-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It is inaccurate to say that four people = one barber shop quartet? That fifty pennies = one roll? That is inaccurate?
3+3=God?
Posts
Total:
85
-->
@secularmerlin
that's not what any of this is about, least common denominator.
It is inaccurate to say that four people
people=plural
reduced to person, one person plus one person = two people
if you'd like to reduce the 3+3 to 1+1=2 it still applies and changes nothing. we can even go to 0+0=0 if you like, again, changes nothing
you are speaking in plural objects which isn't the same, apples and orange make fruit juice but that doesn't make them interchangeable.
1+1+1+1..50 times = 1 roll
so 1+1+1..50 times total will always equal 50, you can call it a roll, pack, whatever but it is what it is and adding those in that amount will always equal 50, always will, always has and will never be anything else.
-->
@Sum1hugme
You redefined 0.5 as 1....Not me.
1 is merely a base unit
And 3 is a group of three base units of 1
0.5 also becomes a base unit as defined by yourself
So we can define 0.5 0.5 0.5 as 3 base units.
Which is essentially 3 base units of 1.
I reiterate, that I'm simply pointing out that numbers are only relevant to an intellectual observer, and can easily be manipulated......As demonstrated.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Context is everything
-->
@secularmerlin
absolutely, it's interesting that with all the languages with different meanings to words etc, math is the only constant, kind of strange to think about.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So are you suggesting that GOD is two groups of 3 individual units of 1.
What should I conclude from that?
-->
@zedvictor4
We already believe in a concept that is eternal from the beginning of time, never changes and is true everywhere. If anything it throws a monkey wrench into the materialist way of thinking.
This orderly universe with universal laws doesn't appear to have come from chaos which would be the big bang. It strongly, not definitively points to an intelligent design.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If anything it throws a monkey wrench into the materialist way of thinking.
Why?
This orderly universe with universal laws doesn't appear to have come from chaos which would be the big bang.
Why would you say that? The Big Bang is not a description of what produced natural laws, but a description of the start of the universe - and it’s not really “chaos” in the way you mean it - other than a description of a highly energetic state.
It strongly, not definitively points to an intelligent design.
Why?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That's simply your unqualified opinion.
And your "belief".
And not the belief of "we".
The evolution of matter, strongly suggests order from chaos and therefore a design of physical inevitability.
Unfortunately, GOD hypotheses and the BIG BOOM both start at 1 with no explanation of 0.
So in spite of what "we" might believe, "we" do not actually have an answer.
And if 3 represented 11 individual units, then 3+3 might equal 42.
It just so happens that intelligent beings have devised a counting system whereby 3+3 is recognised as equalling 6.
And 3+3= GOD is an amalgamation of a recognised counting system and an insubstantial creation hypothesis.....Because we can.
-->
@zedvictor4
Again if we simply it to 1+1=2 it doesn't change the point. You don't believe math is a concept?
I never claimed to be qualified so no idea why you felt the need to add that.
We as in the general population of the world believes in math or do you have evidence to the contrary?
Afaik us belivers in math belive that one whole object plus another whole object which are kept whole and independent equals two of the same. I haven't seen proof to contradict that. Changing by reduction, division etc is changing the facts,objects,formula and doesn't disprove it.
-->
@Ramshutu
Just my philosophical opinions. Me getting too far into the weeds. Which is what most of these topics are as many can't be proven nor disproven.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I’m not asking for you to provide evidence or proof of anything; simply the logic you’re using to conclude that maths throws a spanner into materialist thinking; or that lead you to think the Big Bang “caused” maths; or why the existence of maths indicates intelligent design .
-->
@Ramshutu
But they are describing different thing - one is a physical object (the table), the other is a quantity
Not entirely true. For my daughter's third birthday, I made her birthday cake in the shape [a physical thing] of a 3. What is it? A 3. What else would it be called? A cake, also, but what physical property does not have multiple descriptives? Outside the box, man. Get outside your determined box.
-->
@Ramshutu
the Big Bang “caused” maths
Which big bang? The problem with causation, and determinism, is that they limit the cause to a single bang. What if there are repeated bangs; a cycle of them? One bang caused the next. Infinite regression and progression.
Or did the universe determine for you that it's one trip around the block? Limiting, isn't it? Well, some do think our brain is limited. too. I don't.
-->
@Ramshutu
that would be an extremely long conversation. Intelligent design, fine tuning, things of that sort seem more plausible, logical than pure randomness.
Materialism is the idea that everything is either made only of matter or is ultimately dependent upon matter for its existence and nature.
math exists, I think we've established that and that it would still be so even if there are no humans.
Abstract thought is qualitatively different from concrete thought. To understand this, consider a chiliagon. A chiliagon is a closed regular polygon with 1000 sides. It is very simple to understand abstractly. However, it cannot be imagined concretely—it’s not possible to form a clear picture of a chiliagon in your mind.
Furthermore, abstract thought is not merely an assembly of a large number of concrete thoughts—you don’t understand what a chiliagon is simply by imaging a series of many-sided polygons approaching a 1000-sided figure. Thus we see that abstract thought and concrete thought are different types of thought
If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one around does it still make noise?
