3 ms·
Yeah except it’s not that easy. 1+1=2 but could 1+1=3 too? Yes, even There’s different ways to count based on the dynamics of the system you’re interacting wit
by dfischer 6y ago
Yeah except it’s not that easy. 1+1=2 but could 1+1=3 too? Yes, even
There’s different ways to count based on the dynamics of the system you’re interacting with.
One interaction interacting with another interaction can create a third interaction causing the system to interact as as pieces totaling 3 that came from a 1 and a 1.
1+1=3.
Also, my brain may be split into two spheres however is it better to reason about it as 1+1=2 me’s or 1^2? Funny joke if I use i^2 then I’m just imaginary. Hah.
Ultimately anything we describe as “is” isn’t anything other than agreement of some type of axiom which requires consciousness / imagination.
Lots to ponder. Ha.
- aliceryhl 6y agoIt is that easy. If you got the result 1+1=3, then you changed the meaning of either 1, 3, + or =.
- dfischer 6y agoIn that raw written symbolic form, perhaps. However the nuances exist where the symbols don’t apply but the language is still used. You can observe effects/interactions and say one thing added with another thing makes three things. There is not two things, there’s three things happening now. Also one can be added to another and make one. The “adult” costume for two kids hiding in adult clothing. Two became one interacting as three as a system represented by one. The values are relative. There’s a danger in having such zoomed in views. On one hand we must know when to zoom in, and on the other know how to capture vagueness.
- aliceryhl 6y agoThat isn't really about mathematics anymore. With the meanings of the words/symbols that koheripbal intended, 1+1=2 is definitely true, and similarly, with the meaning koheripbal intended, 1+1=3 is definitely false. If we can't agree on what the words mean, we can't really have a conversation.
- dfischer 6y agoThat’s kind of the kicker. Many are communicating all day every day with the assumption of equivalence to mappings of words to abstractions and largely get by but it is inconsistent. More or less consistent enough is certainty. Nuances exist, as well as unknown side effects. When has any definition you thought were fixed expanded? It’s a weird space.