![]() |
1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Before we delve into this idea I would like to say that this isn't some conspiracy theory, nor is it some strange idea about how everything is different than we think it is. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to know there is a lack of surprise or epiphany amongst readers of this post. I strictly wish to discuss what I have observed to be a common fallacy of how people organize, and categorize living beings, objects, and ideas (and yes these are categorizations in and of themselves, oh the irony)
As to the relevance of this fallacy, it has been according to my observation that a person who is of the understanding of this fallacy tends to show similar reactions to events as other people who view the world in this way. In other words, this fallacy has visible and vivid repercussions in many aspects of a person's behavior. Let's start with an interesting question. Imagine you are the principal of a prestigious elementary school and you are interviewing children to test their mathematical capabilities. You are interviewing a certain frustrating child who doesn't seem to understand the question you are asking. You say, "If I have two apples in my right hand, and three apples in my left hand how many apples do I have?" The child briefly looks at your hands and answers, "You have two apples in your right hand and three apples in your left hand." You try to clarify by saying, "So how many would I have all together?" The child responds in the same way, "You would have two apples in your right hand and three apples in your left hand." Trying not to lose your patience you try to ask a different question, "Okay, so if there were three people in a room and another person walks into that room how many people are in that room now?" the child responds, "Who are the people?" The child has the inability to categorize. Where most would see this as a major disability, some would understand the deep logic behind this idea. The idea is that there are no categories, that every object, and living being is inherently unique simply by existing. There are no two objects in the universe that are exactly alike. There are no two atoms that are exactly alike. In real life is there really a way to "add" objects together? Are you then assuming that by putting the objects in juxtaposition they become more than one of the same exact object? With this train of thought we can also say that in the true world, there is only one number. On the deepest level of categorization there would only be one of anything. I am in no way suggesting that we shouldn't categorize because the only way we advance in learning is through categorization. All learning is based on categorizing and relating situations. For example, we can assume that if you bite an apple that a part of that apple will come off and into your mouth whereas the apple will have a large part of it missing in the exact place where you took a bite and of the same size that your mouth was when you took a bite. However, saying that since a certain object will react in a certain way 100% of the time so another object of it's same type will act in the same way 100% of the time is incorrect. How can something be that certain? The only thing that is certain is uncertainty. I'm sure most of us have experienced a dud firework, a device that will work only after being kicked, or a person that just won't listen no matter how hard you put effort into trying to help them do so. You might be thinking at this point, "what's the point? Nobody assumes anything to be entirely accurate anyway." This is where our opinions would differ. Have you ever experienced anger? This emotion comes from a variety of ways and one of them can be unmet expectations, expectations you were certain an individual or an object would meet. How about frustration? Another emotion that can come from a wide range of sources one of which can be when your ideas you're certain of come into clash with another logical source. Uncertainty is everywhere. However, it isn't something to get depressed about, it's only something to realize and accept. Anger, embarrassment, pride, and frustration can be products of placing too much certainty on too few people and objects. If understood incorrectly however, this idea can destroy emotions such as confidence, hope, and love. This is why uncertainty should be understood as something that applies to all things but only to a somewhat limited degree. Just for example, I would say the most accurately someone could predict an event is about 99%. If we believe that number to be 100%, those negative emotions can come from the remaining percent of times our prediction is incorrect, whatever it really may be. If uncertainty is understood in all things, these negative emotions tend to be frequently avoided. The only thing that is certain is uncertainty. As I am writing at this moment, I understand that what I am writing isn't even certain, that there is probably someone out there who understands completely differently than I do and can logically disprove my argument. To that person, I thank you for the competition so that I might refine my own ideas and learn from yours. I do not ask that we do nothing or have no expectations, nor do I ask that we have no opinions or stop trying to learn about something we are uncertain of. My only desire is that we are wary and careful about what we place our confidence in and what we are certain of. It is imperative that we always leave room for error and uncertainty. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
It was a nice, thought-provoking read, but there's nothing to debate in this thread.
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
if you can't categorize objects you're p. screwed because everything scientific is discovered via induction and extrapolation to the unknown
saying 'everything is different' isn't very useful since it ignores the fact that objects can still be similar and express similar phenomena but it doesn't give us any better tool to use in place of it |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Very good first post. Longer than any of my posts! Welcome to FFR and I somewhat agree, but somewhat not... :)
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
This reminds me of www.timecube.com
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Welcome to FFR!
Such a thought-provoking idea, I'll give you that much. Here's my side on it: while no two atoms are the same, things are categorized in such a way that they can be grouped together. While they are not in fact 100% identical, I would say that it's just human nature. Your thought on this topic though is plausible in my opinion, which is why I can't really come up with a clean-cut rebuttal to it. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
I'm pretty sure, actually, that the only thing making two particles of the same type distinct is their place and energy.
