Why is everyone so sure their personal political views are correct?
Does no one understand the difference between opinion and fact?
>>72924072
Explain the difference.
>>72924277
>opinion: 'a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge'
>fact: 'a thing that is indisputably the case.'
>>72924358
The only thing indisputable is death.
>>72924072
Truth is what I believe to be true
My brain is my gateway to reality, even if I was schizo if I saw an alien walking around its as good as real whether anyone else saw it or not
Which parties don't like Israel and balance budgets and economies and rights and scandals better? The left. The end
When debates between politicians pretty much boil down to "you're wrong fgt" and "no I'm not cunt you are" it's kind of hard not to perceive it in any other way.
>>72924072
Because there are no "wrong" ideologies
Most people think the following
>I am good
>therefore what I believe is good
They then proceed to go and find information that confirms their views and never challenge themselves by understanding the nuanced positions of others.
>>72924540
Tell that to a born again Christian.
>>72924072
>He doesn't base his views entirely on personal communion with the transcendent
Someday I hope you get there, friend.
>>72924540
1+1 equals 2
Energy is neither created nor destroyed
triangles have 3 sides
We live on the planet earth.
Because agrarian feudalism was proven to be the only sustainable model.
>>72926032
>1+1 equals 2
Base 10 isn't all there is to life.
well a lot of left-wing views are tied up with hipster shit, and when lefties smugly act like they have the sole correct opinion its because they're channeling someone they saw reinforce x opinion
>>72924358
>opinion: 'a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge'
>>fact: 'a thing that is indisputably the case.'
Opinion: Bernie iz bestest because he'll pay fir muh tuition!
Fact: you're a cunt.
A special, non-gendered, unique cunt.
But, still a cunt.
>>72925870
You're not very smart are you?
>>72926077
I and I is II
>>72924072
You cannot have a political view based completely on fact. Politics evolves many social issues, which cannot be reduced to facts.
A persons political views are also heavily influenced by their ideology and world view, which may in turn be influenced by facts, but are also the product of many other influence that cannot be reduced to facts.
This isnt to say that facts aren't important, and some political views, such as modern liberalism, are clearly lacking in factual basis, but there is no such thing as a purely factual political stance. Not even close.
>>72926097
You know; you have "chances" or "opportunities" with each post. These each are both our firsts. I said about 7 things. You say one. Not good enough
>>72924072
My political views are based on facts, therefore Trump is going to be your next President!
Deal with it.
>>72926077
1+1=2 in any base you nut
even if you don't represent it with a 2:
b01+b01=b10
which means the same
>>72926116
Goddamnit. I hare Austrians so fucking much.
>>72926027
>saying
>implying you know
>>72924072
Because I'm right and they're wrong.
Everyone is fighting for what they believe in. There is no right answer. It's a hard red pill to swallow but that's all there is to it.
>>72926032
>1+1 equals 2
yes
>Energy is neither created nor destroyed
as far as we know. We know very little. Would not consider this a priori knowledge like the first
>triangles have 3 sides
This is just a definition. Both 'triangles' and 'sides' are ideas we have constructed.
So it is true, but the value of this truth is almost meaningless
>We live on the planet earth.
Similar to the previous one. 'We' is an abstract idea, and 'living' is an idea, with various definitions, some conflicting
>>72926156
You need to read John Locke then compare his ideas with Hobbes. Then examine most leftist nations in history then examine right leaning nations in history.
>>72926032
>2 things which were defined into existence by systems for understanding abstract entities which we relate to real entities, but which are themselves not experienced or necessarily real
>1 thing which depends upon the same system of descriptions above, but also seems to go along with experience most the times (so long as the period of time isn't really really small, in which case it can be violated temporarily)
>one thing which depends on another system of definitions for language, and which we defined into being true
>>72926196
It's not true if you do the addition in a ring that's less than 2 units around.
>>72926379
>This is just a definition. Both 'triangles' and 'sides' are ideas we have constructed.
Triangles and sides would exist regardless of whether or not we named them.
