The Statement Game

look i cant keep up with these philosophy threads because its not interesting enough to read all the huge posts that concern things that im not involved in. maybe people shoudl all start using bold, largened, subtitles.

but maths is not a description of fact. a letter or character is not a description. a tag is not a description. neither is a name.

1 <-- that is not a description of the number 1, it is the visual representation. can you explain how you percieve maths to be a description of values? (+ - \ = * %) these are not descriptions either. they are visual representations of processes of maths. written maths, with numbers and values, thats all just a form of representing maths, just like words represent lots of things.

can you explain, hikaru, how maths has chagned since it started?

also, the idea of 'infinity' is that it is 'undefined'. infinity is not a value. it is a theoretical standpoint. it represents one of the things that is not factually there. 1/0. its a theoretical anomoly of mathematical representation of values. since humans can write "1/0" they then realised there was a value that was concievable somehow but not in the bounds of maths. you cannot manipulate 1/0 in any way. muliply it, subtract it, anything you do will end up with 1/0 or -1/0. can you direct to the proof that said infinity was not equal to infinity? it was probably one of the many proofs in maths that arent actual proofs but tricks to play on people who dont pick up the cleverness.

most people fall for them as amazing proofs that show that maths is flawed,
i have many,
but that just shows that humans are flawed in using maths

so yeh sorry if i repeated anyone but theres too many issues floating around at once for me to read it all

 

Of course I understand were you are coming from- 5 = 5. I have '5' digits on each hand. I mean, I have '4' fingers on each hand. This is the way you understand it. You are either joking or incorrect (I cannot tell which it is) in your semantics.

Possible indicates 'may or may not be'. Saying something is possible only denotes that something may or may not be.

There are 2 symbols (or words) for a similar idea.

No, there is an infinite variety of 2s.

There are 2s that come from subtraction, there are 2s from addition, division, multiplication... not to mention the variety of 2s that pop up in nature. Binary Star's, binary black holes...

 

when you are on your deathbed, you'll look back at all the time spent discussing these philosophical and hypothetical concepts, and realize....omg.... i could have been doing something useful, or fun, ar anything else ....what was i thinking?

 

But it is not. 5 can equal 4 in a hypothetical system (not the one we currently use). It is a possibility.

Open your mind to the possibilities.

In the real world, there is the possibility of a number system were 5 = 4. Do symbol's simulate bullshit?

Saying something is impossible (not possible) is incorrect. The "real world" is beyond limits. Do you know that there is no planet were beings use the term red and blue for the same flavor of ice cream?

We are talking about qualia (the qualia of red is not the same as the qualia of blue)- 2 definite stand alone sensations. Red feels different than blue. Even the word red feels different then the word blue. However the words red and blue could be applied to more than one qualia- which is always a possibility we have to consider. We both have a feeling about what I mean by 5 and it's seperate identity from 4, but we should both understand that in the real world the symbol 4 can be used to represent 5's identity.

Cryptography anyone?

Not at all. Maybe I don't get the new logic. I am used to this:

It is possible that X = Y
if X=Y the statement is true. If X does not = Y the statement is true.

If I first define X by saying X cannot = Y, then the statement is false within the limited scope of my definition of X, however, there is always the possibility that someone else uses a system were X can = Y which means that the statement is always true unless we use a narrowly defined system.

One of the rules of the english number systems is this: 5 cannot = 4. However, the rules of reality are this: any symbol can be applied in any way that we see fit- like the Run DMC lyric "Not bad meaning bad, but bad meaning Good."

It is as possible for bad to equal good as it is for 5 to equal 4.

 

Gnarly.... in other words, I agreed with it. In particle physics and quantum mechanics theory I believe that things like 5 = 4 are accepted. For example, when acceleraters are used to make quarks collide, 2 quarks can end up adding up to 20.... don't quote me on exact numbers tho.... physics is not my bag baby.

 

That's where you are wrong. You are correct in that letters and characters are not descriptions, because they are the basis of language. But language itself is a description. Do you think everything existed before we had a language to communicate it in? No, language is entirely a description.

