musicandmath111

How do you know that 1+1=2?

22 posts in this topic

This thread is a direct response to the following blog post of Leo. Here he argues why mathematics is imaginary. Isn't it that 2 is defined as 1+1?

leo-quote-chimpanzee-math-02.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not defined as "1+1", anymore than it's defined as "3-1" or "1.5+0.5".

A number is a symbol that corresponds to a mental concept. Mathematical operations like "+" or "-" describe the various relationships that exist between those concepts. Mental concepts are not inherent to nature. They're the product of entities that are capable of creating those mental concepts.

Edited by Carl-Richard

Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we think of reality as imagination imagining itself, then of course, mathematics also is imaginary like everything else. But, the basic axioms of maths and logic have a different quality, in my opinion, also. 

If you say 1+1 is not equal to 2, without making any conceptual tricks, then you say 1 is not equal to 1, and it is impossible for something, if you don't add the idea of time into the equation, as Hegel did. 

A seed, for instance, is not a seed, but a tree, if you add the idea of time, the idea of process into the equation, but a seed is a seed, a seed is itself, if you abstract it from space and time, and also don't say that it is impossible to abstract them. 

Think about it, can there be a bachelor that is married? Can there be a cat that is alive and dead at the same time? If you think about it in terms of quantum mechanics, and the logic of that "realm", then you may say it seems to be possible, but it can not translate to you in no way. 

So, is the world, therefore, is not bound by laws of logic, in itself? Can there be a that which is that is not a that which is? Maybe, if we think of a realm of things, and also concepts, in themselves, kinda like Kant did suggest, but how can it ever translate to you in any way, really? 

I mean, can there be, for instance, existence that does not exist? Now you can say that these are all human concepts, but, I think, it is not that simple, really. I think that even if you rid yourself, somehow, of all concepts, then you will still not be able to experience the "idea", no pun intended, of a not being a. 

I mean, think of existence in itself, being in itself. Is it possible for being to not be at the same time? If you say that it is all imaginary, can you say that it also is not that assertion simultaneously? Can you say that saying that, and not, be simultaneously on the "same" spot of being? 

You can say it is just the phenomenal experience that we know, and yeah, maybe, but can that be not that which is, when we focus on that which is being that which is? And, you know, maybe you are right, but you being right cannot be experienced in anyways, for it is that which cannot exist 😂

You know, even if we agree that everything is imagination, there is still a modality of imagination that is itself that does not allow, for instance, that which cannot be to be, for it is that which cannot be, by being that which cannot be. And you may say that "it is that which cannot be for you, for you have not reached that level of perception that makes it that which can be for you", and I say "I have no frickin idea about that" 😂

But, you see, my trouble with that question is that we try to equate being with not being, and we can say that, ontologically, something is nothing, but how can it ever translate to us when it, by definition, is that which is not translatable? Can something be that which is not translatable, and that which is translatable, "in itself"? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what we decide to count as 1. How do we define what 1 is. It depends on the context and on our goal at that moment. When we do mathematics we need to imagine that X's value is 1 (or another number).

If we count flowers we can take one flower and say here is 1 flower.

But 1 flower contains also petals, leaves, roots, stalk, bags, proteins, carbs, vitamins, minerals etc. 

1 flower contains many units of other things but we count it as what we define in our brain as what 1 flower is, it's an imaginary concept in our brain called "1 flower unit".

If we take this one flower and cut few of its petals, does it still count as 1 flower? And if we take another 1 flower and paste to it few leaves, do we still count it as 1? And what if there is a bag that ate 2% of the flower without us even knowing, would it be accurate to say that it's 1 flower?

Those quetions don't have ultimate answers, it's arguable like other imaginary concepts such political boarders.

 

As this 1 flower rooted in the soil, we might decide that it's separated from the soil and not a part of the soil, but why? Flowers can't live long without soil. We decide in our brains wether it's separated and to what extent and then we give it a justification, "the flower is a part of the soil because..."

or "the flower isn't a part of the soil because..."

If we decide that flower is a part of the soil, how we count that? How many centimeters, meters or kilometers of the soil around the flower we count as part of the flower? It never ends...