>Similar to the previous one. 'We' is an abstract idea, and 'living' is an idea, with various definitions, some conflicting
See, I knew that someone stupid would try to get into an argument about semantics. While living has a nebulous definition, there's a common base that we both can agree on and it is, as well as the earth, as described above, an object that we've named, existing without regard for our naming conventions and arbitrary ideals.
>>72924072
My views benefit me and people like me.
With over 8 billion impoverished in the world you have to accept that a happiness and an out of control global population are inversely correlated.
Most of the world's an unlivable shit hole, so don't punish those few pockets of livable civilization for keeping their heads above water.
>>72925824
>Truth is what I believe to be true
>t. /pol/
>>72926448
Implying i havent. Im goin to bed. Got work in 4 hours barely any sleep like always
>>72926196
In gated binary digital logic 1+1 = 1
>>72924072
im a centrist, i believe everyone disagrees and we combine all opinions into a center and the sides tug and pull at the center but the center holds, things do not fall apart, unless you live in Africa.
>>72926638
My point in pulling those two apart is to show that all they demonstrate is that we can create a definition for something, and by stating that definition (which we created) we are uttering a 'truth'.
Yes, it is an unshakable truth, but it has relevance only to anyone familiar with the definition.
>a table has four legs
>a bird has wings
>a father has a son
These are just definitional truths. There is no value in them. It is just exercising our ability to create a definition and adhere to said definition.
>Triangles and sides would exist regardless of whether or not we named them
Not necessarily. We may only perceive them as existing, or imagine them to exist. For all we know there could be no physical triangles or objects with sides in the universe. Read Descartes
>>72926032
1+1=1 in Boolean Algebra
Then the universe was never created
Not if you use a portal
>Not living on the moon
>>72924072
I know my opponents are more incorrect.
>>72926846
>>72927062
Yes but in the physical sense, if you have one stone in your hand, and you pick up another stone and place it in the same hand, you now have two stones in your hand.
In this sense, 1 + 1 = 2, always and infallibly.
>>72926187
Good post
>>72926032
on paper 1+1=2, but in real life if I combine 2 similar objects into one it comes out with 1 object If I add 2 drinks into 1 cup I have 1 drink.
We know fuck all about how energy works. We THINK energy can't be created or destroyed.
Triangles are an idea made by human, and as such the definition of "triangle" could change.
We live on a rock that one culture named earth.
>>72927208
What if instead of your hand, you put them in a melting pot and they fuse together, how many stones do you have then?
>>72926032
>We live on the planet earth.
Every single photo and video of space is faked by the media. There's no such thing as a planet, we live in a spherical boundary, outside of that boundary is a thin layer in which the human body cannot survive. Nobody has ever gotten past it, there is nothing as nothing can move through it. Prove me wrong.
>>72927359
You could apply this same logic to having them in one hand, no need for the melting pot
2 stones in hand = 1 lot of two stones
2 stones in pot = 1 melted-together stone
On the surface these look like they are examples of 1 +1 = 2, but they really are not in a true sense. In a true sense it must be:
1x + 1x = 2x
We need to have a clear and consistent definition of what x is, which in this case, x = a stone, of the same quality and properties of the original stone found on the ground, in that it was found as is, and is not the product of melting two stones together
So with this in mind, melting the two stones together would not produce 1x, but 1y, which is really 2x.
>>72927756
*On the surface these look like they are examples of 1 +1 = 1
>>72927035
>We may only perceive them as existing, or imagine them to exist. For all we know there could be no physical triangles or objects with sides in the universe
That's demonstrably false. Believing that requires me to throw away evidence and take up a different position on faith where there is no evidence in support.
>>72924072
4 u, op.
https://mega.nz/#!U0sThLqR!3BVe-uJuZFn9ijxU0leBWwvOmf4fdu7fuxSGtpfrNH4
>>72927756
When rivers fork you have 1 river + 1 river that just makes another river and that analogy applies directly to digital circuits and you still haven't accounted for physical Boolean algebra and physical digital logic mentioned.
>>72927208
Think about christmas lights. 1 can represents the electric current in the bulb. If one of them is out then the current for the system would be 0.
Hence. 1+0=0
Now if they are all functioning then the current for the system would be 1. 1+1=1
>>72927232
If boths drinks are full then the cup overflows.
