way they are because someone defined them like they are. It is one of the most basic thing that any mathematician or physicist should know, and anyone of them would agree that 2+2=4 is not absolute.
Actually some people (mathematicians) claim that the basic mathematic ideals are in fact an absolute, and not just a "game" that has set rules. But I agree with you, so there....
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Actually the reason of why 2+2 = 4 is eight axioms that anyone who studied a little of linear algebra should know. These axioms just are in the way they are because someone defined them like they are. It is one of the most basic thing that any mathematician or physicist should know, and anyone of them would agree that 2+2=4 is not absolute.
It is one of those things that is so obvious that we don't see it. Like why am I here? Because I got on the computer and came to this web site. Why does 2+2=4? Because someone along time ago set the rules that make it so. If they had made the rules differently, then 2+2=5 or something else.
Originally posted by Bardock42The Divine number PI.
Actually some people (mathematicians) claim that the basic mathematic ideals are in fact an absolute, and not just a "game" that has set rules. But I agree with you, so there....
Originally posted by debbiejo
The Divine number PI.
http://goldennumber.net/
That's about Phi...not Pi.
So...in these last few posts, the reason why 2+2=4 is Not an absolute is because it is based on axioms that are the way they are because someone defined them that way. In other words: mathematics is arbitrary? Let's see: I have @ @, then @ @. How many @ do I have all together? But wait: this is only because someone defined it this way. I really don't have @ @ @ @. Far out, man...
Actually, considering how well the rest of the universe behaves according to mathematics, it must all be arbitrary too. In fact, everything we are aware of then is arbitrary, relative, subjective, yes?
Well, at least That's an absolute. 😉
Changing the rules for what we mean by 1+1=2 only complicates and prolongs the inevitable conclusion regarding the bigger issue ("Are there absolutes?"😉. This is because whatever rules we establish beforehand (what "1" means, what "+" means, what "2" means, what "=" means), turns 1+1=2 into an absolute according to those rules.
But because we Can change the rules, this means 1+1=2 is not an absolute.
If we are going to change the rules, then we are dealing with "meta-rules" (rules regarding rules). So if we say "We Can change the rules," or "We can Not change the rules," this meta-rule becomes the absolute on a slightly larger scale.
But we can change the meta-rule.
Then we are dealing with meta-meta-rules (rules regarding meta-rules), and (eg) "We Can change the meta-rules," becomes an absolute on a slightly larger scale than previously.
I think you can see where this all leads to: an infinite regression wherein dealing with rules, per se, becomes inevitable and thus an absolute (even to say "There are no rules"--which obviously is not true--is still a (meta-meta-etc) rule.
Originally posted by Mindship
Changing the rules for what we mean by 1+1=2 only complicates and prolongs the inevitable conclusion regarding the bigger issue ("Are there absolutes?"😉. This is because whatever rules we establish beforehand (what "1" means, what "+" means, what "2" means, what "=" means), turns 1+1=2 into an absolute according to those rules.But because we Can change the rules, this means 1+1=2 is not an absolute.
If we are going to change the rules, then we are dealing with "meta-rules" (rules regarding rules). So if we say "We Can change the rules," or "We can Not change the rules," this meta-rule becomes the absolute on a slightly larger scale.But we can change the meta-rule.
Then we are dealing with meta-meta-rules (rules regarding meta-rules), and (eg) "We Can change the meta-rules," becomes an absolute on a slightly larger scale than previously.I think you can see where this all leads to: an infinite regression wherein dealing with rules, per se, becomes inevitable and thus an absolute (even to say "There are no rules"--which obviously is not true--is still a (meta-meta-etc) rule.
I totally agree here 100%