1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

[Izzy]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

The opening poster only has 1 post. His post is either a bot or just someone going around forums posting some copy paste crap.

[devonin]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

We've had similar posters in the past. They are rarely bots, but are often people who have accounts on many forums and simply make a thread and post it to all of them.

The last one we had was called Coberst, if you do a search for him you'll see what we mean.

[VulcanRevenge]

Yes, I said in my post that it IS necessary to categorize, it's important that we do, because if we don't then it's impossible to grow and learn from information. For example, you wouldn't be able to say "oh, I shouldn't kick that person in the shin because I'm angry with them because the last person I kicked in the shin just returned it back even worse." You wouldn't categorize human beings in the same group and would expect every human being to act completely and utterly differently.

Izzy probably hit it right on the head however, "1+1=2 simply because that's how we developed the mathematical system. We declared that it did by defining what 1 is." That's a large part of what I'm trying to say, that our mathematical system is a human creation based on something that doesn't necessarily entirely and accurately exist in the real world. There are many people who don't realize that, and I guess that's what my post is, it's a mind-opener rather than a debate topic, but apparently there are still things to debate here. (And no this is no copy paste trash, this is my original post that is no where else on the internet).

Devonin, "The proper response to the question would have been "What's an apples"", you are exactly right, I meant to change that, and I knew someone would pick up on that. I was having a really hard time trying to illustrate the example, any other ideas would be helpful.

OMG I forgot to respond to you. I have a question for you to answer. Maybe those two apples are similar, and if you place an object in the same exact position, shape, atomic makeup, electron movement, and all else as another object then yes, I would agree with you, theoretically the two objects would be exactly the same. Here's the question, is that possible in the real world? So, two objects may be very similar, but will they react exactly the same way in every situation possible? Of course, we as human beings cannot cause every possible situation for that object, but even for what we can do to the objects will the two objects react the exact same way in all those situations?

A lot of scientific experiments are based on this concept. They try a new drug on mice. They have about a hundred mice, many people would say all these mice are exactly the same, and then there is only a percentage of them that react similarly. Many people take that percentage and take it to an extreme, sometimes forgetting the remaining percentage and sometimes believing it is consistent amongst every single similar object. That is a fallacy.

[devonin]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

Yes, I said in my post that it IS necessary to categorize, it's important that we do, because if we don't then it's impossible to grow and learn from information.

So it sounds like, in fact, the child in your example who cannot do this -does- actually have a serious disability. Understanding the "deep logic" behind this (which the child probably doesn't anyway) in no way mitigates the fact that this is a skill that everyone needs to have to function properly in society.

So, two objects may be very similar, but will they react exactly the same way in every situation possible? Of course, we as human beings cannot cause every possible situation for that object, but even for what we can do to the objects will the two objects react the exact same way in all those situations?

That question doesn't actually challenge any assertion that he made. His point is that the definition of "apple" isn't so precise that it applies to one and only one instance of appledom in all of creation.

Our definitions for categories of things contain enough leeway to allow for the sort of categorization you say is impossible.

Apple: : the fleshy usually rounded red, yellow, or green edible pome fruit of a usually cultivated tree (genus Malus) of the rose family ;

Clearly all the apples in the person's hand fit into that definition, such that referring to them all collectively as "apples" is perfectly legitimate.

"the same" doesn't -actually- mean "Completely identical in all respects" That's why we have both the word 'same' and the word 'identical'

Many people take that percentage and take it to an extreme, sometimes forgetting the remaining percentage and sometimes believing it is consistent amongst every single similar object.

Those people are stupid though, and shouldn't be held up as representative of anything but their own stupidity. Anybody who would see "We tested 100 Y, and 30% exhibited this behavior X" and say "Therefore it will do X to 100% of Y" is just an idiot and can be safely ignored.

