Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can we have an honest discussion about science and God?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Many of us are sick of poisoned wells. Anyway, here’s this:


That was their argument because, until recent years, there was not, in the strictest sense, the kind of evidence science requires. To be sure, there were claims of such evidence, but however sincere those claims may have been, they were not persuasive enough to convince an honest skeptic. The gold standard of science, stated informally, is that a new paradigm is accepted when the evidence is solid enough to convince an objective, unbiased, and qualified person.

It turns out that scientists are as biased as anyone else. Their biases are being exposed by an increasing number of younger, more open-minded scientists. These newcomers are breaking free of the unscientific philosophy, the doctrine of physicalism, that presently dominates their disciplines. They are willing to challenge the notion that nothing exists except the physical. The old guard is resisting. The entrenched establishment is making ever less credible excuses for holding on to its resolute belief that only the physical exists.

Robert Arvay, “Old-guard scientists reveal their biases as new scientists suggest evidence for God” at American Thinker

Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4? That puts you on one side of a growing cultural divide.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

and

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Comments
KF, Wikipedia talks about non-planar triangles also, and for some people (airplane pilots or even large-scale surveyors), "standard discourse" would take spherical geometry into account. Yes, virtually all the time in real-world applications or general discussion people are referring to planar triangles. But from the point of view of the philosophy of math, the fact that those follow from an assumption that as viable alternatives is an important fact. And what this has to do with Critical race theory is absolutely beyond me, but I am also not at all interested in your thoughts about that. I've seen the arguments here in many posts, and they just don't have anything to do with math itself.Viola Lee
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Thanks for your reply, Vivid, and good luck with your family emergency. And yes, I read Flatland ages ago, and it's a good introduction to some ideas about dimensionality.Viola Lee
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
VL, First, kindly see the just above to SA i/l/o my already linked paper. Next, the what is a triangle example actually inadvertently highlights a key point: implicit context and how that is subject to rationalisation and rhetoric, thus the sort of games Critical Theorists and activists play. That oh so humble source, Wiki, against ideological bent:
A triangle is a polygon [Insert, further per link: "In geometry, a polygon is a plane figure that is described by a finite number of straight line segments connected to form a closed polygonal chain or polygonal circuit."] with three edges and three vertices. It is one of the basic shapes in geometry. A triangle with vertices A, B, and C is denoted . . . triangle ABC.[1] In Euclidean geometry, any three points, when non-collinear, determine a unique triangle and simultaneously, a unique plane (i.e. a two-dimensional Euclidean space). In other words, there is only one plane that contains that triangle, and every triangle is contained in some plane. If the entire geometry is only the Euclidean plane, there is only one plane and all triangles are contained in it; however, in higher-dimensional Euclidean spaces, this is no longer true. This article is about triangles in Euclidean geometry, and in particular, the Euclidean plane, except where otherwise noted.