There's no way to tag an electron and find it again later. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
We can be certain 100% because of science :) Unless you bring it down to the quantum level where you've got Heisenberg's uncertainty and what not, but I suppose that's a whole other topic, and one that really doesn't pertain to eating apples...but then again this thread doesn't really pertain to eating apples either. I think I'm just hungry and can't move my eyes past that sentence "...if you bite an [sweet, delicious, mouth-watering!!!] apple...". Mmm.
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
This is just splitting hairs, really.
When you have two apples in one place and three in another, and you claim to have five in total, you don't categorize them under the guidelines of "identical in every physical way". You're just acknowledging that all five are apples, in one shape or another, and they can be categorized under that basic idea. Honestly just the fact that someone would put this much thought into such a basic principle is somewhat ridiculous in itself. oh, and welcome to FFR |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
And for reference, as soon as the child makes a statement like "You have two apples in one hand and three in the other" they are already grouping things and understanding categories. The proper response to the question would have been "What's an apples" because an inability or unwillingness to group similar objects together because they are not identical would necessarily include a refusal to understand or acknowledge the whole concept of plurality in the first place. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
In additional to what Cyanite said, there are various ways to conceptualize 1+1, not just through objects themselves.
Consider only proportions. 1+1 must = 2 through simple understanding of proportions; that is, if you double the amount of X, well, by definition you have double the amount of X. That's really what's happening here, and in math you can formalize this system and call it an axiom. Whether or not what you're adding is 'exactly identical' or not is irrelevant; it's an abstract concept. From there, you can take that abstract concept and apply it to real world problems. With respect to uncertainty, sure, everything is uncertain, but it doesn't matter. If you care that much about uncertainty, it's called quantum mechanics, and you can describe the universe using probabilities. Either way, it's math, and you're still using the exact same abstract concepts and applying them to the real world. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
1+1=2 simply because that's how we developed the mathematical system. We declared that it did by defining what 1 is. Math isn't definite in anyway to reality since it is artificial. I don't see the point of this. More of a dumb play on words imo.
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
To say that no two atoms are exactly alike is only saying that they are in different fixed positions possibly at different times, and therefore are different. But taking an individual atom, and then juxtapositioning it in into the same place of the other atom would therefore make it the same thing. Nonetheless to say it IS the same thing because there are obviously two identical atoms that aren't each other. That would rectify a whole new issue. There comes a point of irrelevance of whether or not something is the same or not. An apple can weigh more than another apple by .0000000000000000000001 of an oz, but it still is the same thing. They aren't each other like I said before, but they are the same.
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
This is also most likely some copy paste post. Doubt he will respond.
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
The opening poster only has 1 post. His post is either a bot or just someone going around forums posting some copy paste crap.
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
We've had similar posters in the past. They are rarely bots, but are often people who have accounts on many forums and simply make a thread and post it to all of them.
The last one we had was called Coberst, if you do a search for him you'll see what we mean. |
Yes, I said in my post that it IS necessary to categorize, it's important that we do, because if we don't then it's impossible to grow and learn from information. For example, you wouldn't be able to say "oh, I shouldn't kick that person in the shin because I'm angry with them because the last person I kicked in the shin just returned it back even worse." You wouldn't categorize human beings in the same group and would expect every human being to act completely and utterly differently.
Izzy probably hit it right on the head however, "1+1=2 simply because that's how we developed the mathematical system. We declared that it did by defining what 1 is." That's a large part of what I'm trying to say, that our mathematical system is a human creation based on something that doesn't necessarily entirely and accurately exist in the real world. There are many people who don't realize that, and I guess that's what my post is, it's a mind-opener rather than a debate topic, but apparently there are still things to debate here. (And no this is no copy paste trash, this is my original post that is no where else on the internet). Devonin, "The proper response to the question would have been "What's an apples"", you are exactly right, I meant to change that, and I knew someone would pick up on that. I was having a really hard time trying to illustrate the example, any other ideas would be helpful. OMG I forgot to respond to you. I have a question for you to answer. Maybe those two apples are similar, and if you place an object in the same exact position, shape, atomic makeup, electron movement, and all else as another object then yes, I would agree with you, theoretically the two objects would be exactly the same. Here's the question, is that possible in the real world? So, two objects may be very similar, but will they react exactly the same way in every situation possible? Of course, we as human beings cannot cause every possible situation for that object, but even for what we can do to the objects will the two objects react the exact same way in all those situations? A lot of scientific experiments are based on this concept. They try a new drug on mice. They have about a hundred mice, many people would say all these mice are exactly the same, and then there is only a percentage of them that react similarly. Many people take that percentage and take it to an extreme, sometimes forgetting the remaining percentage and sometimes believing it is consistent amongst every single similar object. That is a fallacy. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
Quote:
Our definitions for categories of things contain enough leeway to allow for the sort of categorization you say is impossible. Apple: : the fleshy usually rounded red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a usually cultivated tree (genus Malus) of the rose family ; Clearly all the apples in the person's hand fit into that definition, such that referring to them all collectively as "apples" is perfectly legitimate. "the same" doesn't -actually- mean "Completely identical in all respects" That's why we have both the word 'same' and the word 'identical' Quote:
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
I remember awhile back I created a thread about time and how I didn't think it existed. I argued my point for awhile, but I don't believe anyone really understood what i was getting at. This is the same thing though. Time and even the first three dimensions are just concepts that we created and defined. They don't really exist since we made them to be used to solve problems that are probably also entirely artificial. Just have to accept that everyone is probably wrong about everything. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Exactly one of my points Izzy, thanks for clearing that up.
