1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects
Before we delve into this idea I would like to say that this isn't some conspiracy theory, nor is it some strange idea about how everything is different than we think it is. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to know there is a lack of surprise or epiphany amongst readers of this post. I strictly wish to discuss what I have observed to be a common fallacy of how people organize, and categorize living beings, objects, and ideas (and yes these are categorizations in and of themselves, oh the irony)
As to the relevance of this fallacy, it has been according to my observation that a person who is of the understanding of this fallacy tends to show similar reactions to events as other people who view the world in this way. In other words, this fallacy has visible and vivid repercussions in many aspects of a person's behavior.
Let's start with an interesting question. Imagine you are the principal of a prestigious elementary school and you are interviewing children to test their mathematical capabilities. You are interviewing a certain frustrating child who doesn't seem to understand the question you are asking. You say, "If I have two apples in my right hand, and three apples in my left hand how many apples do I have?" The child briefly looks at your hands and answers, "You have two apples in your right hand and three apples in your left hand." You try to clarify by saying, "So how many would I have all together?" The child responds in the same way, "You would have two apples in your right hand and three apples in your left hand." Trying not to lose your patience you try to ask a different question, "Okay, so if there were three people in a room and another person walks into that room how many people are in that room now?" the child responds, "Who are the people?"
The child has the inability to categorize. Where most would see this as a major disability, some would understand the deep logic behind this idea. The idea is that there are no categories, that every object, and living being is inherently unique simply by existing. There are no two objects in the universe that are exactly alike. There are no two atoms that are exactly alike. In real life is there really a way to "add" objects together? Are you then assuming that by putting the objects in juxtaposition they become more than one of the same exact object?
With this train of thought we can also say that in the true world, there is only one number. On the deepest level of categorization there would only be one of anything. I am in no way suggesting that we shouldn't categorize because the only way we advance in learning is through categorization. All learning is based on categorizing and relating situations. For example, we can assume that if you bite an apple that a part of that apple will come off and into your mouth whereas the apple will have a large part of it missing in the exact place where you took a bite and of the same size that your mouth was when you took a bite. However, saying that since a certain object will react in a certain way 100% of the time so another object of it's same type will act in the same way 100% of the time is incorrect. How can something be that certain? The only thing that is certain is uncertainty. I'm sure most of us have experienced a dud firework, a device that will work only after being kicked, or a person that just won't listen no matter how hard you put effort into trying to help them do so.
You might be thinking at this point, "what's the point? Nobody assumes anything to be entirely accurate anyway." This is where our opinions would differ. Have you ever experienced anger? This emotion comes from a variety of ways and one of them can be unmet expectations, expectations you were certain an individual or an object would meet. How about frustration? Another emotion that can come from a wide range of sources one of which can be when your ideas you're certain of come into clash with another logical source.
Uncertainty is everywhere. However, it isn't something to get depressed about, it's only something to realize and accept. Anger, embarrassment, pride, and frustration can be products of placing too much certainty on too few people and objects. If understood incorrectly however, this idea can destroy emotions such as confidence, hope, and love. This is why uncertainty should be understood as something that applies to all things but only to a somewhat limited degree. Just for example, I would say the most accurately someone could predict an event is about 99%. If we believe that number to be 100%, those negative emotions can come from the remaining percent of times our prediction is incorrect, whatever it really may be. If uncertainty is understood in all things, these negative emotions tend to be frequently avoided.
The only thing that is certain is uncertainty. As I am writing at this moment, I understand that what I am writing isn't even certain, that there is probably someone out there who understands completely differently than I do and can logically disprove my argument. To that person, I thank you for the competition so that I might refine my own ideas and learn from yours.
I do not ask that we do nothing or have no expectations, nor do I ask that we have no opinions or stop trying to learn about something we are uncertain of. My only desire is that we are wary and careful about what we place our confidence in and what we are certain of. It is imperative that we always leave room for error and uncertainty.
As to the relevance of this fallacy, it has been according to my observation that a person who is of the understanding of this fallacy tends to show similar reactions to events as other people who view the world in this way. In other words, this fallacy has visible and vivid repercussions in many aspects of a person's behavior.
Let's start with an interesting question. Imagine you are the principal of a prestigious elementary school and you are interviewing children to test their mathematical capabilities. You are interviewing a certain frustrating child who doesn't seem to understand the question you are asking. You say, "If I have two apples in my right hand, and three apples in my left hand how many apples do I have?" The child briefly looks at your hands and answers, "You have two apples in your right hand and three apples in your left hand." You try to clarify by saying, "So how many would I have all together?" The child responds in the same way, "You would have two apples in your right hand and three apples in your left hand." Trying not to lose your patience you try to ask a different question, "Okay, so if there were three people in a room and another person walks into that room how many people are in that room now?" the child responds, "Who are the people?"
The child has the inability to categorize. Where most would see this as a major disability, some would understand the deep logic behind this idea. The idea is that there are no categories, that every object, and living being is inherently unique simply by existing. There are no two objects in the universe that are exactly alike. There are no two atoms that are exactly alike. In real life is there really a way to "add" objects together? Are you then assuming that by putting the objects in juxtaposition they become more than one of the same exact object?
With this train of thought we can also say that in the true world, there is only one number. On the deepest level of categorization there would only be one of anything. I am in no way suggesting that we shouldn't categorize because the only way we advance in learning is through categorization. All learning is based on categorizing and relating situations. For example, we can assume that if you bite an apple that a part of that apple will come off and into your mouth whereas the apple will have a large part of it missing in the exact place where you took a bite and of the same size that your mouth was when you took a bite. However, saying that since a certain object will react in a certain way 100% of the time so another object of it's same type will act in the same way 100% of the time is incorrect. How can something be that certain? The only thing that is certain is uncertainty. I'm sure most of us have experienced a dud firework, a device that will work only after being kicked, or a person that just won't listen no matter how hard you put effort into trying to help them do so.
You might be thinking at this point, "what's the point? Nobody assumes anything to be entirely accurate anyway." This is where our opinions would differ. Have you ever experienced anger? This emotion comes from a variety of ways and one of them can be unmet expectations, expectations you were certain an individual or an object would meet. How about frustration? Another emotion that can come from a wide range of sources one of which can be when your ideas you're certain of come into clash with another logical source.
Uncertainty is everywhere. However, it isn't something to get depressed about, it's only something to realize and accept. Anger, embarrassment, pride, and frustration can be products of placing too much certainty on too few people and objects. If understood incorrectly however, this idea can destroy emotions such as confidence, hope, and love. This is why uncertainty should be understood as something that applies to all things but only to a somewhat limited degree. Just for example, I would say the most accurately someone could predict an event is about 99%. If we believe that number to be 100%, those negative emotions can come from the remaining percent of times our prediction is incorrect, whatever it really may be. If uncertainty is understood in all things, these negative emotions tend to be frequently avoided.
The only thing that is certain is uncertainty. As I am writing at this moment, I understand that what I am writing isn't even certain, that there is probably someone out there who understands completely differently than I do and can logically disprove my argument. To that person, I thank you for the competition so that I might refine my own ideas and learn from yours.
I do not ask that we do nothing or have no expectations, nor do I ask that we have no opinions or stop trying to learn about something we are uncertain of. My only desire is that we are wary and careful about what we place our confidence in and what we are certain of. It is imperative that we always leave room for error and uncertainty.
Comment