The implication is, that unless otherwise specified for non-standard discourse, triangle denotes a planar figure with three straight intersecting sides or edges, forming the three vertices, i.e. angles. To develop algebraically, carry the above to SA to the point of a reals continuum. Apply j* a/c rot by a right angle, twice, sweeping a plane. Which we can denote 0x, j*0x --> y, thence go y = m*x + c to describe a straight line unambiguously. Already, j*0x -->y has defined the second leg of an isosceles triangle on 0, x, y, thus has defined a flat plane, with all that comes with such. Where a straight line is a unidirectional succession or extension of points in a continuum with a particular direction relative to an origin, the 0x reals line being the classic example, and yes vectros lurk everywhere. This is a logic model world. In that world triangles with angle sum two right angles are readily defined. Likewise that lines with same slope relative to 0x, m, will be at uniform separation for any given x, i.e. are parallel, indicating a flat space. This can readily be extended to three dimensions. So, is this logic model world the only possible one? No, as Gauss et al discovered. Surface of a sphere will in the large diverge though in the small, it is close enough that it suggests a Euclidean space, our common sense space. For the cosmos, geometry becomes a material issue per Relativity, masses warp spacetime. None of this undermines that a Euclidean space is a valid logic-model world with structural, quantitative patterns that are intelligible to reasoned investigation and in some cases can be empirically discovered through local observation. However, that process is vulnerable to Critical Theory attack. As is beginning. KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
SA, LoI is antecedent to proof, we must recognise distinction to exist much less think and reason. I clip from Paul, who was likely using a standard didactic ABC example to hammer home the exposure of flaws in thought he was addressing, next chapter he used LNC BTW, to overturn a chain of absurd implications:
1 Cor 14:7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. [ESV]
My argument in my linked paper (it's short) is that a possible world W, to be distinct from some close neighbour W' has to have some aspect A that marks the distinction, in effect W - W' = A. So we partition W = {A|~A} yielding nil in the dichotomy |, two distinct unities, so 0,1,2 immediately by inspection. From such by construction, {} -->0. {0} -->1, {0,1} -->2 then extending without limit {0,1,2 . . .k} ->k+1, etc finally {0,1, 2 . . .} --> w, first established transfinite ordinal. From this, additive inverses gives integers [already, vectors], then ratios rationals then infinite sum of real and fractional parts, reals, onward complex through the j rotation operator. Beyond, we extend to hyperreals etc, bringing in especially infinitesimals and of course transfinites. In this context, the undifferentiated world is simply one possible world. That being in effect a sufficiently complete description in propositions of how this or another world in principle could be actualised. Further to this, mathematical systems lay out logic-model possible worlds. Math being best understood as the study of the logic of structure and quantity. In which context, the study of part is where critical theory can corrupt. The actual structure is built in. KFkairosfocus
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
VL Briefly “If it is known that a proposition must either be either true or false, such as propositions in math or symbolic logic, then if it cannot be untrue it must be true, because those are the only two possibilities.” Agreed and now I understand your answer to my question. Maybe this will help as to why I use “untrue” In one of my posts I referenced that evidently in a 5 dimensional world you could turn a basketball inside out without breaking the plane of the sphere but we don’t exist in a five dimensional world. So in our world it is not possible ( true) to do this but in a extra dimensional world it is not untrue. I do think you do make a fair point and I am nit picking but I gotta think on it some more. Logic cannot tell us what is true only what is untrue. Are you familiar with the book “Flatland” ? I’ve been dealing with a family emergency so I am just popping in. and wanted at least give you a brief response. I was aware about triangles but you put it in very understandable terms. I am afraid when it comes to math you are way above my pay grade Vividvividbleau
January 1, 2021
January
01
Jan
1
01
2021
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
Vividbleau @115 Exactly. Viola Lee @124
The question “are there 180° in a triangle” has no answer in of itself. The answer is neither Yes or No without a qualifier.
Great point! This is also why all non-trivial True-False questions are false at a deep-enough level. But objective truth is now considered racist and misogynistic. Ultimately, political power is all about coercion. As Mao said in a Communist Party meeting, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” When you face an angry mob or supervisor, what do you imagine the response will be when you inform them that planar triangles enclose a total of 180 degrees? Silver Asiatic @121, Your point came across, and you’re most welcome. :-) Hope you all have a great new year, regardless. -QQuerius
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
Let me work backwards. Vivid, you write, "I think “cannot be untrue “is different from “ must be true". I don't undestand that, but I'll try to explain what it might mean, and then maybe you can clarify. If it is known that a proposition must either be either true or false, such as propositions in math or symbolic logic, then if it cannot be untrue it must be true, because those are the only two possibilities. Do you agree with this? Are you thinking about some type of proposition other than math and logic? Can you give an example, perhaps of a statement that "cannot be untrue" but is nevertheless not necessarily true? As to triangles, I'll tell a famous math story. Pardon me if you know all this, but I'll keep it short. Euclid built all of classical (what we now call Euclidean) geometry starting from a few undefined terms and five famous axioms (or postulates). The 5th postulate was about the existence of a single, unique line parallel to a given line through a given point. Since this postulates what happens at an infinite distance (the two lines never intersect), for centuries people were concerned that this wasn't as obvious as the rest of the foundations of geometry. Using this postulate we can prove that there are 180° in a triangle. Centuries later, as often happens in math, some people decided experiment and replace the Parallel Postulate, as it is called, with some alternativea: either there is no parallel line through the given point or there are an infinite number. It turns out that each of those not only produces a geometry as fully consistent and full-bodied as Euclidean geometry, but that these non-Euclidean geometries are applicable to curved surfaces, as opposed to the flat surface of Euclidean geometry. One produces a geometry of a positively curved surface, like a sphere, and the other of a negatively curved surface like a saddle. On a positively curved surface, there are more than 180° in a triangle, and on a negatively curved surface, there are less than 180° So if one asks "are there 180° in a triangle" (or more strongly, is it objectively true that there are 180° in a triangle), the answer has to be that it depends on which geometrical system you are in, or more specifically, which parallel postulate you are using. Within each system the appropriate conclusion is absolutely true, and I consider that an objective truth. Anyone who understands the foundation of the system and the logical techniques used within it will see the truth of the appropriate statement. However, if someone protests that there's got to be an answer to the question without reference to a particular geometry, the response is that there isn't any. The question "are there 180° in a triangle" has no answer in of itself. The answer is neither Yes or No without a qualifier. This is an example of what I have been calling a "mathematical world". Once you establish the foundation, which always involves some choices that aren't provable, you can be successful lead to a fruitful set of conclusions that are indubitably (hence objective, in my thinking) true in that system. To talk about whether they are true "outside" the system is not a meaningful question. On the other hand, if you are talking about a real world of some kind of space, then the question "are there 180° in a triangle" can be considered an experimental question about the curvature of the surface you are on. Airplane pilots and ships on the ocean routinely use spherical geometry, which has many different theorems than Euclidean plane geometry. And modern theories about the curvature of space use these ideas all the time. Long ago the famous mathematician Gauss tried to measure the angles between three mountain peaks in Europe to see if the angles added up to 180° or not, but there was no way to get sufficient accuracy to draw any conclusions. So the question of interest is a mathematical statement "objectively true". In the world of mathematic, facts are either true or false, and if they are true, they are objectively so: there is no room for subjective opinions about the facts of math! I hope some of this explain the points I've been making better, or stimulates some questions or comments on your part.Viola Lee
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
VL I know that ideas have far reaching consequences and sometimes what you think is antagonistic is more me being combative. I do admit I can be very sarcastic though. “If you wish, I can explain why the example about triangles is relevant to this discussion of both “can’t be untrue” (which I think is no different than “must be true”) and the issue of what is meant by “possible worlds.” I think “cannot be untrue “is different from “ must be true” Regarding triangles I am interested and I do wish. Vividvividbleau
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Thanks, Vivid. I'm not sure that I could say much more than what I've said, so let me repeat a few things, and perhaps you could tell me more specifically what is unclear. These are quotes from previous posts, edited a bit and leaving out all my questions about triangles.
If you accept the premises that are the foundation of the number system (that there is a distinct unit “one”, and every unit has a successor that is “one more”), then 2 + 2 = 4 cannot be untrue. It is total speculation, but my bet would be that if there are intelligent beings any place in the universe, they will have developed an analogous fact, although of course words and symbols will be different. I really can’t think about “all possible worlds”. As Q and Rovelli above have suggested, if there were some world that was a totally monistic whole, with no individual entities of any sort, then 2 + 2 = 4 wouldn’t apply.
and
I don’t think it’s clear what “all possible worlds” means. If you mean some kind of other universe, I can imagine (and I got this idea from the physicist Carlo Rovelli) a universe that is completely undifferentiated so that there are no individual elements of any kind, and no intelligent beings of any kind. In such a world the concepts embodied in 2 + 2 = 4 would just not apply. It wouldn’t be true or untrue: it would just be meaningless. ... One issue that may be confusing our discussion is that I think you are talking about the physical universe while I am talking about the “universe” of pure mathematics: logically constructed systems of clearly defined abstract concepts. And perhaps you could explain more about what you mean by all possible worlds? Are you talking about actual “worlds” such as our physical universe, or are you talking about abstract symbolic “worlds” such as mathematical systems?