Devonin, "So it sounds like, in fact, the child in your example who cannot do this -does- actually have a serious disability. Understanding the "deep logic" behind this (which the child probably doesn't anyway) in no way mitigates the fact that this is a skill that everyone needs to have to function properly in society." -This is somewhat missing the point, the child is purely for example and in no way does the child exist in the real world. The idea isn't that the child understands the logic, (the child actually doesn't understand, and yes has a problem) the child is only to be understood to have a different perception of the world, it isn't supposed to be an actual being. Perhaps the illustration would make more sense to you if the creature being interviewed was from another world and had an entirely different set of terms, units, and ways to measure the universe. That is beside the point however. I already said I didn't present the idea perfectly and I was open for suggestions so thank you. Also Devonin, I mentioned at the beginning of my post that I wouldn't be surprised by a lack of surprise among readers. You already understand the idea I'm trying to explain. I've met enough of who you refer to as "stupid" people to know that at least from what I have observed, it is a problem in society. You also keep forgetting that I already said that probably "the most accurately someone could predict an event is about 99%." I meant that to be a very high percentage, because "uncertainty should be understood as something that applies to all things but only to a somewhat limited degree." I'd like to clarify also that it is much higher in different situations and much lower in others. The problems arise when we fail to recognize the uncertainty. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
Let me put it another way: Understanding that things we call "the same" aren't actually "identical" doesn't actually tell us anything at all practical or useful. All you're really saying is "Inductive logic is less strong than deductive logic" which is a pretty standard concept. Yes we know that even if something works exactly the same way X times in a row, at time X+1 it may in fact do something completely different. The point is, after X is large enough, it is a safe assumption to act as though it will continue to work that way. Put yet another way: If we actually acted as though we had absolutely no means by which to accurately predict the outcome of any action, we would be pretty much completely unable to do -anything- that was at all useful. If I considered that for each button I pressed on my keyboard, the signal being communicated to my computer might not be exactly the same as the last time I pushed the button, and thus generate an entirely seperate letter on the screen, it would take me dramatically longer to type anything because I would constantly have to be checking that the output was actually the one I wanted. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
How is a different perspective unhelpful or unpractical? You're 25 Devonin, this may be something that you've known and understood your whole life. As for me and many others, who've grown up believing in the American Dream, Santa Clause, and some kind of system that's supposed to return the same output as it's input, this can be quite a new perspective.
A lot of people out there believe that if they work hard enough and if they dream big enough, they can achieve whatever they want. What I've come to realize is that the world is not a system, it isn't a big machine that guarantees or gives certainty to anything. A whole lot more than what some people understand is that the real world is much more fluid than that, and more left up to chance, luck, and forces that are out of our control. "If we actually acted as though we had absolutely no means by which to accurately predict the outcome of any action, we would be pretty much completely unable to do -anything- that was at all useful." -Yes, you are absolutely correct in this, this is why I mentioned in the original post, that "If understood incorrectly however, this idea can destroy emotions such as confidence, hope, and love." what I meant by that is exactly what you are talking about, that if we let the idea of uncertainty overwhelm us and make us unable to place any confidence whatsoever in any object in the real world then of course it would make you unable to function in the real world. That is why, and I repeat again, "uncertainty should be understood as something that applies to all things but only to a somewhat limited degree." So that it can be understood to apply especially to things that are less and less under our control. Specifically, our happiness should be less dependent on things that are less certain. Yes, I'm pretty sure I know what you're thinking and it's probably something along the lines of, "well everyone already knows that" but what about all those people that get so upset when they don't get things they want? Or what about those people who get angry when they lose? What about all those people who get upset over the weather? Or what about all those people who feel entitled from the economic system? Many people don't realize that life is more than numbers. We can't always depend on things that are created by mankind, like government, McDonalds, computers, science, statistics. You can be pretty certain that the keys on your keyboard will type the same letters that you press consistently, but has your computer ever randomly shut down on you while typing an essay, or your internet connection fail while you're writing a post? Then by chance did you slam your fist on the desk, shout a few expletives and grumble as you turned it back on? Even if you haven't done it yourself, I'm almost positive you've witnessed a similar event somewhere. However, you know this is a minor example. The problems really begin when people believe they are entitled, think they know everything, or feel justified in casting someone's opinions and ideas aside because of how certain they are of their own. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
Father to son: Father: Son, you can never lie. Son: Okay dad. Father: Not once can you ever lie. Not under any circumstance. Never lie, for that it is wrong to do so and will always will be. Father to son (FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE): Father: Son, you can never lie. Son: Okay dad. Father: WELL...you can lie SOMETIMES, but only if you want to. Son: Really? Father: Yes, but only when you think it is right. Otherwise, never lie. The second example is an example of looking at things at a different perspective. The first is following an absolute value. If we have nothing that has absolute value, then value becomes meaningless. When values become meaningless, then we see that everything is acceptable...no matter how horrible it might be. I'm sure what Hitler did in World War II was wrong...but if you try to find a reason why his crimes were justified, you would be looking at that as a different perspective...and that, my friend, is wrong. Long story short, don't be a relativist. Those are my 2 cents (It's more like a dollar given the length though) on this issue. I can't argue anything else worth a damn. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
