Mathematics: 1+1=2

1+1=2

Why? Since everybody has failed to tell me the Reason-why one (thing) plus one (thing) equals two (things) throughout my life, I have been left to figure out and assume/imply what others mean by this common mathematical metaphor myself. After all, what is 'one' and 'two' except symbolic numbers representing 'things'? What does 'plus' mean? What does 'equals' mean? One plus one equals two.

Why?


I assume that numbers refer to multi-dimensional 'points' of space-time-reality (referring to higher/lower dimensions). Even when the human mind is presented with two points, they do not necessarily equate to one another in shape, size, or form. In fact, these two separate things could be anything defined by their contexts. What is 'one' 'thing' after all? Is it something? Is it nothing? Is it everything? Why are we not told and made aware of these mathematical implications as children? We are not taught these things, because an admission of this ignorance destroys the Authority that the teacher has over the student. If a grade school child is actually more intelligent than his/her teacher, why then is the school district not paying that child rather than the adult? The institutional system thus makes a sacrifice: what is Right for what is Wrong.


1+1=2 predicates Order.

1+1≠2 predicates Chaos.


Just like Order can be made true, so too can Chaos be made true by a simple algorithm...

Assume that the number-"1" is almost never static, constantly moving, changing speeds, force, directions, and even dimensions. Further, assume that the number-"1" is growing larger (+ positively), passively remaining static (ø neutrally), or shrinking smaller (- negatively). We can then rephrase the number-"1" as "1 (+,ø,-)" depending on the context of the number. In other words, the 'thing' being referred to by the number-"1" is almost absolutely, constantly-changing. Sometimes it may not change. It seems (right now) that we cannot know whether it ever does or not. However, this does not deter us from postulating the expected result, which is, the number-"1"-itself is chaning based on how human self-consciousness changes with regard to the very reference 'point' of 'one' (whole thing, "absent Absolute"). If the human mind is changing, based on what Cognitive Science tells us today, then the number-"1" may or may not be changing, but the perception of it through the human mind most definitely is changing. Therefore, we must then determine the way-in-which 'one' is changing (dimensions).

1(+) growing in size
1(ø) constant in size
1(-) shrinking in size

Now, take this into consideration:

(+)+(+)=(+)
(+)+(-)=???
(-)+(-)=(-)


In terms of where the context is inaccurate: (positive '1')+(negative '1')=???


Ladies & Gentlemen of the Jury: 'one' 'plus' 'one' may not necessarily 'equal' 'two'.

I rest my case.

you left out the algebraic... 1x+1x does equal 2x, while 1x+1y, may not...

1 goose plus 1 orange does not equal 2 of anything

misterhamtastic wrote:

you left out the algebraic...

If you say so...

You are in luck... I just did... how nice...

misterhamtastic wrote:

You are in luck... I just did... how nice...

Do me a favor and post your own (un)interesting topics so I can read them and then choose not to reply to them.

poor thing... am I messing up your thread? Perhaps you should pull your ass off of your head and try responding with something more thoughtful than,"nuh-uh!"

misterhamtastic wrote:

poor thing... am I messing up your thread? Perhaps you should pull your ass off of your head and try responding with something more thoughtful than,"nuh-uh!"

You are giving me nothing to respond to but implications.

I asked you to make a point.

I thought agreeing with you and explaining your point simplistically was a point in and of itself...

misterhamtastic wrote:

I thought agreeing with you and explaining your point simplistically was a point in and of itself...

It is not a point unless you (significantly) improve or challenge the stated premises/theses, as I say.

with the algebraic included, the obviousness of the revelation becomes evident... how does someone improve or refute the obvious without accepting they are simply incorrect?

misterhamtastic wrote:

you left out the algebraic... 1x+1x does equal 2x, while 1x+1y, may not...

1 goose plus 1 orange does not equal 2 of anything

This is actually false.

1 goose and one orange can either equal two phenomena, two objects, two unities, two instances of life, etc.

Categories abound.

those would each be different variables, though, wouldn't they?

They would be different categories of distinction.

I don't know math well enough to translate that into an equation...

Numbers and letters in algebra are just symbols for extant things of different types.

In other words they are abstractions.

Aesthetic symbols referring to mental models, but not directly to reality.

Right...

So 1+1 may or may not equal 2, depending upon what is being represented by the individual numbers, etc.

misterhamtastic wrote:

Right...

So 1+1 may or may not equal 2, depending upon what is being represented by the individual numbers, etc.

1+1=2 because all are necessary methods of interpreting the world.

All based on generalities and simplifications.

Two is the logical conclusion to all additions of two abstracted singularities.

One is my simplification of the phenomenon that is in flow.
Two is the combination of two such abstractions while maintaining their distinction.

[quote="Satyr"]

misterhamtastic wrote:

Categories abound.

But are they real or just hallucinations?
What are categories made of?

Unreasonable wrote:

Why? Since everybody has failed to tell me the Reason-why one (thing) plus one (thing) equals two (things) throughout my life, I have been left to figure out and assume/imply what others mean by this common mathematical metaphor myself. After all, what is 'one' and 'two' except symbolic numbers representing 'things'? What does 'plus' mean? What does 'equals' mean? One plus one equals two.

Why?

It's a matter of utility. The world must be standardized in order for civilization to exist.

This is obvious in the case of time for example.

Unreasonable wrote:

deepthought wrote:

It's a matter of utility. The world must be standardized in order for civilization to exist.

This is obvious in the case of time for example.

So, then, if a child can pick up on the finer complexities of the mechanics behind math over his teachers at the young age of 6+, then why should the school pay the teacher (to teach) rather than the intelligent youth (to learn & teach the others)?

I cannot think of a reason why not, except that the talents of a precocious child should be nurtured in a special environment rather than wasted on a mundane job like teaching maths to average minds.

[quote="creasy"]

Satyr wrote:

misterhamtastic wrote:

Categories abound.

But are they real or just hallucinations?
What are categories made of?

I'm not quite sure what is trying to be discussed here. What are categories made of? Are we reverting back to Aristotlean formal essences? I'm not quite sure.

As for the OP, what exactly are you looking for when you ask "why?" Are you asking for the telos of addition in mathematics? Because the "why" is, loosely translated, one of the aitia...and since this is the case, I'm not quite sure exactly what you are trying to point out...because a corollary question ca be: exactly what final cause is associated with mathematics? Final causes are originally associated with "why" questions, and we are left with an infinite regress, as we all have experienced with children and their constant "whys."

Perhaps an analytic view is in order? I'm not really sure if I know what I'm talking about here as math is not one of my strongest points...but perhaps such questions fall into the trap Wittgenstein cautioned about. To "philosophize" about something like "the Good" is to make a linguistic error in conception. One is using such a word outside the context of its meaning. We all know what "good" is, but when we ask about "the Good" or ask what IS "happiness" as some autonomous entity, we fall into conceptual muddles because the word is alienated from its context, and it is after all only within its meaningful context such a word makes sense.
... Now we may ask "what is 'plus?'" Or what IS equals? I'm not saying such questions lead necessarily into a muddled confusion...but perhaps they do. It certainly seems like they do. Of course I'll second guess myself here, because it is very difficult to know whether such obvious confusion is a result of true mystery, or simply a result of conceptual fallacy.

myhypocricy wrote:

As for the OP, what exactly are you looking for when you ask "why?" Are you asking for the telos of addition in mathematics? Because the "why" is, loosely translated, one of the aitia...and since this is the case, I'm not quite sure exactly what you are trying to point out...because a corollary question ca be: exactly what final cause is associated with mathematics? Final causes are originally associated with "why" questions, and we are left with an infinite regress, as we all have experienced with children and their constant "whys."

I want to know who else besides me is familiar with the Theory of Forms. That is why.

myhypocricy wrote:

Perhaps an analytic view is in order? I'm not really sure if I know what I'm talking about here as math is not one of my strongest points...but perhaps such questions fall into the trap Wittgenstein cautioned about. To "philosophize" about something like "the Good" is to make a linguistic error in conception. One is using such a word outside the context of its meaning. We all know what "good" is, but when we ask about "the Good" or ask what IS "happiness" as some autonomous entity, we fall into conceptual muddles because the word is alienated from its context, and it is after all only within its meaningful context such a word makes sense.

I disagree with this.

The Good is what is successful. It can only be successful, otherwise it is not "good".

The Good succeeds at everything!

myhypocricy wrote:

... Now we may ask "what is 'plus?'" Or what IS equals? I'm not saying such questions lead necessarily into a muddled confusion...but perhaps they do. It certainly seems like they do. Of course I'll second guess myself here, because it is very difficult to know whether such obvious confusion is a result of true mystery, or simply a result of conceptual fallacy.

What is plus? What is equal?

I want mas-tery over mys-tery. -- [mass + tery] > [miss + tery]. Avoid the conceptual fallacies, of course.

Unreasonable wrote:

I want mas-tery over mys-tery. -- [mass + tery] > [miss + tery]. Avoid the conceptual fallacies, of course.

I'll second that. But the mystery of the said problem may be a result of conceptual fallacy. The mind/body problem is a simple example. Is it because we are ignorant of how the mind interacts with the body that the mystery prevails...or is it because the entire idea is fallacious to begin with? We believe every question needs an answer. Fortunately not every question needs to be asked.

The problem with mathematics (and science) is that it strips away ALL subjectivity and deals with PURE objectivity. This is okay as long as we are aware of this. And actually, if a runaway garbage truck is heading my way I'm not going to stop and think, "WHY is that garbage truck heading in my direction?" Of course not. I'm going to say, "holy jesus fucking christ!" and jump out of the way.

So when you are saying WHY is 1 + 1 = 2 there is no answer except to say BECAUSE (or GOD).

"Why" is beyond objectivity AND subjectivity.

To answer "why?" we must go beyond objectivity and subjectivity.

That is not possible in this plane of reality.

Unreasonable wrote:

Nothing is impossible.

okay...

It's out of our reach at this time in history...


Going to the Moon was impossible in Galileo's time. The impossiblity can only be reached by LINEAR progression. So although everything is possible, we are hampered by not knowing the next step.