[Izzy]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

Izzy probably hit it right on the head however, "1+1=2 simply because that's how we developed the mathematical system. We declared that it did by defining what 1 is." That's a large part of what I'm trying to say, that our mathematical system is a human creation based on something that doesn't necessarily entirely and accurately exist in the real world. There are many people who don't realize that, and I guess that's what my post is, it's a mind-opener rather than a debate topic, but apparently there are still things to debate here. (And no this is no copy paste trash, this is my original post that is no where else on the internet).

Glad to see you came back.

I remember awhile back I created a thread about time and how I didn't think it existed. I argued my point for awhile, but I don't believe anyone really understood what i was getting at. This is the same thing though. Time and even the first three dimensions are just concepts that we created and defined. They don't really exist since we made them to be used to solve problems that are probably also entirely artificial. Just have to accept that everyone is probably wrong about everything.

[VulcanRevenge]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

Exactly one of my points Izzy, thanks for clearing that up.

Devonin, "So it sounds like, in fact, the child in your example who cannot do this -does- actually have a serious disability. Understanding the "deep logic" behind this (which the child probably doesn't anyway) in no way mitigates the fact that this is a skill that everyone needs to have to function properly in society."

-This is somewhat missing the point, the child is purely for example and in no way does the child exist in the real world. The idea isn't that the child understands the logic, (the child actually doesn't understand, and yes has a problem) the child is only to be understood to have a different perception of the world, it isn't supposed to be an actual being. Perhaps the illustration would make more sense to you if the creature being interviewed was from another world and had an entirely different set of terms, units, and ways to measure the universe.

That is beside the point however. I already said I didn't present the idea perfectly and I was open for suggestions so thank you.

Also Devonin, I mentioned at the beginning of my post that I wouldn't be surprised by a lack of surprise among readers. You already understand the idea I'm trying to explain. I've met enough of who you refer to as "stupid" people to know that at least from what I have observed, it is a problem in society.

You also keep forgetting that I already said that probably "the most accurately someone could predict an event is about 99%." I meant that to be a very high percentage, because "uncertainty should be understood as something that applies to all things but only to a somewhat limited degree." I'd like to clarify also that it is much higher in different situations and much lower in others. The problems arise when we fail to recognize the uncertainty.

[devonin]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

Perhaps the illustration would make more sense to you

No, I'm not stupid, the example made perfect sense to me. My point is that your example didn't actually support what you were trying to say anyway, and that the child doesn't actually show any sign of understanding a "deeper logic" in anything, but is just suffering from a disability.

Let me put it another way: Understanding that things we call "the same" aren't actually "identical" doesn't actually tell us anything at all practical or useful.

All you're really saying is "Inductive logic is less strong than deductive logic" which is a pretty standard concept. Yes we know that even if something works exactly the same way X times in a row, at time X+1 it may in fact do something completely different. The point is, after X is large enough, it is a safe assumption to act as though it will continue to work that way.

Put yet another way: If we actually acted as though we had absolutely no means by which to accurately predict the outcome of any action, we would be pretty much completely unable to do -anything- that was at all useful. If I considered that for each button I pressed on my keyboard, the signal being communicated to my computer might not be exactly the same as the last time I pushed the button, and thus generate an entirely seperate letter on the screen, it would take me dramatically longer to type anything because I would constantly have to be checking that the output was actually the one I wanted.

You also keep forgetting that I already said that probably "the most accurately someone could predict an event is about 99%."

No I didn't forget that at all. The point is "a very high percentage" is generally enough for -most- possible things about which we would need to make a prediction to make a prediction based on previous evidence.

The problems arise when we fail to recognize the uncertainty.

If we didn't recognize the uncertainty we wouldn't put peanut allergy warnings on items that are supposed to contain no peanuts.

[VulcanRevenge]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

How is a different perspective unhelpful or unpractical? You're 25 Devonin, this may be something that you've known and understood your whole life. As for me and many others, who've grown up believing in the American Dream, Santa Clause, and some kind of system that's supposed to return the same output as it's input, this can be quite a new perspective.