The problem has come from the idea that hard work alone guarentees you success which is not in fact the case. Though I'm not sure what the unreality of the american dream has to do with the idea that not all things of the "same" type are in fact "identical" At best, someone who looks at somebody else who worked hard and was successful and says "If I work just as hard, I'll be just as successful" is just another example highlighting that some people happen to confuse 'same' and 'identical' but that's not a fault of society. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'd cast aside someone's position that the earth is actually made of cheese, or that the ocean is actually blueberry jello, because those positions are absurd, and so are many others. So you can't possibly be talking universal rules here, because many opinions and positions are -not- worth paying attention to. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Can I quote that post for my siggy, Devonin?
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
"I remember awhile back I created a thread about time and how I didn't think it existed. I argued my point for awhile, but I don't believe anyone really understood what i was getting at. This is the same thing though. Time and even the first three dimensions are just concepts that we created and defined. They don't really exist since we made them to be used to solve problems that are probably also entirely artificial. Just have to accept that everyone is probably wrong about everything."
Ah, but if a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around to hear it does it make a sound? By your logic, if it does then everyone's wrong about everything, and if it doesn't then everyones right about everything. Either position is stupid. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Sorry your statement makes no sense and is very irrelevant to my statement.
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
What's interesting Saik0Shinigami, is that even though you completely agree with Devonin, you still at least understand the basic part of what I'm trying to explain. "By definition categories sort similar objects together and different objects apart. A category doesn't necessarily mean that the scope of it's objects are exactly the same (in any sense of the word)" This is the root of my argument, that there are dissimilarities between two objects that we categorize as the same down to even the atomic level. Now this is only the root of my argument which I believe expands to other things. When we try to measure and analyze objects and organisms or larger things than molecules, the dissimilarities increase, increasing uncertainty.
I think I understand why it's difficult to get my point across and it's because my train of thought is that "things are less certain than you think they are." Which unfortunately is only true for some people. Others already understand that there is uncertainty in the real world and no matter how insignificantly you recognize it, I believe it is important to recognize it. For most of the people who are debating in here, you already understand the concept I'm trying to explain and if I were in your position I have little doubt that I would think it was irrelevant as well since I already understand it. Perhaps I am suffering from a strange type of local cultural relativism, but it has been my experience, in at least what I have observed, that there are a lot of people who do not even accept uncertainty in the slightest bit. Instead of blaming mankind's creations for frustrations in their lives they blame outside forces like luck or deity when altogether it could very well be the uncertainties in the system. I'm not saying this is the only reason why people do this, I'm only suggesting that a comprehension of uncertainty can aid someone in understanding a very real and applicable reason for why things happen. I'll give a real life example as my previous fictitious one was not that clear. The Challenger space shuttle at the time of it's construction in 1981 was probably seen as the pinnacle of the ability of scientists, engineers, and researchers to create a spacecraft that would be able to go into space and return with the crew alive and the spacecraft mostly intact. Unfortunately in 2003 we saw that that ability was probably not as sound as we thought it was. The disaster was said to have been caused by a brief-case sized piece of foam that had broken off and struck the leading edge of the left wing causing damage to the thermal protection system of the craft. Interestingly enough it was also said that similar previous episodes had happened that had caused no serious damage. Sociologist Diane Vaughan termed this as a "normalization of deviance." The crew thought that, even at this high level of uncertainty, since it had happened before with no serious negative effects it would act the same way during this event. They were assuming that the effects of previous similar events would continue to be consistent, which sounds like a valid assumption. The error in logical processing comes when you are at this high level of uncertainty (such as new technology like space craft and their mechanical components) and you do not consider other options. Of course there are also reports of people who actually knew of mechanical problems in the craft that could lead to this problem, such as the failure of the O-ring joints, but the craft was still launched anyway against safety regulations. This goes along with another point I'm trying to make, that some people fail to comprehend that government and businesses are made of people, not perfect robots. Since this is true there is quite a bit of uncertainty in our system that many people do not realize. I apologize if it seems I'm going off topic, but I believe that this idea has many applications in several areas. Also, I believe that if it isn't understood (and I believe most of the posters of this thread already actually do understand the concept) it can have very negative effects, that expand beyond trying to land a space shuttle, which I have previously tried to explain. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Edit: Eh, nevermind.