This is how I understand the argue "mathematics is imaginary"

 

 

 


LET LOVE IN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that 1+1=2 does not exist in the sense that it is something to be discovered or located somewhere. But it's rather a reliable method to make communication easier, and so it's usefulness matters alot. Math is acknowledge based on it's usefulness, but it can also be worshiped for less useful reasons as with anything that can make a big impact of some sort.

Edited by ZzzleepingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because 1+1 = 2 is a clearly defined operation within an abstract formal system that operates according to strict rules, created for the express purpose of allowing humans to manipulate Reality. 1+1=2 isn't expressing any deep Truth about the nature of Reality, it's an abstraction of our experience within Reality and nothing more than that. 


"The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical." - George Lakoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A dog or baby can understand 1 + 1 = 2 on an intuitive level without any conceptual understanding that mathematics exists. 

If you put 2 balls in front of them, they can tell there's 2 balls there instead of 1. And that it's two separate single balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think an interesting question to ask is, 'Why is there popular consensus that 1 + 1 = 2?'.

Could it be that there is a human need that is being met by the popular belief that 1+1 = 2?

And that to challenge that belief on a societal level would cause that need to not be as well met. Hence, why that belief remains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it is such a deep belief that it is the nature of reality. The nature of reality that, in a sense, is itself on an "infinitely" deep level. But is it, in that sense, a "thing" in itself, or is it a perception that is itself, hmm? 

 

Edited by Vibroverse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yarco

22 hours ago, Yarco said:

And that it's two separate single balls.

is it really?


Who told you that "others" are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

@Yarco

is it really?

Yes, within the larger context of absolute oneness. Both are true.

If somebody asks you when you're going to eat dinner, you COULD say "Well technically I define only a single meal that I've been consuming with periodic breaks since the moment I was born. I can't start dinner because I've never finished my first breakfast" But most people don't, because even in some postmodern sense it can be true, you'd come across as an absolute knobhead.

We have generally accepted definitions and understandings for things in the regular, mundane world of existence. If you can't see separateness, you can't function and survive.

There's two balls, and you "I am very smart" pedants can get over yourselves lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yarco

The thing I was trying to point out was that mathematics is so imaginary that you don't even get it. By saying that there are 2 separate things, you already imagined something on top of an experience. The important lesson here is that things aren't separate unless you say so. 


Who told you that "others" are real?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2022 at 5:38 PM, Yarco said:

If you put 2 balls in front of them, they can tell there's 2 balls there instead of 1. And that it's two separate single balls.

Those numbers are your projections.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the best way to explain this is that mathematics is a strange loop, which is something I recently realized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, musicandmath111 said:

I guess the best way to explain this is that mathematics is a strange loop, which is something I recently realized.

What do you mean?

 


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Wikipedia page for Pythagoreanism:

"A dominant symbolism was awarded to the number three, Pythagoreans believed that the whole world and all things in it are summed up in this number, because end, middle and beginning give the number of the whole. The triad had for Pythagoreans an ethical dimension, as the goodness of each person was believed to be threefold: prudence, drive and good fortune."

1 = end + middle + beginning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2022 at 1:36 AM, Carl-Richard said:

What do you mean?

If you try to prove things indefinitely you will eventually go in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In another universe 1 + 1 could be 5, and they could see it as completely logical. It is just the meaning we project to those numbers that make them appear as they are. Believing that 1+1=2, is useful for us and belivieving that 1+1=5, is useful for them. Both can get ideological and say that what is useful for them is the absolute truth, but that is just a belief, not the absolute truth.


Love is the truth, love, love, love.❤️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would contend that questions like this are a misapplication of skepticism.

We can't be %100 certain that 1+1 = 2, because we can't be %100 certain of (almost) anything.

And asking for complete certainty about knowledge is not reasonable. Any sort of (relative) Truth is going to be tied to a purposeful context, and you yourself make decisions every day based on a far more reasonable threshold.

As human being we use heuristics to get an innate sense of how likely something is. Obviously these will be more refined in a wise vs a foolish person and will never be completely correct in all circumstances, but any good epistemology will take into account how heavily (and mostly successfully) we use hueristics to navigate Reality. 

While absolute skepticism can't be refuted, it's also not helpful for understanding Reality. All it really does is bar the path of inquiry to Truth.

Edited by DocWatts

"The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical." - George Lakoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now