Tags and names are labels. They are references. I could easily call myself a human being and list about 10,000 unique features about me, but that would be tedious and redundant. Or ... I could just take a word (like Josh or Hikaru or whatever) and just associate that word with me. Thus, the word has become a reference to who I am.

So ... letters and characters are what descriptions are made out of. Tags and names are references to objects (while they are not descriptions, they also are not objects; they're kind of like "shortened" descriptions, generally accepted words that reference an object, where a description would also be words that reference an object, but descriptions vary from person to person whereas the point of a name or tag is to not change).

But math, as we know it, did not exist until we had a language to describe it in. The concept of math existed, but the word "mathematics" and all related words and labels, including "five," "four," "infinity," et cetera, did not exist. The QUANTITIES represented by those labels existed, but the labels didn't.

So what we call "mathematics" consists of (1) labels of facts, such as the number 5, which is a label for the quantity shown here: |||||. and (2) descriptions of facts, which are formulas. Numbers are labels, quantities are values. Thus, numbers didn't exist until we had language to label those quantities as numbers. Formulas are logical descriptions of the relationships between quantities. Before language, there were no "formulas," only everlasting relationships between quantities and dimensia. Humans had to come along and make up the word "formula" before formulas came to exist.

So ... math is a combination of labels of facts and descriptions of relationships between facts. Math is how we describe quantities and their relationships; thus, math is a description of fact.

Mathematics, as we refer to it, did not exist before humans existed. Quantities and relationships DID exist, but "math" did not. "Math," at one time, did not include the quantity zero. Now, it does. That is an example of how it has changed. The facts have not changed, but math has.

While infinity is often considered "undefined," infinity IS defined. Infinity is defined as: A *number* that is greater than all other numbers. That IS the definition of infinity. The value "undefined" is purely undefined. But infinity is quite literally defined. Its place on the numberline is all the way at the end. We can't visualize the end because our brains are limited, but just because we can't imagine infinity doesn't mean it is defined.

Infinity is usually considered a concept rather than a number because it lacks a degree of certainty to its position on the number line; but just as you can say the distance between 0 and 5 is 5, the distance between 0 and infinity is infinite.

Regardless, infinity is still widely controversial because some people think that infinity should be thought of as a number. They think this because infinity is quite literally defined.

To follow up on what Kharakov said ... if you say something is possible, then that means for that statement to be true, it *MUST* be possible, it *CANNOT* be definite. Or at the very least, if it is definite, its definiteness must not be known or understood (giving the illusion that it is possibility).

There are a seemingly infinite number of situations in which the number 2 can be used. But the QUANTITY represented by the number 2; is the same in every situation.

Philosophy: philo sophia; love of wisdom, literally translated.

I'm sorry to hear you don't love wisdom, BlackGuard. =P

But believe me, philosophy has a purpose. I'm going to learn all the crap I can and make sure that what I believe is grounded in fact, before I leave college and venture out into the world to use it.

Besides, philosophy IS fun. And it's not like it's the only thing we do; we go out and play frisbee and play games and do work and stuff too. It's just a quest for knowledge on the side. =)

 

True that. The Buddha just thought all this stuff was unimportant, but look at the progress we've made in society because people argue over little things like this. A lot of times it leads to groundbreaking ideas ... =)

I think that eventually, we'll make enough progress this way to get to the point where humans will just be able to download knowledge, and the average person will be able to become enlightened regardless of their actual intelligence. That's what I'd like to see at least.

 

First, don't tell me my semantics is off when you think that "possible" denotes. Only names can denote. Possible is a modal operator. If "it is possible that" can denote, then so can "and" and "or".

Second, you misinterpretted what I said, not the other way around. Of course all things that are necessary are possible, but that's not the point. The point is that necessary and possible are two different things. In your semantics you make absolutely no distinction based on a quasi-metaphysical part-whole relationship. So, it's your semantics that's off, not mine.

No, there are 2 symbols (or words) for the exact same idea, which is exactly what redundant means.

Now you're the one that has to be joking. The 2 in addition is no different than the 2 in subtraction for the same reason "2 + 2 = 4" written here is the same as "2 + 2 = 4" written here. Numbers are universal; that's all there is to it. I don't make the rules, I just follow them. Pull out an old math text book if you don't believe me. I honestly can't see why you'd try to continue to defend such a notion.