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
I don't know why you are replying with whole paragraphs to out of context sentences devonin. I think the main point to what he is saying is that nothing we do is actually certain because the methods we use are completely artificial in nature. Life doesn't revolve around numbers because the number systems we use aren't real. Yes everyone would agree that they help us solve uncertainties within the confines of our own artificial problems. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is right.
I don't see what you are actually trying to point out by rebutting so many random metaphors. Seems like you are debating something offtopic. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
I address my responses to each statement. My use of quote tags just makes it actually clear to the reader which are my words, which are someone else's etc. You'll find that Vulcan did precisely the same thing, except putting my words in "quotation marks" without using the quote tags.
Responding to each statement takes nothing out of context because I respond to each statement in the context of the greater point. I'm responding to issues I see with what is being said. I respond with requests for clarification of things that seem irellevant to their overall point, and I respond with my reactions to interrogative statements being made. I don't see any issue with doing any of those things. If I'm "rebutting so many random metaphors" and this is problematic to you, the solution would be for you to advise Vulcan to stop -using- so many random metaphors, and I won't have any to respond to anymore. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
I missed the last couple post just from some kind of weird way my window openend up but i think my post will still hit on the same basic principles.
I think you are all taking the OP in a realistic way instead of the conceptual way it was meant to be taken. The analogies are irrelevant, merely a way of showing the principle he is trying to get across. It has nothing to do with the similarities between two objects but rather a comparison of similarities and their 'alternate perspective' comparisons in relation to humans in general. Think of it in terms of how we...think, as well as in how we interpret those mathematical numbers. I think he hit on his main point in how he described emotions (which seems to ironically be the thing most of you have skipped over). We in every day will often times use our categorization systems to categorize emotions with assumed circumstances behind them. "He's just upset because his girlfriend broke up with him" - Harmless enough, but could completely be wrong. Even if you know he exhibits and X emotion and you know Y incident happened to him, no matter what you know about the natural tendencies of humans he will not act the same as another person in the same situation. You can even bring it to the mathematical situations that seems to be craved here. Consider what goes through your mind when you read statistics. Even though those statistics were developed through a system of grouping you cannot accurately say that it applies that way that is assumed. For example, someone who sees a medical procedure with high success rates and comes to the conclusion that it is safe for them and gets massively taken surprise and angry when it goes differently for them. This is because every situation is different and JUST BECAUSE there is a statistic for something, there is no inherent correlation towards a new individual variable. That test has its flaws because it doesnt take everything into consideration so it would be a fallacy to even have the assumed notion that "nothing will go wrong". Apply it to any sort of social, medical, financial, etc. situations you like, relying on assumed notions of security based off of a system can only be described in terms of "likely" or "not likely" at best. Now as far as applying this to something that you can do you have to relate it back to your reactions and emotions. What causes the emtion of anger? Unmet expectations (usually). Well just look around you at the people and how they react to things. Some people have high expectations and get angry when something doesnt go their way (usually based on whatever system they relied on to produce whatever result they expected) whereas someone of different expectations will act differently in the same situation. Anger, frustration, and all other emtions of the type can be remedied if it takes a different perspective. I would argue that one of the biggest problems with the world is its intollerance and expectations. One of the best way to solve many of our social problems is to take it to the personal level and dissect why people react in the way that they do. I believe that what the OP was suggesting is that we as humans rely on systems (mathematical, categorization, etc.) too much when we come to our conclusions. What should be seen is that all of these systems are inherently flawed because they do not take everything into account considering NOTHING is exactly the same. So it is useless to get upset when you arrive at your unmet expectation when in truth you should have maybe not had that expectation to begin with (or at least taken a different perspective on the matter). No one said categorizing is a bad thing, just that it is a system that can be improved by means of taking a different perspective. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
Quote:
Also, if you went into the hospital for something pretty standard, say an appendectomy or something similar, and it got botched, you woudln't be at all angry? You don't think you -should- be at all angry? YOu think life for everyone would be better if we just accepted things going wrong that had no particular business going wrong? Quote:
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
As much as I understand what the thread creator is getting at, it's an overvaluation of the probabilistic nature of the universe to assume 1 + 1 = Invalid, which is what I have a serious problem with. It's a nonsensical claim, and if you want to get your point about an uncertain universe across it's probably best to use another example.