-->
@949havoc
Which big bang? The problem with causation, and determinism, is that they limit the cause to a single bang
No it doesn’t; that’s just an assertion pulled out of your arse.
What if there are repeated bangs; a cycle of them? One bang caused the next. Infinite regression and progression.Or did the universe determine for you that it's one trip around the block? Limiting, isn't it? Well, some do think our brain is limited. too. I don't.
Dunno; we lack any data, or real theoretical basis to draw any conclusions of any kind. Rendering any possible consideration of “what if’s” little more than rank speculation.
-->
@Ramshutu
No it doesn’t; that’s just an assertion pulled out of your arse... little more than rank speculation
Another strawman. Who says it's an assertion beside your own assertion of laws of physics? You do. Who says it's just rank speculation. My sources, that's wgo, against which you... In spite of my evidence that laws of physics change, and are not immutable... I've offered you plenty of sources supporting my view. You offer... zip. Not even your arse. I thought you were keeping it civil. You said so, but that's a direct accusation, friend, and I will reply. This Christian is not compelled by turned cheeks. It's my arse, aftrer all. You take care of yours, ok?
No it doesn’t; that’s just an assertion pulled out of your arse... little more than rank speculationAnother strawman. Who says it's an assertion beside your own assertion of laws of physics? You do. Who says it's just rank speculation. My sources, that's wgo, against which you... In spite of my evidence that laws of physics change, and are not immutable... I've offered you plenty of sources supporting my view. You offer... zip. Not even your arse. I thought you were keeping it civil. You said so, but that's a direct accusation, friend, and I will reply. This Christian is not compelled by turned cheeks. It's my arse, aftrer all. You take care of yours, ok?
Firstly, learn what a strawman is. Seriously. A strawman is where you misrepresent someone and attack the misrepresentation.
Secondly: I called it an assertion because you made a blanket statement about something, with no attempt at justification or explanation; and which does not clearly follow.
There is nothing about “causation” or “determinism” that implies the universe cannot be cyclical: it seems to be simply a statement you have asserted out of nowhere no processed as true.
Thirdly: you appear to be getting flustered and are mixing up your - and my - arguments, whilst you mangle the two individual parts of my argument - I will reiterate that the second part of what I am saying is that there is no evidence to support or disconfirm a sequence of big bangs, or a multiverse, or any revealing information we can determine about the cause, or nature of the universe outside of the observations of the Big Bang. You certainly have shared absolutely nothing of note with this, and I can only presume your confusing one of the other speculative claims you’ve made and can’t prove. In this respect I will reiterate - we have no clear factual or theoretical basis that allows to hypothesize about the broader nature of the universe - so any claims about what happens outside the universe, or claims about its origin, cyclical or non - is simply speculation.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Math is a construct that conforms to a basic set of rules....Ergo 1+1 = 2
Though as I demonstrated, by using an associated narrative we can easily represent numbers differently, and modify the rules.
So it was confirmed by sum1hugme, that half a length of timber was also 1 length of timber.....Ergo 0.5+0.5 can also be said to equal 2.
Nonetheless:
Math is in the head of the mathematician.
Without the head of the mathematician, things just occur as they do.
-->
@zedvictor4
you attempted to use different numbers in place of the original numbers essentially making your own and different formula which didn't show anything except just that, it did not show how math could be fundamentally changed to arrive at a different outcome.
if you were on the extreme far side of the galaxy and you saw 2 rocks, you'd know them as 2 rocks and 1+1 equal 2. As you say it's in our heads which leads to the rabbit hole of live being just a simulation, if everything depends on the presence of a human, if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it still make noise?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Well, we know that it creates detectable waves.
Just requires a detector, that can also convert waves into appreciable sound.
Just as a detector can convert light into appreciable objects.
But we also know that a rock can be broken down into a million pieces
So we can also SAY that a million = 1.....And therefore 3million+3million = 6
So if the universe was void of life and knowledge......Then what?
-->
@zedvictor4
So if the universe was void of life and knowledge......Then what?
exactly, gets pretty philosophical
if you break something down, it still equals the whole, so regardless of the fractions you break something down to, when added what they equal remains the same, whether they are whole or in fractions.
So we can also SAY that a million = 1.....And therefore 3million+3million = 6
you just adding fractions back to whole numbers, you can't say a million=1 because it doesn't, you can break it down into millionth fractions but that's it.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
One can SAY anything.
That's the beauty of language.
A fraction will remain a mathematical concept, unless it can be perceived as individual parts.
As I demonstrated.
A length of timber cut in HALF....Becomes 2 individual parts.....So convert back to a concept and 0.5 + 0.5 can = 1 and 2.
That's the beauty of internal data manipulation.
-->
@zedvictor4
A person cut into little pieces is no longer a person right? lol
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
For sure.
But the pieces are individual parts.
So even if cut into 100 individual parts.
We can still SAY that 100 = 1.