P.S. Blackguard, there's a lot of confusion concerning what exactly quantum mechanics and relativity entail, everything from the existence of possible worlds to (I'm taking your word on this, never heard it myself) 2 = 20. Most things that sound that ridiculous are actually ridiculous. Why should 2 = 20 when it comes to quarks? Why not 2 = 17? How about 2 = 17 when it comes to electrons? Needless to say, such things would make predictability absolutely impossible on a theoretical level, which, when you're dealing with things as small as quarks, is all you have.

 

pos·si·ble Audio pronunciation of "possible" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps-bl)
adj.

Of uncertain likelihood.

- Dictionary.com

First off, possible isn't an "operator," nor is it modal. It is a simple adjective that describes a state of property of the subject. That property is the subject's "definateness." If the subject is not definately a particular value, then it is possible that it could be one of several values. However, when you are dealing with something concrete (like a quantity), it is actually NOT possible for it to be one of several values. And thus, the statement that says it IS "possible" is incorrect.

Just am hoping to inform you a little bit, Common Sense. =)

In quantum mechanics, there is a great deal to do with probabilities. Apparently, the wavelengths of the eigenstates of particles don't definately change in any known order, so probabilities of other eigenstates are predicted (or something like that; let's not get technical).

I have heard that there are several books out there which use the rules of quantum mechanics to prove that our universe doesn't exist. I have also heard that there are books which prove an infinite number of multiple universes.

While the multiple universes thing might be possible, our universe DOES exist, which just means, there is definately something flawed with what we think quantum mechanics is.

In other words, as great as quantum mechanics is and as great as its applications are in lasers and things, quantum mechanics is, at best, just a theory that has issues that need to be worked out, so you can't count on them to give you any definately concrete evidence (considering all the probabilities involved).

Regardless, Albert Einstein didn't like the ideas that probabilities were the best we could do, and he showed that there was a paradox in quantum mechanics. Later, his counter-theory was disproven, but the paradox still exists, so it is relatively impossible to say what the truth is. Nobody can come to a definate conclusion.

 

Ok. Sorry, I'll just let you be wrong next time, not, I'll even correct you this time:

denote: to serve as a linguistic expression of the notion of : [size=-1]MEAN[/size] (m-w.com)
"Something is possible" means (instead of denotes for the confused people out there, and also taking into account those assholes who will nitpick and say that it can mean more than just the following statement- I know that already, you don't need to tell me) "Something may or may not exist (or occur)."

I don't think I ever said "possible" denotes (I put this up there for all those people whose semantic skills are as poor as their understanding of syntax).

Thank you. Since we are talking about what is possible, I think you will have to agree that I am correct in saying "It is possible that 5 can equal 4."

Whoa there buddy. You read like a 2 year old repeating words that older people spoke. Nice typing, big guy!

"You've seen one tree, you've seen 'em all" Reagan commenting on Sequoia Gigantea pre-alzheimers (or was it?) to a lumber workers union (note to everyone: don't quote what I said here- I am more than likely a little off).

If I feel differently about a 2 involved with subtraction than I do about a 2 that is involved with multiplication, I can call them different things. The thing is I could call a 2 written in blue type a 3 and one written in red type a 4 (whenever I am using standard black type so that people will understand that I am using the symbol 3 to indicate a blue 2).

Hey, we are all talking about symbols here, right? I mean, that's what I've been doing. "I have 5 apples" being a symbolic representation for me having 4 apples (or maybe I mean (what I said denotes) that 4 apples is 5).

What do I mean?

 

First I'm going to respond to Hikaru, then Kharakov.


First Hikaru, yes "possible" is an adj. I know very well what part of speech it is. But the statement in question is phrased "it is possible that..." which is a modal operator used in modal (time related) logic. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a nice, long article on it online.

Second, I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to discuss it seriously. But I do know that any theory in which 2 = 20 is false and it doesn't take a quantum physicist to know that. I'm also quite sure that this universe exists and that possible universes do not.

Kharakov, my last post was not helpful and you are obviously very confused.

First, I don't know what thesaurus told you that "denote" means "mean" but that's not entirely accurate and certainly not precise enough for philosophy. Usually in philosophical discussions, only proper nouns can denote. Look at Bertrand Russell's "On Denoting." But anyway, it's a purely semantic argument. There's no logic point in your argument in which anything other than a noun must denote. So, I'll withdraw it.

Now, what I mean when I say you're being confused by the metaphysics of the part-whole relationship, I mean this: There are three words we use to talk about modality: necessary, possible, and impossible. I'm sure you'd agree. Now, it just so happens that everything that is necessary is possible, but nothing that is impossible is possible. You're getting caught up in this last point. It makes no difference if the necessary is possible because the necessary is different from the possible. If you say "It is possible that 2 + 2 = 4" then that statement is inaccurate because it is necessary that two and two equal four. It's like you're saying that addition and subtraction are the same thing because they are both arithmatic.

Lastly, you are welcome to give the same thing as many names as you like, but if all of your names mean the same thing, then you're being redundant. If the numbers of addition are different than the numbers of subtraction, then I suppose that if I laid two apples in front of you, you'd tell me that there are three. If I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion, I guess you'd tell me that the number of apples in front of you is equal to the number 3 in subtraction when it is subtracted by 1. If I then asked you where the number 1 came from, I suppose you'd say "Why, it's the number you subtract 3 by to get the particular kind of 3 that represents the number of apples in front of me!" Of course, by that reasoning, there is also 4, 5, 6, and 7 apples in front of you. And I find it very hard to conceive of how the apples in front of us can have so many different quantities.

 

Except for one little fact that is going to act as the proverbial wrench ...

... it is IMpossible for 5 to equal 4. It's actually NOT a possibility, it's a fact altogether. Therefore, your statement is invalid, because it contradicts reality.

Interesting, I was not aware of that. Will have to read up some more; life is study! Haha.

That's all my point was, actually; you can't take it to be 100% true. Quantum physics is a field that deals with possibilities and probabilities.

Thus, when you say the statement, "It is possible that 5 equals 4," this statement is clearly wrong, simply because ... 5 equalling 4 is impossible, and all things that are impossible are not possible?

I like your logic! It ... makes a lot of sense.

 

I just thought of the best way to express what I'm trying to say. "It is possible that 2 + 2 = 4" is the same thing as saying "It may or may not be the case that 2 + 2 = 4." I think we're all in agreement here so far. The problem is that it is not the case that 2 + 2 may not equal 4. It is the case that I may or may not be wearing a hat right now because it is by no means necessary that I wear a hat all the time. But 2 + 2, under any circumstances, must always be 4. 2 + 2 cannot be any other number.


I was also thinking about why Kharakov is getting so confused by the metaphysics of the problem. If I say "My arm hurts," then it wouldn't be incorrect for my to say "My body hurts." This has to do with that part-whole relationship I was talking about earlier. But my body, my arm, or pain are clearly nothing like two or four. Two and four aren't physical things. So, we can't talk about two and four as if they were.

 

Merriam Webster dictionary (that is why i put m-w.com in parenthesis after I quoted the definition- sorry I don't know the rules for siting stuff). Denote- to serve as a linguistic expression of the notion of : [size=-1]MEAN[/size].

Usually? Ok. That's fine. A statement can denote something as well.

What is metaphysics in this sentence? (definition)
What is 'the part-whole relationship' in this sentence? (definition)

Whether I agree is contingent upon whether it is necessary to include the word contingent in the words we use to talk about modality.

Of course.

Sorry. I was just saying that it is possible 5 = 4. Yes, it would be redundant in our current system, but imagine a system like the chinese writing system made by beings that communicate in all numbers- they communicate subtleties of meaning about the number by varying its symbol (or the way it sounds if these beings have hearing/ vocalization organs), although in essense, it is the exact same number.

Here is another example-
It is possible that a square circle exists.

Say (ignoring time), in a 9 dimensional system of movement (instead of our 3 dimensional system) that a square circle can exist. Do you know that it cannot? no. In our cartesian coodinate system (3d) it cannot. In the kharakovian coordinate system (9d) the square circle does exist as a necessary component. Someone who cannot imagine a higher dimensional system would say 'a square circle is impossible', however they would be incorrect unless they stated 'a square circle is impossible within the 3d cartesian coordinate system but may exist within another coordinate system'.

 

No, my statement contradicts the elementary numeric system we were taught as a child.

Reality is far deeper than a 1st grade understanding of 5 only equals 5- although this basic linguistic (correct word?) understanding is a necessary component of understanding that a system could exist where 5 = 4.

Saying something is impossible communicates the limits of your own ability to understand- not whether or not something is actually impossible. It's possible that you will understand what I am saying and why.

 

Kharakov, there's no need to analyze my last post. I've figured out how to say what I'm trying to say very clearly now.


"It is possible that 5 = 4" means that "It may or may not be the case that 5 = 4." But it is never the case that 5 = 4. So, it may only not be the case that 5 = 4. The statement "It is possible that I am wearing a hat" is true because it is not necessary that I always wear hats. I have some choice in the matter, and it is conceivable that I could or could not be wearing a hat. Five, however, has no choice in the matter; it must always equal five. But that's not to say that "possible" implies the free will of an agent. "It is possible that there is a fragrant rock" is no less true than the former sentence because nothing about the nature of a rock says that one can't be fragrant, even though I've yet to find a fragrant rock. Rocks are not necessarily without smell. 5 is necessarily 5.

That should cover just about everything up until the point you talk about geometry. But that was pointless anyway because geometry isn't arithmatic. I know very well that all kinds of crazy geometries can be invented when you disregard Euclid's Fifth Postulate. But the only reason such geometries can be constructed is because Euclid's Fifth Postulate is not necessarily true; 5 = 5 is. By the way, I consider the 5 = 5 debate closed and will not discuss it anymore; if you're not convinced by now, you should be. There is more than enough content in this thread for you to extrapolate on your own what I mean by "part-whole relationship" and "metaphysics." If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that non-Euclidean geometries or more-than-three-dimensional geometries (which I am not aquainted with at all) are somehow real universes or any other such thing, then I'd be happy to argue against that.

About your somewhat mystical statement "Reality is far deeper than a 1st grade understanding of 5 only equals 5- although this basic linguistic (correct word?) understanding is a necessary component of understanding that a system could exist where 5 = 4,"

Reality is just that simple. The fact that some things can be so easily understood is usually a good indication that they're right.

 

Unfortunately, this is the part where your imagination has to end, and you have to come back to reality: There is not, nor could there ever be, a society that communicates throughout numbers alone.

(1) Again, you need to come back to reality: We do not live in a 9-dimensional system of movement, nor do we even have reason to believe in anything more than a 3-dimensional system of movement.

(2) A circle is define as a 2-dimensional figure. That means, even if a circle is placed in a 9-dimensional world, if it had more than 2 dimensions, it is no longer a circle. By definition of what a circle is, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a circle to be square.

When you take a 2-dimensional figure and promote it into a 3-dimensional world, the definition of that figure does not change; it cannot magically gain properties. Even in a 9-dimensional world, a circle still lies on only 2 dimensions.

And if you follow the evolution of the circle into other constructs ... it starts as a 0-d point. A point is not square. Next would be a 1-d line. A line is also not square. Nor is a 2-d circle square, nor is a 3-d sphere square, and this same trend of non-squareness would continue up through any more dimensions that ever could exist.

Regardless, a circle could never be square. Ever. Maybe you could percieve it as a square, but it would never actually be a square. And to percieve it as a square, I'd think you'd have to be tripping on something pretty hard.

*sigh*

Once more, you need to come back to the real world ... 5 != 4. They are not equal. If we were living in a system where 5 could equal 4, then there would be an entirely DIFFERENT system of logic that neither you nor I would be able to comprehend, because we live in THIS logic.

You can't escape the reality that 5 will never, ever equal 4, by coming up with an instance of a world in your imagination. It's called imagination for a reason: What we imagine is *imaginary*, and as such, is illogical.

You say that reality is far "deeper" than a first grade understanding of 5=5, and yet ... the further we push into reality, down to the cellular level, down to the atomic level, down to the subatomic level, and even down to the levels where structures have no mass, in ALL of these fields, 5 still equals 5 all the time.