If you wish, I can explain why the example about triangles is relevant to this discussion of both "can't be untrue" (which I think is no different than "must be true") and the issue of what is meant by "possible worlds."Viola Lee
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Q 113 Thank you! I'm never sure if my point came across well or not - so I appreciate the validation!!Silver Asiatic
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
VL “Vivid, You asked a question back at 55 and I responded. You asked me further questions, to which I responded.” Your response was unclear and I will ask this a 3rd time “ I gave a definition and asked you a question which frankly I am still unclear on your answer and I asked for clarification because you seem to be saying there are possible worlds 2+2=4 is untrue.?” “But it does seem to me that you look for opportunities to be antagonistic,” I think there is some truth to that, I will try to do better Vividvividbleau
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Vivid, You asked a question back at 55 and I responded. You asked me further questions, to which I responded. Given that this is a discussion forum I don't think it is unreasonable to ask questions back in order to have a discussion. It's pretty clear that that is not something you want to do. Also, when I wrote, "You have said “objective” means “true in this and any possible world, you replied, "No I did not say that." I just went back and looked: what you wrote was "It cannot not be untrue in this world or any other possible world." That could be phrased, I think as, "must be true ...", but I just went from memory. And I am very aware that no one is obligated to respond, and I also think that asking a question is not a demand. But it does seem to me that you look for opportunities to be antagonistic, which doesn't make responding to you very fruitful. I should have known better, but I'm interested in the subject so I tried to discussion it. My bad.Viola Lee
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
VL “You have said “objective” means “true in this and any possible world.” “ No I did not say that. Vividvividbleau
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
VL “And you seem to have not answered my question. You have said “objective” means “true in this and any possible world.” Just referencing unspecified things that Jerry, SA, and I have said doesn’t clearly answer the question: Does “there are 180° in a triangle” meet your criteria?” Why should I answer your question? I have made no claims regarding triangles nor 2+ 2 = 4 meeting any particular criteria, I gave a definition and asked you a question which frankly I am still unclear on your answer and I asked for clarification because you seem to be saying there are possible worlds 2+2=4 is untrue. You act as if I am obligated to respond to your commands, sorry no. Vividvividbleau
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
No, Vivid, I was NOT "addressing the ideas of Critical Theory as it relates to math." I was specifically saying that the politics and the actual math are separate items. You want to combine them, but I am not addressing the socio-political issues at all. But we'll have to leave it at that. And you seem to have not answered my question. You have said "objective" means "true in this and any possible world." Just referencing unspecified things that Jerry, SA, and I have said doesn't clearly answer the question: Does "there are 180° in a triangle" meet your criteria?Viola Lee
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Q “They will replace those science departments with people of their choice.” Or subject them to Chinese struggle sessions. Vividvividbleau
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
VL “Following my attempt to further the discussion with some more of my thoughts, would you answer my question: “Is it objectively true that there are 180° in a triangle?” Viola my point was addressing the ideas of Critical Theory as it relates to math. I posted a link to show that indeed Critical Theory is making inroads on math and science and indeed Critical theorists do indeed deny that 2+ 2=4. My additional point is that math and science will not , nor is it, escaping the ramifications of Critical Theory which is destructive to science, that’s it. https://newdiscourses.com/2020/08/2-plus-2-never-equals-5/ Regarding 180 degree triangles I do not disagree with what you , SA, or Jerry have written about them Vividvividbleau
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
JVL @99,
Uh huh. IF anyone is actually doing that or considering doing that it will be laughed out of every hard science department on the planet.