You only need one line if you are allowed to travel time.
>>72927719
We call the spherical boundary earth.
>>72927904
Not at all.
How can you be sure that you are experiencing reality at any given moment? How can you be sure that what you are perceiving is not an illusion?
What is your 'evidence' for believing what you perceive without question, which you are so opposed to 'throwing away'?
>>72927904
>That's demonstrably false.
Not really. There are no triangles, in the same way that numbers don't actually exist. If there were no living things to observe and count, ideas like numbers, shapes wouldn't exist. An object wouldn't be triangular, it would just be an object.
>>72928278
Semantics Steve, with the Hail Mary.
>>72924072
>everyone's opinions are equally valid
no, fuck off
>>72928412
is this the chink who was berating that one african nignog?
>>72928042
If the two rivers are connected in the shape of a Y, then you need to decide what definition of a river you are using.
Is the complete Y a river system that is counted as 1 river? Or, at the conjoining of the two smaller sections, is a new river formed, and are there thus 3 separate rivers?
The question cannot be answered until the definition of what counts as 'a river' is clear
>>72928490
yes
All he wanted was some fucking gravel and because Africa is a shithole he couldn't get it.
>>72928412
My Opinion > yours
>>72928214
>How can you be sure that you are experiencing reality at any given moment? How can you be sure that what you are perceiving is not an illusion?
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. All these philosophical hypotheticals are cute and fancy but in the real world something will be true or false, and we weigh our hypotheses by their validity in the context of perception. Your assertion has nothing to back it up and only relies on unfalsifiability, making it worthless until further notice.
>What is your 'evidence' for believing what you perceive without question, which you are so opposed to 'throwing away'?
The fact that A has 3 sides. If you were able to provide proof that this was an illusion then I would discard the belief immediately, but since you can't your entire argument is nothing but hand waving and mental masturbation. Philosophy is a joke, but that's just my opinion.
>>72928548
The common definition of river or stream, when two combine, they combine into one new stream.
>>72926379
Living on earth is not an abstract concept you wannabe Aussie
I can undergird my arguments with various statistics. Lefties can't.
>>72928278
Would mountains stop being the shape they are if there were no people to see them? It's really retarded to think that they would. your inability to seperate terms and abstractions from the data and procedures that they represent is emblematic of the highly unintelligent and counterproductive mindset of any given university's humanities department.
>>>/his/
>>72928753
>Would mountains stop being the shape they are if there were no people to see them?
No, but that's not what I'm trying to get at. A more accurate question would be.
>Would mountains be called mountains if there was nobody to call them mountains?
Doesn't matter what shape they are, there's nobody to observe them. They may as well not exist at all.
>>72928638
There is as much 'proof' for the world you perceive to be an illusion as there is for it to be the true reality.
If you were nothing more than a brain floating in a vat, with wires connected that feed you this false perception of reality, the system could be rigged in such a way that the experience would feel completely real and consistent, and the illusion would be impenetrable. There would be no way of testing whether your experience was a simulation or not, meaning that you would have no way of obtaining evidence in favor of either option.
>>72926452
>>72926846
>if you define numbers and addition differently and make it a different proposition it doesn't hold
And it holds in every ring regardless of its characteristic, as the ring of integers forms a module over every abelian group. It's just that in those rings, 2 = 2 . 1 can equal some other elements.
>>72927035
>Not necessarily. We may only perceive them as existing, or imagine them to exist. For all we know there could be no physical triangles or objects with sides in the universe. Read Descartes
How do you define what is real though? Even as a concept of a triangle, isn't that concept real? How can it not be real if I was able to conceive it? You can't perceive a triangle as being something if it never existed, right? Like lets say that Im a schizoid, and I saw a person that another non schizoid didn't perceive. Now, theres two options: one being that it exists because I saw it, or that it doesn't exist because nobody but me saw it. Now the latter is going to be the right option to most people. But if it didn't exist, how did I see it? I saw a man, but if it didn't exist in some sense, then I would have seen exactly nothing. If you yourself as a consciousness is the only thing you know to exist for sure, then isn't everything from your perspective, irrelevant of others, existing too? How can you see things that don't exist atleast in some sense. Atleast a reference to the person I was seeing existed right? Because how can an image of a man exist without there being an original reference to another man? Whats the reference from everything in the universe that we perceive? We can't make a reference of it all from something that never really existed.
Holy shit sorry for that rambling
>>72928893
Yeah you're actually stupid.
>>72928902
>There is as much 'proof' for the world you perceive to be an illusion as there is for it to be the true reality.
Again, pay attention to context. You present me with an unclassifiable proposition that has nothing backing it up. It may very well be true but if you can't prove it and there's never any evidence of it then it's the inferior proposition to believe until further notice. This could all be a computer simulation by aliens but we typically call those people schizophrenic for a reason. Again, this is why I say that philosophy is garbage. It produces nothing of tangible significance and asks for reverence in return.
>>72928955
Boolean/Binary has no 2, 1 is still defined as the whole unit.
Flow is either on or off, you can add more flow sources to draw to the flow, but it will always still just be one flow.
>>72929325
>unclassifiable
unfalsifiable, fucking autocorrect.
>>72928955
>Make AnatoIia Greek Again
cuck
>>72929241
What does a blind man see?
>>72924072
Honestly, I have no fuckin clue.
Perhaps we are all wrong.
Also lol at all these people with their 1 + 1 = 1 bullshit, not even understanding what that represents mathematically. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the real world but just making up bullshit or saying "What if [thing that can never be proven or have any effect on tangible reality]" is counterproductive and you should stop doing it if your goal is to actually do something of significance in the real world. Find answers. Admit when you don't know and leave it until you can find out.
>>72928689
If there is a new stream where the two combine, then we are dealing with three different rivers, by this definition that you have provided. There are two rivers at the top of the Y, and the one at the bottom, all separate and distinct from one another. We can count them up and find that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3
However, I think that your defining of the rivers is silly and unintuitive.
We know that rivers do not spontaneously meet at the same point. There is one river, already running its full course, which is eventually joined by another river.
Consider the left hand of the Y the original river, all the way from the top of the Y to the bottom of the Y, and the second river is merely the right-hand branch.
Under this definition no third river is formed, there is merely one larger river, and a second that begins elsewhere, which is its own distinct river, up until the point where it merges with the larger river. Thus there are two distinct rivers present, one on the left hand of the Y flowing from one end of the Y to the other, and the one on the right hand, flowing from one of the Y and ending where it meets the left-hand river.
1 + 1 = 2.
Under your definition of river, or under mine, it does not matter. The logic is not shaken.
>>72929489
But if I'm arguing from my perspective on things, and from my perspective Im not blind, and if me being conscious is the only thing I can know for a fact, then doesn't asking what a blind person sees irrelevant?
>>72929605
It's funny because your computer wouldn't be able to post that comment if it wasn't true.
>>72929633
You sure need to add a lot of caveats and context to something indisputable.
According to you, none of the named rivers one earth actually exist instead thousands exist in their place that don't even have real names.
>>72929325
You continue to attack me for having no proof, yet you have provided no proof for your assumption, that you ARE experiencing reality.
Which is entirely my point. There is no proof for either assumption, so one cannot insist that one assumption holds any wight over the other
>>72929325
Ok you tell me, where in the universe does the number 289 exist? What about 467? 9985? and if those numbers don't exist, then why would a shape with a certain number of sides exist? Where are they?
Mathematicians have argued over weather numbers and geometric shapes actually exist for centuries, it's not just a philosophy quandary. But you want to push your own branch of pseudo-intellectualism where you put down one school of thought because you don't like it. you are an sjw. Go fuck yourself for that.
>>72928955
>turk
>intellectual
>>72929241
We need to agree on a definition of reality, and the definition that makes the most sense is what is physically present.
Unfortunately, as shown by Descartes, we cannot be sure that anything perceived by our senses is actually physically present, as we know that our senses can deceive us.
As you stated in your ramble, the only thing that we can be sure that is physically present is something that is creating the thoughts you are thinking right now, including the ones that allow you to question your reality. 'I think therefore I am', in short.
Everything else could either be an illusion projected onto your mind, like the brain in the vat scenario, or an object created in your mind, such as found in dreams, or the red coke can you are picturing right now, despite not having anything that resembles a red coke can physically present in your brain.
>>72929873
I'm typing right now. That's evidence that this is happening. Now provide me with evidence that i'm not typing right now.
>>72929922
How many fingers do you have?
>>72928412
your opinion is valid too, sir
>>72929859
Like I said you don't understand what the mathematically represents, and then you prove it by trying to act smug without making a point.
>>72930244
That is only evidence that you perceive it to be happening. How is that evidence for anything beyond your perception?
To simplify what I am asking, how can you be sure that you are not in a matrix like scenario, where your simulated body is typing, but your actual, physical body is laying in a vat of water and connected to cords somewhere?
>>72929764
Imagine you are now blind. Do you have more or less concious?
>>72924072
>Why is everyone so sure their personal political views are correct?
If people weren't sure that their political views are correct life would be to good to be true and therefore stop to exist.
>>72930244
I have 10 fingers. If I were simply an unthinking machine who looked exactly the same, I would have no fingers because I would not have a way to count them, or call them fingers, or even come up with the concept of self-ness. They would simply be things. Numbers can't exist without someone to count them.
>>72930372
You can interpret the facts as that. Or you can go with a more simple and straightforward explanation which requires no extra assumptions. One action is more logical than the other.
>>72929334
Every ring contains an embedding of the entire integers, including 2. This embedding need not be injective, and is not in rings with positive characteristic, such as Boolean rings. But it still exists and is well-defined.
>>72930501
Also, all political systems are correct if they only govern people that think they're correct.
>>72930301
>What are the AND and OR operators
4deep2me
>>72930551
Numbers are a property of nouns expressing the value of something divided in some way, sometimes arbitrary and sometimes not. It's true that they would go uncounted if there were none to count them and make those divisions but the object would still hold that property regardless of observation.
>>72924072
Society shifts all the time.
A good government 50 years ago might be a shitty government today.
It's just picking the right poison for the right vermin.
>>72930637
And and or are logical operations, not numerical ones. 1+1=2 is a numerical expression. Trying to disprove 1+1=2 with boolean logic ignores the content of the expression and attacks semantics which is not a real argument at all.
>>72930563
There is only one assumption either way.
Your are presented with an experience. You can assume that this is genuine and real, or you can assume that you are being deceived by your senses.
>>72930773
It is when people are trying to prove it's the only valid mathematical expression.
>>72930773
if its indisputable it should stand up to every attack including literal interpretations and applications
>>72924072
Objectivitism is inherently correct ;^)
>>72930782
You have no reason to believe one thing and you have every reason to believe the other. Like I said, one thing will be true, but it makes no sense to believe the one that requires more factors and guesswork than we even have evidence for. I can believe that the earth is only 4 feet in every direction outside of these walls and everything else is a conspiracy to trick me but it requires more mental gymnastics and faith than the more simple conclusion - that statement is false. What you're proposing is to entertain unfalsifiables unto the point of delusion simply because you cannot disprove them. That's literal insanity, by definition. Then again, I am on /pol/.
>>72930853
You misunderstand the point being made. go back and read again.
>>72930890
You misunderstand what an argument is. You're literally proposing twisting someone's words to mean something other than what they're trying to relate to you and assert.
>>72930948
Personally, i think Relativism is.
But thats just my opinion
That's why /pol/ exists to argue the merits of your political opinions, instead of safe hugboxes like reddit and tumblr.
It's a battle royale of the human spectrum.
>>72930673
>the object would still hold that property regardless of observation.
And that right there is the basis some mathematicians use to say numbers do exist.
At this point agreeing or disagreeing is pointless because on my side , those properties are null and void so long as nobody is there to observe them, and on your side they aren't.
which loops us back to the original argument that nothing but death is indisputable, even "facts" like 1+1, triangles with 3 sides, or energy being created.
>>72931199
*not being created
>>72931069
>You have no reason to believe one thing and you have every reason to believe the other
You have still failed to give me this 'reason' other than reverting to circular logic.
You are basically saying there are more reasons to believe it, with the reasons being that there are more reasons to believe it.