Every formal theory, axiom etc of mathematics is by definition, a language. Everything that can be described or conceived, including every structure or process is isomorphic to a description or definition in language. For example, if you can grasp or perceive some conceptualization, you can name it and give it a definition as well. Every sentient creature, i.e. you, constantly affirm the linguistic structure of reality by exploiting this isomorphism to make even a single perception. Cognition and perception are languages on their own as well. Basically, what I'm saying here is that every perception you make only confirms that you're wrong and that this discussion is semantic nonsense. 1+1 = 2 is simply an extrapolation of the perceived universe onto a definition in language. Language and mathematics are something you depend on to make and evaluate even a single perception. To reject this idea you have to reject reality itself. Arguing about whether or not the universe is unstructured and probabilistic is completely unrelated to 1+1 = 2. On one hand, we have a formal language system that maps a concept onto a definition in language, which is what 1+1 = 2 is. On the other hand, we're arguing that the universe is sometimes unpredictable, in which the vast majority of people here are replying with 'Well, no ****', because the two are unrelated concepts. If you're still not getting it, this is equivalent to claiming that the following picture is not necessarily an apple, because the universe is unpredictable, despite the fact our language has defined it as such: http://pocketnow.com/html/portal/new...resh-apple.jpg So really, there's no debate here. It has been said before, so it's basically kicking the dead horse, but if you have new ideas to discuss it's probably best to put them into a new thread or something that doesn't have a crap title. Sadly, this is the only thriving thread in CT right now XD |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
I think I understand your argument, Saik0Shinigami. "But really, why bother anticipating those circumstances? Just hit backspace and continue on :P" I completely agree with you on this idea. I'm not trying to say we should be paranoid and worry about uncertainty in objects or situations where uncertainty is rather low. Sadly I have to repeat this again, that "this is why uncertainty should be understood as something that applies to all things but only to a somewhat limited degree." Understand that we should feel confident in the certainty of objects of very low uncertainty, but still at least understand and know that it still has uncertainty. If you feel you can't accept that concept without being paranoid then perhaps a rereading and a rethinking on the concept could help.
Now, as to your argument Reach, you are correct in saying that according to mathematical terms and definitions 1 + 1 would equal 2. However, here is the question, what is the representation of the number 1 in the real world? It could be anything right? Now, you could be referring to something that doesn't actually physically exist in the real world, but when using the number one to refer to an object that takes up space you are referring to something that is an object of either matter or energy. -Before I continue with this idea, let's establish a basic algebraic concept. According to mathematical definitions, what would x + y equal? Of course, you learned in perhaps 5th grade that "x" and "y" are not similar terms and thus cannot be added. So you would conclude that x + y would equal just that, it would equal x + y because you cannot add variables that are not similar. I'm suggesting that since no two objects are similar, they are not like numbers that can be added or subtracted, they are more like variables in more than one sense; the fact that they don't necessarily have a value, and also that when you add x + x you get 2x not just 2. At the end of the equation you still have a variable to work out and define. I believe that variable to be the amount of uncertainty that the specific object has (or the level of uncertainty associated with the object). The title should be understood that in reality 1 is a variable that is unlike any other object, so the equation 1 + 1 could be seen as x + y. (Yes, yes, x + y isn't necessarily invalid, it was meant to spark your intellect and interest in how I could consider this equation to have a different result than the presumed one) Since numbers are not always exact in the real world, they have an element of uncertainty to them. This is one reason why in chemistry, or engineering classes teachers allow for a margin of error on your homework assignment answers; it's because in the -real world-, mathematical equations and numbers can get you close, but not always are they exact. Once again, you bring up a very valid point that in some objects the level of uncertainty is quite low as to cause mathematical reasoning to be very helpful and accurate enough. However, it is only completely accurate, useful, and applicable to real life when the level of uncertainty is so low as to render the variable of uncertainty to be insignificant enough to make, very close to, all case results to be the same. This is true for situations and objects of relatively low uncertainty. For example, yes, if you press the "a" key on your keyboard when your computer is hooked up and your devices work relatively well then you can be confident that an "a" will be registered on your computer. The main reason why this concept is difficult to understand, I imagine, is because most of your examples are of objects and situations that I consider to have a low level of uncertainty. Where the problems and fallacy of which I speak of comes from, is when we consider these numbers to be accurate in objects and situations of higher uncertainty. For example, trying to predict human behavior. We see this all the time, researchers and marketers think a product will do phenomenally well, and sometimes they are correct. Other times they are completely and utterly wrong. There are many people who do not understand this concept and do not consider the bias, mathematical errors, and uncertainty involved in these studies. This is the fallacy I am trying to help people understand and correct, but only if they are under the influence of it (which, like I've said before, I don't believe many of the posters here are under the influence of this fallacy. This is probably making it hard for them to see the relevancy and usefulness of it). |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
