Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

Considering that, in this axiomatic system of logic, 4 = 5 (they're just terms representing a part of somthing)

Originally posted by Mandos
Considering that, in this axiomatic system of logic, 4 = 5

yup.

although that system of logic would be useless to humans

Originally posted by Mandos
(they're just terms representing a part of somthing)

I think we could have a chicken and egg argument here, but essentially I agree. I feel we only make them represent something, but a system of logic has no specific valu without that representation.

Beautifully said, and what more, we agree on something! 😄

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

Originally posted by Mindship
But if the 2+2=4 system has better predictive power, wouldn't that imply that there is some, literally, universal credit to that system?

Does the fact that a clock works, and makes good predictions imply that there is some, literally, universal credit to that system? To a degree... a clock is a mechanical reflection of time, but is not a direct aspect of time. 2+2=4 is also a logical reflection of an aspect of the universe, but it is not a direct aspect of the universe.

Originally posted by Mindship
But if the 2+2=4 system has better predictive power, wouldn't that imply that there is some, literally, universal credit to that system?

it gives it anthropic credit

for all we know, it could be a problem with our sensory systems that makes 2+2 =4 in our observations

Originally posted by inimalist
it gives it anthropic credit

for all we know, it could be a problem with our sensory systems that makes 2+2 =4 in our observations

I would think that, regardless of whether or not there is a conscious observer, a given physical-quantity relationship still holds. All a conscious observer does (or at least seems to do) is translate the physical-quantity relationship into a reflective symbolic system.

Originally posted by Mindship
I would think that, regardless of whether or not there is a conscious observer, a given physical-quantity relationship still holds. All a conscious observer does (or at least seems to do) is translate the physical-quantity relationship into a reflective symbolic system.

id tend to agree with you but one has to concede to post-modernism the fact that we, as subjective beings, will never know of such relationships

Originally posted by inimalist
id tend to agree with you but one has to concede to post-modernism the fact that we, as subjective beings, will never know of such relationships

Its all bound together by our own limited perspective. For us, we see things a certain way and thus create our "Laws of Nature" to fit our perspective, when much more likely the more we see the more we realize we get it all wrong all too often.

Essentially, if 2 + 2 does not equal 4...our society will fall apart.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Its all bound together by our own limited perspective. For us, we see things a certain way and thus create our "Laws of Nature" to fit our perspective, when much more likely the more we see the more we realize we get it all wrong all too often.

Essentially, if 2 + 2 does not equal 4...our society will fall apart.

Not as long as the error is derived in all aspects of life. Then we'd be saved, unknowingly.

Mathematical equations that are correct = God.

In binary 1 + 1 = 10

I HATE MATH............another-bunny

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.

It depends on how you define the terms...

2 + 2 = 4
I + II = IIII
7 + 77 = 777
6 + 66 = 666

God bless you man..this was kind of a fun argument. Remember to try to be a little bit nicer to people when you post on message boards though...😉

Edit: Changed the above so my argument looked better.🙂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In binary 1 + 1 = 10

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In binary 1 + 1 = 10

Which is still one plus one equals two, just written differently. #+#=& is the same thing.

the value 2 is arbitrarily assigned to the symbol, number, and letter 2. thus, when you say w, you are generally referring to the number that is assigned to what you are saying. While you can predetermine that 2 =/=2 before you express your calculation, when you say, write, or use 2 without any previous context, it is assumed to be assigned to the value of 2.

Prove to me this post exists and I´m not in some matrix virtual reality environment, then ill prove to you the 2 + 2 = 4.

There´s an easier way to prove our maths is rubbish, the square root of 2 being an endless number. or Pi which is used to build buildings being also a reoccurring number, so how are the buildings built?