What is your philosophy on reality?

I have to disagree. One of the top ten physicists of all time, Steven Weinberg, who won a Nobel Prize in physics for unifying the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force, was an extreme atheist. But after his extensive work in physics, he started philosophizing about physics. He did thought experiments where he slightly changed the values of fundamental constants of our universe, such as the speed of light (c) or the electric constant (ε0) and came to the conclusion that if ε0 which equals about 8.85×10−12 Farads/meter was even slightly changed, we wouldnt exist how we do. life would not be able to exist as carbon-based, not saying there wouldnt be no life, it just wouldnt be carbon-based like all life as far as we know.

and 1+1 always equals 2, or else we would have never been able to go to the moon or develop the computers we're using right now. put it like this, if you actually believe 1+1≠2 or 1=2, I'll gladly trade you $1000 of mine for $2000 of yours, since 1=2 then it will be a fair trade. lol

 

my math teacher once showed me how 1 = 2.

he started with 1 = 1 and then did something, i can't remember exactly.

it blew my mind.

 

1 = 1
2 = 2
*infinite* = infinite = any number
any number = *infinite* = 1 = 2

xd

 

: -1/1 = 1/-1
: Take the square root of both sides:
: Simplifying:
: In other words, i/1 = 1/i.
: Therefore, i / 2 = 1 / (2i),
: i/2 + 3/(2i) = 1/(2i) + 3/(2i),
: i (i/2 + 3/(2i) ) = i ( 1/(2i) + 3/(2i) ),
: ,
: (-1)/2 + 3/2 = 1/2 + 3/2,
: and this shows that 1=2.

(of course this isn't really true.. but can you spot the mistake?)

But he might have been talking about (a misrepresentation of) Godel

 

Your analogy doesn't work mang

I'm saying "1+1 does not always equal 2" and you're saying "then give me 2$ for 1$" ignoring the fact that in *that* case, 1=1 and 2=2.

But there are cases *outside* of things like economics and space travel, in realms much more abstract than rocket fuel or chalkboards

those things are just what we're used to

i mean shit, newtonian physics isn't even 'correct' yet it's good enough to get us to the moon. but that doesn't mean it's ultimately 'true', right. in fact, we know it's definetely *not* ultimately true.

so the utility of something does not imply anything about it's truth

like, believing jesus will come and rapture you in the next 5 years is VERY useful if you're in the business world and need to make ruthless, damaging decisions. yet is it true? well, that's beside the point, right?

so i'm not talking about things you can hold in your hand, because there are only so many of those, and they all have the same limitation of being, well, things you can hold in your hands

 

Of course. i ≠ 1/i because if this was true, they i^2 = 1, and that goes against your definition at the beginning that i^2 = -1

its similar to this classical fallacy.

let a=b

so

a^2 = ab

a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2

(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)

divide both sides by (a-b)

a+b = b

and since at the beginning we let a = b

b+b = b

2b = b

divide by b

2=1 or 1=2

:cheers2:

where's the mistake here?

 

reality is that we are clueless, all looking for explanations.

 

if 1+1 ≠ 2, than that implies that 1 ≠ 1 or similarly, that 1=2. Just look at my proof above. If so, my analogy about trading $1000 for $2000 works perfectly fine. But 1+1 does equal 2, and this can be proven easily with Peano's Postulates, or just look for Russel's and Whitehead's proof that 1+1=2, using symbolic logic and Boolean algebra I believe.

You cant compare Jesus to numbers mang. Jesus is/was a tangible physical person, numbers are ideas. You can imagine jesus, but you cant imagine the number one. You can imagine one apple, or O-N-E the word, or 1 the symbol, but not 1 the idea.

 

fairly accurate, and the reality of that is that some of us find better explanations than others.

 

agreed.

 

lmao, who knew that 1 + 1 could be so complicated!

 

but anyway...

"Limitations are not originally grounded in the meaning of life. Originally words had no fixed meanings. Differences only arose through looking at things subjectively."

we have to remember that the rationalistic attitude of the west is not the only possible one and not all-embracing, but is in many ways a bias and a prejudice that ought perhaps to be corrected. causality and logicality has risen to a paramount level in our society. this is due to the incredible influence of the statistical method as well as the successes of the natural sciences. this has brought the metaphysical view of the world into disrepute.

but we must remember, that these objectivities are given their power through our subjective observations, thus they are really no more credible than any kind of subjective observation, and are by no means infallible.

which leads us again back to the idea of reality being totally dominated by subjectivity... hmmm...

 

unfuckingbelievable

 

reality?? what's that

 

It's some kind of weird theory that things only exists if other people see them too.

 

I feel like I have an entire functioning model of the universe going on inside my head and life is a never ending attempt to try and explain that model.

 

I had a dream this morning that I was taking acid and a mushroom extract :cheers2:
And there was a television in a field playing films of all the different kitchen tiles that Ive come across since childhood.

 

wow! sounds quite diverse!

 

Yea it was really neat, I remember I was taking the doses with people at my grandmoms house but it was converted into a festival lol, and I walked in to use the bathroom when I felt the effects start coming on, got real goofy and strange and walked into the field. Lots of deep reds and forest greens with the white caulk between the tiles

 

kitchen tiles are awesome

repeating patterns

holding you up

so you can put nom nom in your belleh