I would like to just point out there is no other working system by which to go by. Defining something as low level of uncertainty shows you dont even believe in your own argument. You know we aren't omniscient, although taking account for everything isn't absurd, problem solving simply shows what you should pay attention to. Its like this, if you want to account for every factor involved. "I have two apples in this hand and 3 apples in this hand, how many apples do i have?" and the kid says, "well lets look at all the factors first teacher, you have 2 apples in your left hand and 3 apples in your right hand a beard on your face and a nose inbetween your eyes. we didnt account for one thing" "and whats that" "kim jung eil. What if today is a bad day for him and hes already crazy angry and a servant girl gave him a dud grenade to use for fishing in the pond. Then today he finds out also that one of his ships was searched by the UN. He is going to launch a nuke and then you will have no apples." "well we are in flordia, his nuclear strike range cant reach us here." "well you forgot, what if the sun mivrowaves the world and you have no apples." ... enough of that story. ANother thing, Human behavior is quite predictable. How many times have you interacted with someone in your life and they pulled out a shotgun and just starting hurting people?(sorry to re-traumatize those who have) or any other absurd thing that can possibly happen. its very unlikely. Social intuition comes around when you realize that you have an effect on people in your environment. or what about trying to pick up on someone? Or i guess what you mean if you gave a human a choice in a maze, they are at the start a walkway to the left and a walkway to the right. how can you predict where they will go? Well its said that most people will choose their dominant hands direction when picking which way to go. and over 70% of the earth is "right-handed". Where do you think the man will pick. Both of these are "high uncertainty" situations. Yet, there are still ways to grasp what is going to happen as an observer. ' what i am getting at. Can you offer another system besides math and words that will show accurately how to predict "low uncertainty" problems and "high uncertainty" problems? OH wait people did, its called Luck Chama and Intuition... I will stick to numbers and words. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
For what its worth, if you can not simply state what you are claiming in 2 or 3 sentences then you are probably being close minded in what you are saying.
Allowing your argument to be lost in the jungle of words and thoughts makes a weak point. Edit: Directed mainly at op, but I feel like it is good general advice, as pretencious as it sounds ;) |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
When a lot of questions are asked, a lot of answering is needed. I try to eliminate the need for the, "but what about..? and what about...?" Anyway, I know this thread is old, but I received this article in my psychology class about the IAT (Implicit Association Test) that somewhat illustrates my point a little better than I can. The first page is the MOST relevant to my point. If you personally don't think it relates to my argument, that's alright, it's a good read anyway.
http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pd...tage7.2007.pdf |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
I am gonna have to disagree with all of you. There is no such thing as uncertainty. There are plenty of things that we do not understand, but everything we experience is a reaction occurring from an endless chain of previous reactions. This is true for every thing. Every "random" event that occurs is a result of the forces acting on every bit of matter in the universe at a given time. This is true for consciousness, emotion, and every thought that we have. For this reason I don't think that anything is "uncertain." With a thorough enough understanding of these forces I think everything could be predicted.
After all, with the rudimentary understanding we currently have we can already predict much about our planet, our bodies, and the rest of the universe. I guess that means that I believe in predestination, but I still think that we have "free-will." I know that is a contradiction, but I think that one will respond to external stimuli in a way that one sees fit. You really can't control it though, it is just a chemical reaction in your brain. So, whether or not the kid can categorize, or whether or not there is something to argue in this thread, or whether this response is relevant, it really doesnt matter. People will read this, or not read it, and think what they want to think based on what they have experienced. After all, if you were born deaf, blind, dumb, numb, and lacked the ability to taste or smell, what would your idea of the universe be? Every thought is just a reaction to an external stimulus. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
This is a bit of a semantic game, but you need to differentiate between causality in the universe and uncertainty.
I agree, the universal is causal in nature, based on a set of reactions that abide by the physical laws that founded it. There's still uncertainty for every observer in the universe, though, as this uncertainty is built right into those very laws that link the universe causally (See quantum mechanics, e.g. heisenberg uncertainty). This can be hard to understand, but in a nutshell the causally linked rules of the universe that ultimately always determine what happens next can never be fully known. There is always uncertain information that is changed and influenced by any and all attempts to know this information. As such, it's a bit like the universe can't really make up it's mind. Anyway, this has very little to do with the OPs original argument. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
"Everything you just said, is utterly and completely... wrong."
Wow WTFBrandon, are you certain about that? Please don't post if you truly have nothing to say. If you'd like to present an argument please do it in a sensible, logical manner. Richhhard, I hope you understand that I'm referring to the present time of our understanding. I very much agree with you that maybe in the end, (assuming Quantum Mechanics are somehow more certain than we presently think they are) everything could be measured with perfect measurement. But as human beings we will never be able to reach that perfect measurement, or at least not for a very, very, very long time. As long as we cannot measure things perfectly, there will be uncertainty. (Sounds like a pretty basic concept) ;). |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
NFD, you really haven't presented any kind of argument other than saying that everything he is saying is wrong. Any specific reasons why you think that?