They will replace those science departments with people of their choice. “We don’t need doctors, we need communist doctors.” – Mao Tse-Tung “We don’t need science professors, we need Woke science professors.” – 2020 and on
Don’t worry about the stupid things you think someone might do. Why don’t you talk with those people and find out what they really want?
Simple. They want to be in power. They want everything you have and for you to be their slave forever in perpetual payment for their victimhood, real or imagined. They will do or say anything to get that power. “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” – George Orwell, 1984 Silver Asiatic @110 and 111, Nicely stated!
Treating them the same way means treating them with love, honesty and respect.
Yes, indeed. Nevertheless, blinded by their hatred, they will reject the people who treat them equitably (even "silence is violence") and then finally go after each other in an orgy of Woke autophagy similar to the excesses of the French Revolution. And this is why it's important for them to remove the lessons of history. -QQuerius
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
KF
That comes from the force of the law of identity, and it readily explains Wigner’s observation on the power of Math
Every atheist who accepts math, accepts the Law of Identity - an unproven axiom, the origin of which cannot be sustained by materialism. From the Law of Identity, we arrive at the values of: Being vs non-being Reality vs non-reality Truth vs falsehood Good vs evil Those are the elements implanted in the rational soul of human beings at their creation by God. Starting from the Law of Identity - which must be affirmed, not proven, in order for any logical mathematics to exist. (you could have illogical mathematics possibly).Silver Asiatic
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Viola Lee
So the 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4 business is just being used as a metaphor and symbol of a political idea, and is not really about math.
It's a representation of a philosophical idea. That's what math is. Math only works under certain philosophical assumptions. Change those assumptions and 2+2 does not equal 4. That's the point here. People trust math and science and think those intellectual methods are necessarily a part of society but they're not. They can be destroyed or removed. People can try to affirm an irrational social foundation (although I agree it is impossible to completely affirm an irrational structure). I think we see it here continually among materialist-atheists. They affirm an irrational foundation. Then they insist that 2+2 must necessarily equal 4. But if your foundation undercuts and destroys logic - when it's philosophically irrational, then the math has no foundation.Silver Asiatic
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
JVL
Why not teach children that all people should be treated fairly and equally regardless of race, creed, faith, sexual orientation, etc? Isn’t that they way it should be? And I do not understand how that can possibly hurt you or change your own personal morals and norms.
It's an attack against my culture and my moral norms. It's corrupted and evil behavior being taught. So, it does hurt me, my life, my family very much - it's a deep attack on what I hold as sacred and it's an assault on the cultural norms that I uphold. So, I should have the right to oppose it - just as they supposedly have the right to attack.
Your opinion is just as valuable as anyone else’s but you can’t expect to impose your own personal views on everyone else.
LGBT cannot expect to impose their personal views on me and on those who agree with me.
Again, what is wrong with treating everyone the same way, granting them the same legal privileges and rights? What harm does that do?
