Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 773
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by The Beast » June 3rd, 2015, 12:21 pm

1+1= 2 . Essence. It was the breaking of Symmetry and substance formed. Then they were two: essence and substance. Where is essence in space? Where is essence? Where? My intuition. Is all reality just substance that was essence in one way reaction: essence to substance? What is the logical truth?

Conway
Posts: 27
Joined: February 3rd, 2015, 11:25 pm

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by Conway » June 3rd, 2015, 9:11 pm

Beast

I whole-heartedly agree. I label things differently. God=essence.

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 773
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by The Beast » June 5th, 2015, 2:45 pm

It is a Cartesian view to think of objects as being in space. As an expanding wave the center is also expanding and contracting… mostly expanding. What is the expanding inner wave and why are there new generations of stars? The chronological approach? From the eternal to the very temporal and in the temporal from the Universal to the personal. The very temporal and the personal meet in our consciousness. In the speed of thought we find the very temporal. This of what is thought make us one or two.

Harbal
Posts: 1532
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by Harbal » June 5th, 2015, 4:25 pm

The Beast wrote: This of what is thought make us one or two.
Is this a sort of puzzle where we have to put the words in the right order ourselves?

-- Updated June 5th, 2015, 9:28 pm to add the following --
Conway wrote:Beast

God=essence.
Does it come in a little bottle, like vanilla?

Conway
Posts: 27
Joined: February 3rd, 2015, 11:25 pm

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by Conway » June 5th, 2015, 6:47 pm

Harbal

There is more than one way to define essence. It may be the fragrance of vanilla perfume. Thus the essence of the perfume is vanilla. But I am sure you know that this is not the essence we were talking about. To be more specific, the essence we were referring to is that which is a apriori. Or if you would rather, I would suggest, with no proof. Essence = God = Unified Field = "the wave function". This is getting off topic and I apologize.

Harbal
Posts: 1532
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by Harbal » June 5th, 2015, 7:11 pm

Conway wrote: Or if you would rather, I would suggest, with no proof. Essence = God = Unified Field = "the wave function". This is getting off topic and I apologize.
God is something I have no experience of so I have no idea what God's essence is supposed to be. Vanilla, on the other hand, is something I do have experience of so if you talk about vanilla essence I do know what you mean, although it was it's flavour rather than it's odour that I was thinking of.

-- Updated June 6th, 2015, 12:14 am to add the following --
Harbal wrote:
Conway wrote: Or if you would rather, I would suggest, with no proof. Essence = God = Unified Field = "the wave function". This is getting off topic and I apologize.
God is something I have no experience of so I have no idea what God's essence is supposed to be. Vanilla, on the other hand, is something I do have experience of so if you talk about vanilla essence I do know what you mean, although it was it's flavour rather than it's odour that I was thinking of.
Just to clarify: There is nothing a priori about vanilla, you have to taste it to know what it's like.

Conway
Posts: 27
Joined: February 3rd, 2015, 11:25 pm

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by Conway » June 5th, 2015, 7:34 pm

Lol I should think there is no philosopher in you sir.

"God is something I have no experience of "-How do you really know you have experience's at all?

what is it you taste when you taste vanilla? how do you know that is what you taste? how do you know it's what others taste? What's to say your taste of it, isn't altered in some form unknown to us. Such as a little less salt in the earth at it's birth, might change it's taste all together. All things derive from the a priori. It is only a collective subjective objective beliefs that we as "humans" know anything at all.

-- Updated June 5th, 2015, 7:37 pm to add the following --

o yeah 1 + 1 = 2, is refutable from my perspective.

Harbal
Posts: 1532
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by Harbal » June 6th, 2015, 1:46 am

Conway wrote:Lol I should think there is no philosopher in you sir.
Unlike you and Beast, you mean? Well, I can certainly live with that.

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 773
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by The Beast » June 6th, 2015, 12:05 pm

How so English Middle Age to write about a Beast and a maze. Perhaps we should say Harbal Merlin or Merlin Harbal missing flavors in some cauldron. Favor? … No favor here said Mr. Poe spitting the flavor. It is you Mr. Harbal flavoring your own tale. Where is your tale?

Harbal
Posts: 1532
Joined: May 6th, 2013, 4:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by Harbal » June 6th, 2015, 1:21 pm

The Beast wrote:How so English Middle Age to write about a Beast and a maze. Perhaps we should say Harbal Merlin or Merlin Harbal missing flavors in some cauldron. Favor? … No favor here said Mr. Poe spitting the flavor. It is you Mr. Harbal flavoring your own tale. Where is your tale?
I suppose it's English, Jim, but not as we know it.

User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 773
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by The Beast » June 6th, 2015, 1:45 pm

We all know English, Norman. It is you. Your understanding is poor.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Posts: 5011
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by Spiral Out » June 6th, 2015, 4:06 pm

1 particle + 1 antiparticle = 0, at least theoretically.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

User avatar
Jestr
New Trial Member
Posts: 5
Joined: June 20th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by Jestr » June 21st, 2015, 6:37 pm

In Boolean Algebra, or binary language, 1+1=1, as there can be only a 0 or 1 as sum or product. Works quite well in computing, just not well understood by most familiar with a base 10 system only. Octal and Hex can blow your mind even further...

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4225
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by Scott » June 23rd, 2015, 10:51 am

Jestr wrote:In Boolean Algebra, or binary language, 1+1=1, as there can be only a 0 or 1 as sum or product. Works quite well in computing, just not well understood by most familiar with a base 10 system only. Octal and Hex can blow your mind even further...
Boolean algebra is different than binary algebra, and the latter would correspond to octal or hex systems. In binary, 1 + 1 = 10. Boolean algebra doesn't really involve addition.

Boolean algebra works with truth values not numbers. Thus, it's more accurate to write "true + true = true" in Boolean algebra. Computer programmers or those doing Boolean algebra for some reason may just choose to use one and zeros to represent it, which is convenient because in any computer language I know any integer besides 0 will convert to true during a type conversion. However, even in computer language, when you add the two together you end up with a integer of 2 (which is the same number whether represented as 2 or in binary as 10), which then has to be re-converted back to Boolean to give the desired result of true. A better way in fact to represent it for the layman would not be addition but multiplication (even though Boolean algebra uses neither addition nor multiplication as main operators):

1 * 1 * 1 = 1

1 * 0 * 1 = 0

It's an absurdly complicated way of explaining and representing something that is actual simple and that is widely and easily understood. To illustrate, the sentence, "I am a man and have a unicorn," is false, but only because any one of the elements is false. (I am a man but I don't have a unicorn.) If the statement was true, all its elements and sub-statements would have to be true. The important part is that all of this has nothing to do with the original question in which clearly the context had nothing to do with Boolean truth values. This entire exercise is indicative of a fallacy of equivocation.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
Ambauer
Posts: 65
Joined: October 6th, 2015, 9:59 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Cosmo the Hedonist

Re: Is there a way to refute '1+1 = 2'?

Post by Ambauer » October 8th, 2015, 9:41 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Try this. One lump of clay combined with one lump of clay is just one lump of clay.

PhilX
One lump of clay plus one lump of clay equals twice the amount of clay... 1+1=2 :D

Post Reply