Seriously m8, there is a reason Descartes is regarded as the final boss of philosophy.
No philosopher has succeed in refuting him, and trust me they have tried, so I dont see how you can expect to by arguing on a Chinese cartoon imagebaord
>>72931199
>those properties are null and void
Explain this. I don't follow your meaning.
>>72931119
/pol/ is a hugbox for particular opinions, dummy.
There's not exactly a plurality of ideas here.
It's leddit for your kind
>>72930563
>>72930782
So both in short: You are arguing about Okahms razor? One is explaining, that the view of both reality and simulation are hypotheses, the other that the logical explanation should be taken [so reality] ,because it takes the least amount of assumptions. The latter point is just a Heuristic. It can hit the truth, but can miss it ,too. You needed about 20 posts for this to come out?
>>72931069
No, I just pointed out that you can dispute what 1+1 equals and you want to twist and turn to feel right because you are too afraid to admit when you don't know something.
>>72929922
mathematics is just an elaborate autism
>>72931512
I like discussing shit and these kinds of threads, sue me Hanz
>>72931282
The reason is that I am perceiving this right now. The simple explanation for that is that the stimulus matches my perception to a reasonable degree. That my perception in corresponds to reality well enough to consider this experience real. The evidence? My perception. That's all that exists in that equation. In your equation there are extra factors such as aliens and perception altering technology, none of which has any evidence to support it. So if we were to overlay the two in a vein diagram my entire explanation sans some small parts would fit inside of yours. Your explanation relies on the fact that I can't disprove those extra bits to be argued. But neither of us can argue what the perception is so assuming that the perception is anything but what it represents is really foolish until there's some hint that it isn't. I could add infinite complexity to this extra-perceptual scenario but none of it holds any weight unless it has some sort of result that can be tested. Basically what i'm saying is to stop treating what lies beyond the phaneron as a free for all in arguments.
And furthermore, just because a famous philosopher says something doesn't make it automatically valuable. In the real world things will either be true or false. Think for yourself and find the answers rather than twiddling your thumbs over fantasies.
1 out of 10 people know if this gif is real or not.
>>72931569
Explain that. Or rather elaborate on that by explaining where this happens and how.
>>72931312
Because no-one can possibly observe them, ever, whatever properties they have can never be found. They are simply objects, if that. They may as well not exist at all.
If we can't pick up anything from an object, no gravity, no sight, smell, touch. Then object has no properties.
>>72931906
It's property is that it's the first axiom.
>>72931906
If there's a ball in a box and nobody knows that it's there, and nobody takes it out. Is it still in the box?
>>72931809
Boolean operation based on the current flow in the digital logic gates of your computer.
>>72931712
No fun allowed, austrian bro.
One thing I don't understand is, why could Descartes derive: 'I Think therefore I Am'
Even the "I think" is a hypotheses. He just 'thinks', he thinks. I mean, in the end it could just be a reaction, which he has no ability to control. In the end consciousness does not imply thinking, if not why would it?
>>72932186
There's no way of knowing there ever was a ball in the first place, so when you open the box, ball or no ball it should come as a surprise.
>>72932454
The ball did not exist untill you opened the philosophical box. Obviously in RL, there are ways to find out if a ball is in a box.
>>72932247
Ok. Now explain how that's an example of what you said. You realize that boolean logic is different from addition and subtraction of quantities, right?
>>72932452
Yea that is the one thing he kind of overlooked. I've talked about this with my phil profs back in the day.
We can be sure that there is thinking present, or at least something that we refer to as thinking, but we cant be sure of any "I" that is responsible for the thoughts.
What we consider to be ourselves could merely be a series of thoughts traveling through space.
The interesting thing is that we seem to have privileged access to our own thoughts, and similarly we cannot access other's thoughts. So we could realistically say that we are at least some kind of antenna that is receiving a specific stream of thoughts, even if we are not generating them ourselves.
Philosophy of mind is one of the most interesting fields, simply because there is so much that remains unanswered, and so many competing theories to explain all the different phenomena.
>>72932454
>>72932688
That's not what I asked you. Is the ball in the box or not?