Treating them the same way means treating them with love, honesty and respect. We don't lie to them and ignore the damage they are doing to themselves and to society. If they are wrong, we correct them - that is what I would expect someone to do for me - to help me. So, the transgender movement is wrong. I treat them fairly by trying to stop the evil they are doing, and this will be the best way I can help them turn around and walk in the right path. That's treating everyone fairly and honestly. Ignoring their sins and public evils is unjust and unfair.Silver Asiatic
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
BA77, Krauss, I am ashamed to acknowledge, is a Physicist. KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
VL, kindly see here, once a distinct possible world is on the table, a lot of Math is embedded as framework to that, including the case being discussed by properties of 2, 4 and meaning of + and =. That comes from the force of the law of identity, and it readily explains Wigner's observation on the power of Math. KF PS, BTW, I have now taken excerpts and made time indexed notes from the GA hearing. This SHOULD have been headline news across the US but I suspect it was hardly noted. The overall picture reflects what has been built up over weeks and it points decisively to a seriously tainted election.kairosfocus
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
"I proudly wear a T-shirt that says 2 + 2 = 5 for large values of two" Lawrence Krauss, a militant atheist, wears that T-shirt in all seriousness, not as a joke,,, Lawrence Krauss Contradicts HImself by Denying Logic (2+2=5?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so0TOp1GMQEbornagain77
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Jerry writes, "I can’t believe that anyone here actually believes 2+2 is not equal to 4. So what is the conflict? But it goes to show that we will argue over misrepresentations anytime we want." I completely agree. He also writes, "By the way triangles don’t exist in the real world and neither does a degree or a straight line. They only exist in our minds but acting like these concepts do actually have physical reality are extremely useful tools for dealing with the real world." I agree with that also, although I would add "perfect" to triangles, straight lines, etc. The physical world is imperfect and the math is perfect, but the math works as a model for the world. That has been a source of both usefulness and wonder since the dawn of history.Viola Lee
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
JVL being doxxed is when someone finds and takes your personal info, all of it, and leaks it all over social media, it’s usually sensitive info and they often tell everyone where you live, your phone number, your ssn, and then say how you are a racist or bigot What Happens next is people start attacking this person because they know where they live they’ll have things like having the swat team called over to their house due to suspected drug trafficking Often something terrible will happen to them it will also ruin their career and it’s like cancer on the web This has been something that has been deployed by SJW’s for quite some time “social justice warriors”AaronS1978
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
I proudly wear a T-shirt that says
2 + 2 = 5 for large values of two
A couple people asked me if I actually believe this. I had to tell them I was mocking those who espouse a subjective explanation for the world. I can’t believe that anyone here actually believes 2+2 is not equal to 4. So what is the conflict? But it goes to show that we will argue over misrepresentations anytime we want. By the way triangles don’t exist in the real world and neither does a degree or a straight line. They only exist in our minds but acting like these concepts do actually have physical reality are extremely useful tools for dealing with the real world. The expression “all possible worlds” could mean anything, even worlds where the basic laws of physic may not exist or ones where there are other laws that operate. It could also mean any world where there were different values to the basic laws of physics. This latter has led to the multiverse theory in order to combat the fine tuning hypothesis as a proof there is a God. Of course the greatest enigma of all is why does anything exist?jerry
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
re 94 to Vivid. It would clarify our understanding of what we each mean if you would answer my question, as I have tried to answer yours.
Is it objectively true that there are 180° in a triangle?
But to answer you, I don't think it's clear what "all possible worlds" means. If you mean some kind of other universe, I can imagine (and I got this idea from the physicist Carlo Rovelli) a universe that is completely undifferentiated so that there are no individual elements of any kind, and no intelligent beings of any kind. In such a world the concepts embodied in 2 + 2 = 4 would just not apply. It wouldn't be true or untrue: it would just be meaningless. As I have said, and I would be interested if you would comment on this statement, the truth of 2 + 2 + 4 is dependent upon a few basic axioms: if you assume, as an axiom, that a unit exists and that each unit has a successor that is one unit more, than 2 + 2 = 4 is absolutely true. One issue that may be confusing our discussion is that I think you are talking about the physical universe while I am talking about the "universe" of pure mathematics: logically constructed systems of clearly defined abstract concepts. Following my attempt to further the discussion with some more of my thoughts, would you answer my question: "Is it objectively true that there are 180° in a triangle?" And perhaps you could explain more about what you mean by all possible worlds? Are you talking about actual "worlds" such as our physical universe, or are you talking about abstract symbolic "worlds" such as mathematical systems?Viola Lee
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
So the 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4 business is just being used as a metaphor and symbol of a political idea, and is not really about math. I agree with that.Viola Lee
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
VL & JVL, on fad again, the problem is, that critical theories are part of a totalitarian system. They intend to take it all over under dictatorial control of a lawless ideological oligarchy. That's the point of the 1984 exchange over 2 + 2 and what the party wants to be acknowledged. I embedded the vid in my current live event post, why not watch. KFkairosfocus
December 31, 2020
December
12
Dec
31
31
2020
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply