Why 1 + 1 does not equal 2

[Atla]

yawn...
and kindest cigars and very best dishes to your friend Deepak!

Actually in Western philosophy I think it was that guy from your country, Kant, who was one of the major figures arguing for representationalism. Later, 20th century science and psychology thoroughly established it to be the case. Today you're the guy who hangs out with Deepak.

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Actually in Western philosophy I think it was that guy from your country, Kant, who was one of the major figures arguing for representationalism. Later, 20th century science and psychology thoroughly established it to be the case. Today you're the guy who hangs out with Deepak.

Actually I am an Epiphenomenalist. Deepak would be disgusted to put it mildly.
As regards SIre I.Kant, I highly appreciated that he effectively declared space and time for imaginary, and I vividly regret that I can not talk to him. Sure is, he would be disgusted that I declared he's god for yet another Reference = imaginary non causal inside-brain-effect = mere-symptom of the activity in the brain = epiphenomenon

[Atla]

Naive realism combined with epiphenomenalism?

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Naive realism combined with epiphenomenalism?

Pssssssst... don't tell nobody...
I do not now what "naive realism" means
All that I know is that the brain allocates the imaginary (inside brain effect = Reference) where the Referent is (outside the brain) but again I do not know HOW the brain does THIS

[Papus79]

All that I know is that the brain allocates the imaginary (inside brain effect = Reference) where the Referent is (outside the brain) but again I do not know HOW the brain does THIS

I think the battle over a lot of these world views is social clique vs. social clique, like or disgust for one view of consciousness over another has more to do with which figurehead is behind it, more about its social consequences than it's fundamental coherence, it's a bit like choosing a tribe in an MMORPG based on whose outfits are the most stylish or have the reputation for being the most aggressive. Almost no one's 'really' trying to figure much out past that and those who are, in trying to convey it to others, have to realize that what they're doing is a maladaptive fetish in other people's eyes - that is caring about truth at all past social utility and whether it helps one socially climb or get their genes into the next generation.

[UniversalAlien]

All that I know is that the brain allocates the imaginary (inside brain effect = Reference) where the Referent is (outside the brain) but again I do not know HOW the brain does THIS

I think the battle over a lot of these world views is social clique vs. social clique, like or disgust for one view of consciousness over another has more to do with which figurehead is behind it, more about its social consequences than it's fundamental coherence, it's a bit like choosing a tribe in an MMORPG based on whose outfits are the most stylish or have the reputation for being the most aggressive. Almost no one's 'really' trying to figure much out past that and those who are, in trying to convey it to others, have to realize that what they're doing is a maladaptive fetish in other people's eyes - that is caring about truth at all past social utility and whether it helps one socially climb or get their genes into the next generation.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Now if only Trump could express it that way maybe the courts and the public would understand why there is voter fraud with no evidence and why Trump has really won the
2020 election.
The unintelligent public can not understand the philosophy of denying reality and creating your own reality - Was it not in the classic dystopian novel "1984" where we were told if the state says
2 + 2 = 5 then 2 + 2 = 5. And why is it that so many people who are supposedly intelligent will accept that if 'Big Brother' {Donald Trump} says that he won the election and the numbers are all fraud, they will accept that he won the election

Sometimes playing with what is known of reality, even the symbols of reality, as if it is philosophical game can be very dangerous

If you are willing to accept that 1 + 1 do not equal 2, then why not accept that Donald Trump won election 2020 even if had less votes then his opponent in both popular and electoral numbers

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

The unintelligent public can not understand the philosophy of denying reality and creating your own reality -

Was it not in the classic dystopian novel "1984" where we were told if the state says 2 + 2 = 5 then 2 + 2 = 5.

And why is it that so many people who are supposedly intelligent will accept that if 'Big Brother' {Donald Trump} says that he won the election and the numbers are all fraud, they will accept that he won the election

Sometimes playing with what is known of reality, even the symbols of reality, as if it is philosophical game can be very dangerous

If you are willing to accept that 1 + 1 do not equal 2, then why not accept that Donald Trump won election 2020 even if had less votes then his opponent in both popular and electoral numbers

The assertion "1 + 1 = 2" is there, bcz someone said so in the first place. And, when everybody agreed, the assertion was or became extreeeeeemely useful.The assertion of a societal agreement was at the root of the usefulness of the assertion.
Had someone asserted "1 + 1 = 3" in the first place, everybody would have agreed, and the assertion would have become useful and the assertion "1 + 1 = 2" would be (be deemed) "false"

[Papus79]

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Now if only Trump could express it that way maybe the courts and the public would understand why there is voter fraud with no evidence and why Trump has really won the
2020 election.

Regrettably I'm neck deep in family and friends who watch News Max. The harsh side of this - while there's no way there was enough voter fraud to win Trump the election Pennsylvania and Michigan were particularly egregious. If Biden should have won anyway they handed Trump a huge excuse to chase this thing out through January. I think if a state does commit voter fraud both parties should make an example of them rather than egging them on if it helps 'their guy win'. The world is filled with countries who can't handle free and open elections, we really shouldn't want to have that or much else in common with them.

The unintelligent public can not understand the philosophy of denying reality and creating your own reality - Was it not in the classic dystopian novel "1984" where we were told if the state says
2 + 2 = 5 then 2 + 2 = 5. And why is it that so many people who are supposedly intelligent will accept that if 'Big Brother' {Donald Trump} says that he won the election and the numbers are all fraud, they will accept that he won the election

It's the same way we've watched both sides take turns saying one to the other 'Russia!', reply 'Conspiracy!'. 'Muh team is perfect, yours is evil - cuz they're the Steelers!'. IMHO these are gibbering apes, I'm not sure I'd put them in charge of a driveway lemonade stand.

What I actually had in mind with this comment in part as well though - people's conclusions about 'consciousness in matter' has far more to do with their personal style, or at least their moral prohibitions, than it does having actually coherent ideas. A lot of people who proclaim 'I'm a materialist' or 'I'm a physicalist' quite often will make all kinds of claims that push consciousness down the chain far enough, or by trying to dismiss it make it ubiquitous, that it's a bit like saying 'Yess.... I'll admit it if my life depends on it... I'm a panpsychist but I really really hate doped-up hippies, and I shower, and I work, and I'm not perpetually stoned on acid or posting new age enlightenment memes, so don't you dare call me that - I'm a man of science and reason so call me something more socially authoritative and better, because...well... just look at me - I don't have Birkenstocks and a man-bun!'.

That sort of thing is just what human apes do. Reputation uber alis, conformity uber alis, social climbing uber-alis. Image is everything.

Sometimes playing with what is known of reality, even the symbols of reality, as if it is philosophical game can be very dangerous

If you are willing to accept that 1 + 1 do not equal 2, then why not accept that Donald Trump won election 2020 even if had less votes then his opponent in both popular and electoral numbers

Or that epistemic sufficiency and science are 'whiteness' and that you 'can't tear down the master's house with the master's tools'.

I think woke is trying to describe what's come to be called Wetiko in Native American and subsequently new age circles, it's better referred to as Darwinian game theory taking up a life of its own and telling us who to be in order to not be eaten alive by our fellow man.

There was another thread where I brought up the issue of people not wanting to get into the mess of actually fixing problems, it's way too much work, and far more gratifying to just have a good witch hunt (ie. open a can of Rene Girard's scapegoating). It's part of why tribalism and single-issue utopian fixes are far more popular, probably always will be, than the complex systems person speaking nerd-ese and trying to account for all of the angles.

[UniversalAlien]

The assertion "1 + 1 = 2" is there, bcz someone said so in the first place. And, when everybody agreed, the assertion was or became extreeeeeemely useful.The assertion of a societal agreement was at the root of the usefulness of the assertion.
Had someone asserted "1 + 1 = 3" in the first place, everybody would have agreed, and the assertion would have become useful and the assertion "1 + 1 = 2" would be (be deemed) "false"

Not quite that simple. It worked because that mathematical paradigm worked - And not only for one equation that 1 plus 1 equals 2 - It becomes part of a mathematical system that works more often than not.

Before Einstein's Relativity Theory Newtonian Theory was fine, and often still works in most circumstances
- Einstein trumped Newton and other paradigms of the then valid science.

If you could develop a system where 1 + 1 = 3 and then fit it into system of math and logic that consistenlhy works then yes 1 + 1 could equal 3. But consider you would be altering all of perceptual and intellectual reality. Yes, I do consider and believe there is no absolute reality - But a reality where one plus one equals three is hard to imagine even with my broad sense of imaginable realities.

[UniversalAlien]

..........There was another thread where I brought up the issue of people not wanting to get into the mess of actually fixing problems, it's way too much work, and far more gratifying to just have a good witch hunt (ie. open a can of Rene Girard's scapegoating). It's part of why tribalism and single-issue utopian fixes are far more popular, probably always will be, than the complex systems person speaking nerd-ese and trying to account for all of the angles.

True - But it's somewhat more complicated.
Consider all the angles to any problem and many solutions may appear, some better than others
and which are the better solutions are still relative to who wants what solution for what reason.

"single-issue utopian fixes" may work for some but not others
- And how often will the utopian fix turn into a dystopian nightmare {ie. Stalinist style Communism}

Flash forward to now and US politics still requires dividing the country into Liberals and Conservatives
Some {including me} believe this is deliberate - Keeping the politicians at endless war with each other so little of value can be done - And when solutions occur neither side is happy with the solution.
Another reason why "why tribalism and single-issue utopian fixes are far more popular".

[Hans-Werner Hammen]

Not quite that simple. It worked because that mathematical paradigm worked - And not only for one equation that 1 plus 1 equals 2 - It becomes part of a mathematical system that works more often than not.

Before Einstein's Relativity Theory Newtonian Theory was fine, and often still works in most circumstances
- Einstein trumped Newton and other paradigms of the then valid science.

If you could develop a system where 1 + 1 = 3 and then fit it into system of math and logic that consistenlhy works then yes 1 + 1 could equal 3. But consider you would be altering all of perceptual and intellectual reality. Yes, I do consider and believe there is no absolute reality - But a reality where one plus one equals three is hard to imagine even with my broad sense of imaginable realities.

I disagree. It would take BUT a proclaimed order of symbols of numbers, of 1, 3, 2, 4 and so forth -
and 1 + 1 = 3 as well as 1 + 3 = 2 and so forth would be correct on the spot.
In other words your thought process was WAYZZZZ ! too complicated, and it missed a very simple point namely the arbitrary order of manmade symbols.

[UniversalAlien]

I disagree. It would take BUT a proclaimed order of symbols of numbers, of 1, 3, 2, 4 and so forth -
and 1 + 1 = 3 as well as 1 + 3 = 2 and so forth would be correct on the spot.
In other words your thought process was WAYZZZZ ! too complicated, and it missed a very simple point namely the arbitrary order of manmade symbols.

That is what I meant: "If you could develop a system where 1 + 1 = 3 and then fit it into system of math and logic that consistently works then yes 1 + 1 could equal 3."

BUT - Even with current accepted math we already do have a reality where 1 + 1 = 3.
Biological reproduction produces a one plus one equals three {or more}.
Since mathematical symbols developed out of Human perceptions of reality,
some circumstance do in fact yield 1 + 1 = 3

[Papus79]

Quick question for anyone whose claiming that integers aren't a real thing:

Are you familiar at all with the Riemann hypothesis? If so Do you have any thoughts on how the works of Gauss, Euler, and Reimann lead us to such a circuitous thing as finding prime numbers by packing complex numbers into Euler's zeta function?

[Anupam]

In ur opinion 1=1 false empirically. -true
In reality we can't measure everything so details we have to take approximation. Example- π(pi)

[GrayArea]

Reality is a slippery slope indeed. And assumptions are just that. It seems unlikely that the first math equation we are taught, 1 + 1 = 2, is only correct under a specific set of assumptions that are easily proven false.

I believe everyone reading this can agree that all points in the Universe are unique, that is, each occupies a space that is subject to unique forces. Therefore, each object, no matter how similar it may appear to another, is not similar.

Therefore, how can "2" of anything exist?

Counting something and counting another something which seemingly makes 1 + 1 = 2, is merely a process of reality instead of an answer to something. For example, combining two water droplets to make 1 + 1 = 1 is also a process of reality and not an answer. Everything is a process of existence, and there is no set answer because there are so many ways to interpret what "1" is..