>>72932825
That's the same thing as asking me if schrodinger's cat is alive or dead. I can't answer that question, you have to open the box.
The ball may or may not exist and nobody will know until it is observed.
>>72933132
No. You're saying that things don't exist unless humans discover them. That's a really silly and human centric idea that makes no logical sense. I just told you that the ball was in the box, however you hesitated to answer because nobody is around to open the box. Did it ever occur to you that reality doesn't care whether or not you perceive it?
>>72932782
That is a case where 1+1=1 is correct.
This is the first time you have even mentioned addition and subtraction of quantities, the original claim was it is indisputable that 1+1 equals 2 and I provided disputing evidence where 1+1 equals 1.
>>72926032
>triangles have 3 sides
They have 7 sides, they have 3 edges, 3 vertices, and a face.
>>72933587
>That is a case where 1+1=1 is correct.
That's semantics.
>This is the first time you have even mentioned addition and subtraction of quantities
Don't feign retardation. That was the original content of my argument.
>the original claim was it is indisputable that 1+1 equals 2 and I provided disputing evidence where 1+1 equals 1.
Once again semantics. 1+1=10 in base 2. The way you write it isn't what's important. It's the idea i'm trying to communicate to you.
>>72933708
You know what i'm trying to relate and yet you keep choosing to ignore it in favor of word games.
>>72932810
>What we consider to be ourselves could merely be a series of thoughts traveling through space.
Man, that sounds like some New Age stuff.
>The interesting thing is that we seem to have privileged access to our own thoughts, and similarly we cannot access other's thoughts. So we could realistically say that we are at least some kind of antenna that is receiving a specific stream of thoughts, even if we are not generating them ourselves.
So in the end it boils down to:
We are at least being, that receives thoughts. Man it would be interesting to research the possible structures of this stream. I mean in the end this are just plain mathematical structures.
>>72933793
Sorry I didn't realized you didn't count literal disputes in your claim of "indisputable", ok we get it, by your standards of what a dispute is, nothing you don't want to be disputed can be because your preferred interpretation of language is the only one that matters as long as it supports your cause.
>>72932452
Can something that doesn't exist doubt it's own existence? If so then can then at least you can think.
>>72934178
No. You're literally ignoring the actual content of my argument in order to play word games. It's as if I said all crows are ravens and then you said "what about The Crow from the 1999 movie." You haven't actually argued the point that I made. You just tried to interject with something that's tangentially related because of language artifacts. 1+1=2 is a numerical expression representing the joining of two groups or sets that each have the property of amount one, after which they become one set of the same type with amount two. In boolean logic 1+1=1 represents the fact that two true statements combined into a single statement make another true statement. Here 1 represents truth values rather than a numerical value. I really don't know how to make that more plain for you to understand. If you still don't get it you might just be stupid.
>>72933567
>You're saying that things don't exist unless humans discover them.
No I'm saying we can't know about the existence of something until we observe it in some way. The ball may be in the box, but theirs nobody to open the box, observe the ball, or to call that shape a box or a ball.
Like you said, nobody knows about the ball in the box that includes you and me, and if nobody opens the box and observes the ball then the ball has no properties because no human has observed it to point them out. it's just a thing, inside of a thing, It exists, sure, but no human can tell you about it, you have no way of knowing about it, and therefore it is only a thing, a property-less object that may or may not exist as far as we know.
>>72924072
I can relate only to the problems of anons like myself (accomplished, intelligent, middle class, freedom loving, responsibility seeking, being the master of my own destiny etc) and have enough experience with society to be able to see in which ways it either supports or hinders me, that's why I'm a conservative but sadly there aren't enough of us in my cunt that I love regardless
>>72934551
>and if nobody opens the box and observes the ball then the ball has no properties because no human has observed it to point them ou
This is where the breakdown in our communication is. You consider properties to be in the eye of the beholder. While it's true that all of the names of all of the properties and all of the divisions that we've created are entirely manmade abstractions for real things, they still represent real things. Hydrogen would still have one electron even if we never discovered electrons or hydrogen. When I refer to these properties i'm not referring to the terms themselves but rather the set of information that the terms are made to convey about the universe. We may not call it a ball and we may not call it a box but the object which we would call a ball had we observed it still rests firmly within the object that we would call a box had we only the opportunity to perceive each one. The objects and their properties persist regardless of the labels that we put on them, however i'm not referring to the labels themselves but rather what the labels are pointers to. Hopefully that clears things up a bit.
>>72934513
Godel and Heisenberg would like some words with you, but keep thinking your contextual axioms can't be disputed even though all the symbols are ultimately arbitrary and treated interchangeably.
>>72935203
If you have one thing and one thing and make a group of things out of them you have a group with two things. This is the content of my argument. Would you like to dispute that?
>>72934909
Under that definition, yes, there is a "ball" in the "box" that nobody knows about but does exist. Numbers, though, do not exist in any shape or form except in our heads. There might be 2 balls, but there is no number 2. The number 2 is an idea created completely by human thought.
Things dont just lose a label without people to observe them, they also lose any point in existence, but that falls heavily under philosophy, and religion.
>>72935459
What about 0? If you add 0 and 1 then what do you have?
>>72935800
Numbers are properties of things. Those properties persist. Temperature is still what it is without anyone to feel it. Cardinality is much the same way without anyone to count it.
>Things dont just lose a label without people to observe them, they also lose any point in existence, but that falls heavily under philosophy, and religion.
That's a heavily loaded statement that relies very much on the definition of "point in existence" and will likely lead to throwing around opinions. I'm only concerned with the matters of fact in this instance.
>>72935956
If we're speaking of cardinality then it'll be 1 because 0 is the additive identity. If we're talking about logical operations then it is 0 as a statement containing a true part and a false part is as a whole false. Do you understand why it's important to separate the terms from the data that the point to? I mean, I understand that you're not the same person. I'm just asking.
>>72935459
Positive and Negative Spin?
>>72936287
What about them?
>>72936436
They make a group of nothing spinning or in the case of charge just nothing, rather than a group of two.
>>72936623
Are you pretending to be retarded? -1 and +1 is 0.
>>72936162
>Cardinality is much the same way without anyone to count it
I can't agree. Without someone there to count, and without a number system in place, all objects become individuals because no two objects are the same, and nobody is their to say "these objects are close enough for me to count them as the same thing" Even 2 atoms of the same element share slight differences in electron spacing, even if it's by a couple of planc lengths. The only numbers I could accept as real under your definition are the numbers 1 and 0.
>>72936854
And that's your prerogative to believe that now that we've crossed over into the land of philosophy and opinions. However the properties that we would use to count them persist, and that's all that i'm saying.
>>72936779
That is what I am saying, now justify how does 0 = 2 as you claim?
>>72937087
0 and {2} = 2
>>72937087
You're combining unlike terms.
Treat charge as e and cardinality as c
1e - 1e = 0e
1c + 1c = 2c
however 1e + 1e != 2c
>>72936984
You started in that land when you argued about disputability.
>>72937480
You said you were making an indisputable statement about all things, why is this thing exempt and can you think of any more exemptions you want to mention before I add another?
>>72937714
>why is this thing exempt
Becuase you don't understand math.
>and can you think of any more exemptions you want to mention before I add another?
Go ahead, i'm not going to reply to you anymore.
>>72937854
Indisputable things isn't even a mathematical proposition, you are the one who uses a lot of words without understanding them.
>>72925870
>left in charge of balanced budgets and economics
wew lad
>>72937964
I didn't fully understand that statement but perhaps that was because you misunderstood what I meant when i said you don't understand math. It was really obtuse and vague so i'll just clarify before leaving.
you keep trying to "dispute" by making points and comparisons about different things entirely outside of the scope of the initial argument and you aren't attacking the content of my argument at all, just saying unrelated things that don't follow with linguistic ties to the original matter but no relation to the things which the language referrers to. Goodbye.
>>72938246
The entire scope your your argument was what 1+1 equals and I disputed your proposition that it is always 2, sorry you have such a hard time completely explaining yourself it is painful to watch unfold.
Considering the fact that I am the only species where my kind are afraid of genitals and liable them an immediate felony, I am not surprised how low others with defend into idiocracy.
