Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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.

You're obviously very talented at mathematics, so im incredibly impressed !

I was wondering if you had maybe done any logic while learning mathematics ?

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Yes but that mathematical formula still requires mental input, something that my matrix example shows to maybe be wrong.

You're obviously very talented at mathematics, so im incredibly impressed !

I was wondering if you had maybe done any logic while learning mathematics ?

I have only studied the basics of philosophical Logic, and that was a long time ago.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have only studied the basics of philosophical Logic, and that was a long time ago.

You referring to the P and Q's proofs, or just your run of the mill 'logic'?

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
You referring to the P and Q's proofs, or just your run of the mill 'logic'?

I'm sorry, but you lost me. 😮

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.

(If you attempted to argue this earlier, I aplogize, I do not have the time to read 30 some pages of Whomadog's innane ramblings.)

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
What if all the evidence is corrupted or potentially decietful, why should we trust any of it ?

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
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 ?

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
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 Cartesian Doubt
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 ?

Yes, it's called observation and testing. We can pull the stick out of the water and see that it is straight. We can repeat this and test it, and come to a conclusion that it is not the stick that bends.

Yes, but the point is, that if our senses are consistently lying to us, or if we are being deceived in some way, all the sensory testing in the world will not show is that, only the withdrawl of the mind from the senses can do that.

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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.

I am pretty sure 1+1 =2 follows immensely fast from the axioms of the natural numbers. 2+2=4 takes probably about a minute longer.

|2+2|=2-2=0.....😬

Originally posted by JacopeX
|2+2|=2-2=0.....😬

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.

I don't know anyone that says everything is a relative truth. I believe what you are confusing is people that say everything could easily be different from what we believe to be true say that everything is a relative truth. I for one, as a sceptic, accept the possibility that everything I hold to be true (my existence, mathematical axioms, the house I live in, people around me) could be something absolutely else. I don't even subscribe to Descartes I think therefore I am ... the only things I do accept in a way is Rand's "Existence exists", which imo is even a step below what Descartes said. I do believe something exists, it doesn't have to be me, it doesn't have to be anything like what I believe something to be (you see the problem even using language to such a sceptical approach), but something does exist.

So, to get back on topic. 2+2 = 4 may be an objective truth, I can never know, it is much more likely to be a subjective truth. But it might even be a nothing (I can't really imagine such a thing, but hey, I can imagine that everything might be absolutely different).

And I ramble incoherently when talking about such matters, so I hope this at least gave some form of information as to what I believe.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Yes, but the point is, that if our senses are consistently lying to us, or if we are being deceived in some way, all the sensory testing in the world will not show is that, only the withdrawl of the mind from the senses can do that.

I've mentioned this earlier: When it comes to knowing the truth, the most logical solution, is to take whichever explanation has the most evidence to support it. It's like playing the odds. Would you rather place a bet of £50 with a 30% chance of victory, or the same amount with 80% victory?

there are no numbers, just the illusion of numbers

whoa...

Someone's been reading a book.. 🙄

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
there are no numbers, just the illusion of numbers

whoa...

Or...there is no illusion.

2 infinitys + 2 infinities= 4 infinities , no it doesnt, and no its not an absolute... now for ya!
am i right?

2+2=4 beers...mmmm gimme another one and lets make it 5! 😱 🍺 Seriously hold up 2 fingers on each hand...your holding up 4 fingers because you know if you just held up 4 fingers on one hand its the same thing...make any sense? anyone know what I am trying to get at?

Human understanding is limited. Take 4 coins in total. Seperate the quantity in half. You now have to set of twos. 2 is the number given by humans to represent such quantitie. So it is not humanly wrong to assume that there is two sets of two. Put them back together, and you get 4. Four is a representation of humans of the number of coins we see in front.

No matter how much you do this, there will always be a representative of four coins each time, on human criterias.

What I am trying to say is that, we could have called 4 anything we wanted. For example, why not call it uiheuidhhd. So we have to go beyond the human representatives of a simple 2+2=4. Such equation will never be wrong, in our system. We have to get behind this system of ours, and find the true meaning of the thing we have categorised as being 4. But as soon as we do this, we lose all objectivity.

Therefore, objectivity can only be attained in our value system, which, let's face it, is not imposing compared to the world and the universe.

lol

ok, so, math is a system of logic. it is tautological within that system that 2+2=4.

There is no proof one can give to confirm this, as it is axiomatic to the system of logic. However, there is no universal credit to be given to this system. 2+2=4 is just as "true" as a logical system in which 2+2=5. As the former havs better predictive power in the world around us, we adopt it.