To Reach and VulcanRevenge, sorry if my argument was not on target with the original post, I was mainly commenting on "Uncertainty is everywhere. However, it isn't something to get depressed about, it's only something to realize and accept." I saw that as relating to the rest of the argument. If you are talking about right now, for us, I would agree. I do not think it is something you have to accept though, the reason we have made the scientific advances we have is because of people that did not accept that everything was uncertain. If you are depressed about the uncertainty in the world then go out and try to find the answers. On another note, Quote:
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Sigh.... NFD, this is the third time you've come in here, and all you've said is 'you're wrong, because I think you are.' If I don't understand what I'm saying then why am I posting paragraphs of my thought process while you're posting one-liners with no backing, evidence, or information?
I can understand your frustration because you think this is common knowledge, but I'm sure you would think otherwise if you saw someone break down because their total confidence in someone or something was completely shattered. (Which, I imagine, you've probably actually already witnessed) |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
Everything we do in life is based on category. What size shoe we wear, how much of whatever we want on our plate, what kinds of books we want to read. If you had a library full of 10,000 books, but you only liked science fiction, of which there were about 500, you can't say that the other 9,500 aren't there. They're not of your choosing, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Let's say there are two copies of The Stand, by Stephen King. One of them has the cover torn off. You would still have two copies of The Stand, so whenever the books were counted, you would put down "Two copies of The Stand, King Stephen". In the end it doesn't really matter. It is what it is. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
mass and energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Just saying. you have one of whatever and one of another thing, no matter how you split it up, all of it combined equals...... 2 |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
It doesn't show that the universe itself is not causally linked, no, however, Heisenberg uncertainty does prove there is uncertainty in the universe relative to any observer...look at what you just said. If you cannot measure two quantum properties with precision at the same time that means there is an unknown, or uncertain variable. Really, my point is that you need to differentiate between uncertainty, which involves knowing, and the behavior of the universe as a whole. It's key to understand why we observe Heisenberg uncertainty - the reason the effect occurs is because by measuring one variable, you change the other. That is, the effect of observing changes the outcome of the event, or in other words, *the effect of knowing* changes the outcome of the event. And thus there will *always* be uncertainty, because in order to know and be certain, you have to change the outcome and be uncertain. Anyway, I'm still not really disagreeing with you, rather, I'm expanding on your point that I felt was a bit simplistic. You could argue much more strongly that everything in the universe is causally connected rather than nothing is uncertain, because they're two different issues. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
All I was trying to say is that because the observer perceives uncertainty, does not mean that the outcome is ever uncertain. As such I would say that the effect of knowing *does NOT* change the outcome of the event, because that assumes that another outcome could have occurred.In reality no other outcome could have been possible because even you measuring something and "changing" the outcome is something that could have been predicted. I see what you are saying though, because I am talking more about that is how the universe will behave, but doesn't that mean it should be *possible* for us to understand it? And thus *possible*, to a degree, to be certain about what is to come? For the present I know that is a ridiculous goal, even understanding how one blade of grass will develop requires enormous amounts of information, but knowledge grows exponentially, so given enough time, who knows? |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
|
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
Quote:
The problem I had with the statement was with the use of the word 'uncertainty', because there is still, regardless of what I just said, always uncertainty. Even if you were God, and could hold the entire contents of the universe in your mind, by interacting with the universe itself and making any observations or measurements at all, you would change the outcome of an event. Thus, even knowing EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE KNOWN, it would be impossible to predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of every event at the quantum level (This poses an interesting problem for the idea of a 'divine plan', but that's another issue XD) |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
On the other hand if you did interfere that might seem like you are then "changing the course of history" but you really wouldn't be because the forces acting on you lead you to do that, you just merely did not include yourself in the calculation and therefore the calculation was flawed. I don't know, this is getting way off topic from the original post though... |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
"I don't know, this is getting way off topic from the original post though..."
naw, keep going, I feel like I've restated my original topic to death, this new spin is more interesting anyway... I agree with you Richhhard, "with the most complex calculation imaginable could you *theoretically* predict future events correctly, if you did not interfere with the event? If so then wouldn't it be fair to say that nothing is uncertain?" This makes logical sense. It conflicts with the concept itself to believe that we human beings know everything about the uncertainty principle. For now it answers some problems we've had with previous models but the model of the atom has changed and has been changing for the last couple hundred years. It sounds somewhat close minded to say we've found the perfect model. No, I think in at least the next century or so we'll find something to replace this model, which would be able to improve our ability to reduce uncertainty, but still not remove it altogether. |
Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution