I do not fully get the stipulations here. The first question that comes to mind is that when asking this question you already know what "2" means. You see, 2 is an idea constructed in such way that added with itself the result is two, as of asking 2+2=4, taking that you restrict 2 to the concept of 2 mathematicians use, its always going to be the equal to 4 when added, simply because 2 was designed that way.
Let me clarify with an example: I'm writing a book and someone asks me to whom I'm writing it, I answer questioning if my book has to be addressed to someone in particular -and even further, that someone is going to be besides myself since I intent to publish it. I say that if someone is to write the book, I'm don't have an idea who is going to be, since I don't care about who does or who doesn't. This person -lets make is a she- says that someone is going to like my book, and that such people are to whom I wrote it in the first place. See what she did there? She defined my readers as of those who will like the book, stating it that way she forces my readers to exist and at the same time she provides no information.
Saying that 2+2=4 its not an absolute truth, is a logical implication. We created something called 2 such as if, added with another instance of itself the result with equal 4. Logically, it cannot be otherwise since we ruled out the other possibilities while creating the concept of 2. So you cannot say its an absolute truth, but a logical one.
To prove that logic its not absolute you must be able to prove that "b" is not "a" but its "a" at the same time. That normally goes to contradiction. So I guess I'm saying I don't understand your question.
Re: Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4
Originally posted by whobdamandog
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.
Until it other proof comes up, I will always believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
Peace,
Amanda
Re: Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4
Originally posted by whobdamandog
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 does not equal 4, there you go if my mind is accustomed to that and firmly believes it then I cannot know different, if someone like a small child who is developing and is told over and over again, that it does not equal 4, then his/her brain shall log that as truth as such it would be hard for them to accept 2+2 does does = 4, there brain will be accustomed to that fact that it does not = 4.
Originally posted by Atlantis001Well, no because 1/3 does not equal 0.3333333333333333... So you theory has collapsed.
Not sure if I aldready did this before in this thread, but here I go :We know that 2 = 2 x 3/3 = 2 x 3 x 1/3 = 6 x 0.3333333...
So 2 + 2 = 6 x 0.3333333... + 6 x 0.3333333...
Since 6 x 0.3333333... = 1.9999999... , we can write
2 + 2 = 1.99999999... + 1.99999999... = 3.99999999...
The only for 2+2 to equal anything else is if you change the value of 2. So lets think about that. Forget your concept of 2 being twice as much as one, and instead think of it as thrice as one. So, imagine the value of 2 is what we see is the value of 3. Therefore, 2+2=6. However, the value of 2 (1+1) added by itself is still 4. You change the answer of 2+2 very easily, but the actual value of the numbers used will always make 4.
It's like saying prove to me that right is not the opposite of left. Some people would be saying all sorts of stuff like the opposite of right is wrong and the opposite of left is brought, but the concept behind those words, will always be oppoistes. Just like the value of 2 added to itself will always be 4. No other way around it.
Originally posted by Cartesian DoubtBecause when it comes to truth, we can only go by the evidence we have.
How do you not know that you aren't being decieved by a Matrix like computer that makes you believe that 2 + 2 = 4. Prove that wrong, i challenge you ?
Let me try to explain it (I'm usually not good at this sort of stuff).
Here are some key starter points:
1. There is no absolute truth; truth comes from the knowledge of said truth, since we can't have absolute knowledge, we can't have absolute truth.
2. Going back to the first point, truth comes from knowledge. Knowledge is supplied as evidence. If a claim or explanation has more evidence that it's apposer, it's accepted as truth. It is also possible that the evidence supplied is false, this will be verified by where the evidence came from and whether it's credible enough. Another thing about this point is that two opposing claims could both have powerful evidence, something like this remains as an open case until one side's evidence is destroyed, and the other is accepted.
3. Truth that is accepted can be apposed at any time, but only if there is evidence to show why it should be. There's no point saying the sun isn't yellow and then not giving a good enough reason for people to believe you or you'll just sound nuts. If the reason is something like "The sun gives off all colour, that's why we can see all colour", that is a good reason. However, you then have to destroy the apposing evidence that we see it as yellow, since it is still powerful, valid and convincing. Which can be done by saying "it gives off all light, but mostly red and green light, which creates a yellowish colour, more than any other colour." by doing this, you have not only destroyed the previous theory, but have replaced it with another, better theory, and if the people you're telling are rational, they will accept it, and you'll look clever.
Now going back to that matrix like computer tricking me.
It's possible (anything's possible), but how can we know? We can't, so why should we accept it as truth? We can't therefore, by going by the evidence we have, we can only accept that claim as false, and continue with the notion that 2 + 2 = 4. I don't see how a matrix like computer can trick me, but that's because it's tricking me to not comprehend that. "Absence of proof is not proof of absence" in absolute terms, but in human terms, if you don't have the evidence, you're false. Going back to the points, something is only true if there is evidence to back it up, and there is nothing to contradict it.
Therefore, that is wrong.
After thoughts:Hmm, that was almost a paragraph.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Because when it comes to truth, we can only go by the evidence we have.Let me try to explain it (I'm usually not good at this sort of stuff).
Here are some key starter points:
1. There is no absolute truth; truth comes from the knowledge of said truth, since we can't have absolute knowledge, we can't have absolute truth.
2. Going back to the first point, truth comes from knowledge. Knowledge is supplied as evidence. If a claim or explanation has more evidence that it's apposer, it's accepted as truth. It is also possible that the evidence supplied is false, this will be verified by where the evidence came from and whether it's credible enough. Another thing about this point is that two opposing claims could both have powerful evidence, something like this remains as an open case until one side's evidence is destroyed, and the other is accepted.
3. Truth that is accepted can be apposed at any time, but only if there is evidence to show why it should be. There's no point saying the sun isn't yellow and then not giving a good enough reason for people to believe you or you'll just sound nuts. If the reason is something like "The sun gives off all colour, that's why we can see all colour", that is a good reason. However, you then have to destroy the apposing evidence that we see it as yellow, since it is still powerful, valid and convincing. Which can be done by saying "it gives off all light, but mostly red and green light, which creates a yellowish colour, more than any other colour." by doing this, you have not only destroyed the previous theory, but have replaced it with another, better theory, and if the people you're telling are rational, they will accept it, and you'll look clever.
Now going back to that matrix like computer tricking me.
It's possible (anything's possible), but how can we know? We can't, so why should we accept it as truth? We can't therefore, by going by the evidence we have, we can only accept that claim as false, and continue with the notion that 2 + 2 = 4. I don't see how a matrix like computer can trick me, but that's because it's tricking me to not comprehend that. "Absence of proof is not proof of absence" in absolute terms, but in human terms, if you don't have the evidence, you're false. Going back to the points, something is only true if there is evidence to back it up, and there is nothing to contradict it.
Therefore, that is wrong.
There wasn't any need to write a three paragraphs of circular argument ! You could some up your argument as follows;
1. There is no way of showing that reality is false
2. Truth is based on what we can show
3. Therefore reality cannot be false.
Its a pretty weak argument IMO !
Originally posted by Cartesian DoubtMy point was quite different... and points should have explanations to them.
There wasn't any need to write a three paragraphs of circular argument ! You could some up your argument as follows;1. There is no way of showing that reality is false
2. Truth is based on what we can show
3. Therefore reality cannot be false.
Its a pretty weak argument IMO !
Maybe I should have added: Nothing is truth, unless it has the evidence to back it up, and no evidence to contradict it. Therefore, that is not true.
How is it a weak argument? As I explained, in my explanation, there's no way of proving his theory, so it's not accepted as truth, unless he has some evidence for it. We can't know whether it's true or not, and it's the same logic as applied in the court of law "innocent until proven guilty" or in this case "wrong until proven right". We as humans can only go by evidence (which I said before).
It is my opinion that you didn't fully undertstand my post.
Originally posted by lord xyz
My point was quite different... and points should have explanations to them.Maybe I should have added: Nothing is truth, unless it has the evidence to back it up, and no evidence to contradict it. Therefore, that is not true.
How is it a weak argument? As I explained, in my explanation, there's no way of proving his theory, so it's not accepted as truth, unless he has some evidence for it. We can't know whether it's true or not, and it's the same logic as applied in the court of law "innocent until proven guilty" or in this case "wrong until proven right". We as humans can only go by evidence (which I said before).
It is my opinion that you didn't fully undertstand my post.
What if all the evidence is corrupted or potentially decietful, why should we trust any of it ?
Much of the evidence to prove the certainty of inductive reasoning, is inductive itself. And we know without a shadow a doubt that evidence is sometimes questionable; take the example of a stick in water. ~Our senses tell us that it is bent, but our reasoning tells us other wise. My point is; if evidence can be wrong sometimes, is there their any real way of saying CERTAINLY that it isn't wrong all the time ?
This would include analytic truths (such as mathematics) as well as synthetic truths. If our brains can be fooled sometimes (and the stick in water shows that IT can), how is there any way of saying for sure that it isn't fooled all the time? True this maybe improbable, but it isn't impossible.
Originally posted by lord xyz
1. There is no absolute truth; truth comes from the knowledge of said truth, since we can't have absolute knowledge, we can't have absolute truth.
Ayn Rand would disagree.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
The basics of objectivism are impressive- but can be used irresponsibly:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_environmentalism
is completely against my opinions, yet I agree with most of the basics. (of the philosophy)
She would say that the question is ridiculous.
Several points,
First off, Jbill, the Ayn Rand argument, is also known as Empiricism, Proported by John Locke, It is not my area of expertise, but using a vague Ayn Rand reference does nothing for your point.
Also, CD, dispite your name sake, your seem to be doing a poor job of introducing his arguments, from what I read, of your posts.
This is because at the core of the loaded argument that Who, is trying to make, Or was, seeing as he no longer trolls the forum, from what I have seen, is the existence of the external world.
An argument which ironically, could disprove his original question yet still fulfill his religious beliefs and Descartes aims to do.
Speaking of Descartes, the simple arguments that Descartes makes against the existence of the external world are pretty straightforward. (Although he does cut back and disprove himself at the end of the meditations, but I suppose that serves his overall purpose.) Things that he brings up is God being a evil deceiver, or the flawed nature of our senses leading to us being deceived by external things that do not really exist, or in an early remanent of the ever popular Matrix argument, one is simply dreaming up the entire world. And then my personal favorite, that I am completely mad, and creating this existence through my own insanity.
All of these arguments end up with the same doubt of the external world, and thus answer the initial question of simple mathematical concepts.
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Several points,
First off, Jbill, the Ayn Rand argument, is also known as Empiricism, Proported by John Locke, It is not my area of expertise, but using a vague Ayn Rand reference does nothing for your point.Also, CD, dispite your name sake, your seem to be doing a poor job of introducing his arguments, from what I read, of your posts.
This is because at the core of the loaded argument that Who, is trying to make, Or was, seeing as he no longer trolls the forum, from what I have seen, is the existence of the external world.
An argument which ironically, could disprove his original question yet still fulfill his religious beliefs and Descartes aims to do.Speaking of Descartes, the simple arguments that Descartes makes against the existence of the external world are pretty straightforward. (Although he does cut back and disprove himself at the end of the meditations, but I suppose that serves his overall purpose.) Things that he brings up is God being a evil deceiver, or the flawed nature of our senses leading to us being deceived by external things that do not really exist, or in an early remanent of the ever popular Matrix argument, one is simply dreaming up the entire world. And then my personal favorite, that I am completely mad, and creating this existence through my own insanity.
All of these arguments end up with the same doubt of the external world, and thus answer the initial question of simple mathematical concepts.
Sorry, please do explain again why i am doing a bad job at explaining my point? Lets forget Descartes hidden agenda behind his meditations, and focus on the points shown in the first and second meditations.
There is no way of 'proving' that 2 + 2 = 4 is wrong but there is no way of CERTAINLY proving that it is right. If we cannot be certain of something, then surely we must doubt it ? And I have explained why, using the Brain in Vat, Matrix, Evil Deceiver argument.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Sorry, please do explain again why i am doing a bad job at explaining my point? Lets forget Descartes hidden agenda behind his meditations, and focus on the points shown in the first and second meditations.There is no way of 'proving' that 2 + 2 = 4 is wrong but there is no way of CERTAINLY proving that it is right. If we cannot be certain of something, then surely we must doubt it ? And I have explained why, using the Brain in Vat, Matrix, Evil Deceiver argument.
1 + 1 = 2 has been proved to be correct. It was done a couple of hundred years ago and the mathematical formula was unbelievably large.
If 1 + 1 = 2 is true, then it is safe to assume that 2 + 2 = 4.
Note: I am basing this information on a class I took in college almost 20 years ago. Sorry, but I’m not able to back this up right now.