4 ms·
1+1=2 is a social construct. It’s simple, repeatable and therefore programable - but still a social construct.
by yazaddaruvala 4y ago
1+1=2 is a social construct.
It’s simple, repeatable and therefore programable - but still a social construct.
- jojobas 4y agoWell if "1+1=2" is a social construct then "there are planets, stars, and, in general, objects" is also a social construct. No kind of society can make 1+1=3, and also there is mathematical proof that 1+1=2 (built of course on some sort of axioms that somebody might also consider social constructs).
- prmph 4y agoImagine a universe, where, when you combine two apples (or really anything), you always, through some weird physical process, end up with three items. Would that invalidate (or not), the statement that 1 + 1 = 2?
- eesmith 4y agoWe know "planet" is a social construct because the astronomers decided, some years back, that Pluto wasn't a planet. And the rules they created to make that definition only apply in the Solar System, not to exoplanets around other stars nor to rogue/free-floating planets. And Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta were considered planets for over half a century.
- jojobas 4y agoIn order to decide whether Pluto is a planet, one has to assume that there are, in fact, planets. This assumption is not social in nature, it's language describing natural, inarguable phenomena.
- eesmith 4y agoDoes "marriage" exist, as a "natural, inarguable phenomena" independent of its social construct? What about "US citizen"? I don't think so. Which means we can't say the existence of a word means its the result of a physical assumption. When you wrote "planets, stars", did you not assume those two are different? But originally, "planet" meant "wandering star" - a planet was assumed to be a type of star.
- mik1998 4y agoIt's not. It's a fact derived a priori from the definition of addition and the axioms of the field of real numbers. There's nothing special about the claim that 1 + 1 = 2. You can also define addition such that 1 + 1 = 0 or anything else.
- yazaddaruvala 4y ago“a priori from the definition of addition” is effectively saying “a social construct” And I hate to break it to you but all “axioms” are social constructs that we use to create hopefully useful models.
- mik1998 4y agoNo, this is not true at all. It is a certain _mathematical_ construction. It has nothing to do with society. Given the specific definition of addition in the field of real numbers, the statement 1 + 1 = 2 is true in any society. > but all “axioms” are social constructs Again, they are mathematical constructs. Axioms don't have anything to do with society. I can construct any axiom I want, and derive true statements from it. Perhaps the only "social" thing here is what axioms we generally deem interesting enough to investigate - this does not change the facts derived from them. > that we use to create hopefully useful models. I think you underestimate pure mathematics :)
- yazaddaruvala 4y agoI’ll try one last time: > definition of addition What do you think any definition is other than the creation of a socially shared construct? > I can construct any axiom I want, and derive true statements from it. Let’s test this. Axiomatically I am always right! As such, I derive that it is illogical, dare I say irrational, of you to disagree with me. A truer statement has never even been written! Facts! Hmm… turns out you disagree that it’s a true statement. Why? I had an axiom! You don’t agree with my axiom? If that’s allowed, I guess I’ll have to convince you (and society) of my axiom!
- 4y ago