The further you push into reality, the more deeply you understand how something as elementary as 5=5 is the foundation for our entire world. It doesn't change just because you push deeper into the truths of reality.

You are attempting to justify "1 + 1 = 1" by using a metaphorical equation of "1 droplet + 1 droplet = 1 droplet."

That second droplet is NOT the same as the first! It is *TWICE* AS BIG.

What you are really saying is not "1 + 1 = 1," you're actually saying:

One number of quantity 1, plus one number of quantity 1 equals one number of quantity 2.

So yes, one number + one number = one number. In the same sense as 1 drop + 1 drop equals 1 drop.

But the sizes of those numbers (just like the sizes of the drop) is different, and must be accounted for in your equation.

C'mon, it's not that convenient.

First off ... which radius? There are an infinute number of radii that can be on the disk.

Second off ... Einstein's General Theory of Relativity only states that things *appear* to be different depending on where they are viewed from.

I can assure you that, regardless of Einstein's GTR and STR, the actual number is still always 5. It is an *illusion* that it appears to be 4. But it is not actually 4.

So 5 can look like 4, but 5 can never actually BE 4. It will always be 5.

Ouspensky is also wrong here: To say that mathematics is the study of the relation of quantities in the world of things and phenomena as studied by the physical sciences ... does NOT propose that they must be physical, and that everything physical can be expressed mathematically.

Think about it ... mathematics involves the RELATION of QUANTITIES. Relations are NOT TANGIBLE; I cannot go out and touch a relationship.

Quantities are also intangible. OBJECTS of a certain quantity are tangible, but mathematics does not deal with objects, it deals with pure quantities.

So mathematics can be APPLIED to physical things, but it does not require those things to be physical.

Secondly, why would anyone assume that everything that is physical can be represented mathematically? That is MORONIC, to assume that this idea can be formed from the concept of mathematics.

Math can be APPLIED to the physical in many cases, but not all of them. And you cannot represent an orange mathematically. That's absurd.

Meagain: You keep using quotes written in language. People are often mistaken, and almost always, what they say is just their opinion, and is not fact. In Ouspensky's OPINION, those propositions must be drawn from the concept of mathematics, but that is ONE person's opinion. You'd be hard pressed to find people who agree with him. You shouldn't use quotes like that to prove points about facts; quotes rarely if ever contain facts.

Anyway, happy debating! =P

 

You miss the point entirely- that 5 is a symbol that can be (and is) used for more than one purpose.

Take 495 east and where it meets 5 head north until you get to the McCloud/Shasta City exit (89), head through McCloud on 89, ~6-9 miles out of McCloud there is a National Park Service sign on the right with a pullout (after the turnoff for Fowler Campground, which has a couple of waterfalls), turn left there, cross the RXR tracks (about 1.5 miles?), take the second right...

In the directions I provided you, does 5 mean the quantity 5? Does 495 mean the quantity 495? Can 5 only be the quantity 5?

Have you come across number lines where they use whole numbers to symbolize a common increment (for example using the increment .8 the whole number 1000 = (is the logical equivalent of) 800). You are probably more familiar with increments such as Pi, e, or some other constant being used in these systems.

If the symbol 5 always meant the quantity 5 and could not mean anything else, you would be correct. However, this is obviously (to me) not the case. I have tried to show you this in an attempt to expand your understanding, but it is possible that you cannot admit that you are wrong (to yourself and others) and this prevents you from learning this simple concept.

So you have no working definitions for these terms? Please define them for me in a way that supports your use of them. If you can't, than admit that you used them incorrectly. The reason I ask you to define these terms is because I want to learn what they mean in this context. I really don't see how they fit in the discussion.

You cannot prove that universes of more than 3 dimensions (excluding time) do not exist. I am sure you can generate tons of rhetoric about the subject, but it will all be faulty, even if it is persuasive to people who do not understand rhetorical tricks (even the ones that they use to justify their own mistakes).

Sorry, that statement is not mystical at all. It's not meant to be mysterious, it's simply a statement of fact that you do not (or refuse to) understand or acknowledge.