A lot of people out there believe that if they work hard enough and if they dream big enough, they can achieve whatever they want. What I've come to realize is that the world is not a system, it isn't a big machine that guarantees or gives certainty to anything. A whole lot more than what some people understand is that the real world is much more fluid than that, and more left up to chance, luck, and forces that are out of our control.

"If we actually acted as though we had absolutely no means by which to accurately predict the outcome of any action, we would be pretty much completely unable to do -anything- that was at all useful."

-Yes, you are absolutely correct in this, this is why I mentioned in the original post, that "If understood incorrectly however, this idea can destroy emotions such as confidence, hope, and love." what I meant by that is exactly what you are talking about, that if we let the idea of uncertainty overwhelm us and make us unable to place any confidence whatsoever in any object in the real world then of course it would make you unable to function in the real world.

That is why, and I repeat again, "uncertainty should be understood as something that applies to all things but only to a somewhat limited degree." So that it can be understood to apply especially to things that are less and less under our control. Specifically, our happiness should be less dependent on things that are less certain.

Yes, I'm pretty sure I know what you're thinking and it's probably something along the lines of, "well everyone already knows that" but what about all those people that get so upset when they don't get things they want? Or what about those people who get angry when they lose? What about all those people who get upset over the weather? Or what about all those people who feel entitled from the economic system?

Many people don't realize that life is more than numbers. We can't always depend on things that are created by mankind, like government, McDonalds, computers, science, statistics. You can be pretty certain that the keys on your keyboard will type the same letters that you press consistently, but has your computer ever randomly shut down on you while typing an essay, or your internet connection fail while you're writing a post? Then by chance did you slam your fist on the desk, shout a few expletives and grumble as you turned it back on? Even if you haven't done it yourself, I'm almost positive you've witnessed a similar event somewhere.

However, you know this is a minor example. The problems really begin when people believe they are entitled, think they know everything, or feel justified in casting someone's opinions and ideas aside because of how certain they are of their own.

[A2P]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

How is a different perspective unhelpful or unpractical?

A different perspective is confusing, and can be wrong. What you're basically saying is that all ideas can hold an acceptable meaning. This is wrong. For example:

Father to son:

Father: Son, you can never lie.
Son: Okay dad.
Father: Not once can you ever lie. Not under any circumstance. Never lie, for that it is wrong to do so and will always will be.

Father to son (FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE):

Father: Son, you can never lie.
Son: Okay dad.
Father: WELL...you can lie SOMETIMES, but only if you want to.
Son: Really?
Father: Yes, but only when you think it is right. Otherwise, never lie.

The second example is an example of looking at things at a different perspective. The first is following an absolute value. If we have nothing that has absolute value, then value becomes meaningless. When values become meaningless, then we see that everything is acceptable...no matter how horrible it might be. I'm sure what Hitler did in World War II was wrong...but if you try to find a reason why his crimes were justified, you would be looking at that as a different perspective...and that, my friend, is wrong.

Long story short, don't be a relativist. Those are my 2 cents (It's more like a dollar given the length though) on this issue. I can't argue anything else worth a damn.

[devonin]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

A lot of people out there believe that if they work hard enough and if they dream big enough, they can achieve whatever they want. What I've come to realize is that the world is not a system, it isn't a big machine that guarantees or gives certainty to anything. A whole lot more than what some people understand is that the real world is much more fluid than that, and more left up to chance, luck, and forces that are out of our control.

Add in actually possessing the skill and ability required to be successful at what they try, and you're not especially incorrect.

The problem has come from the idea that hard work alone guarentees you success which is not in fact the case. Though I'm not sure what the unreality of the american dream has to do with the idea that not all things of the "same" type are in fact "identical"

At best, someone who looks at somebody else who worked hard and was successful and says "If I work just as hard, I'll be just as successful" is just another example highlighting that some people happen to confuse 'same' and 'identical' but that's not a fault of society.

but what about all those people that get so upset when they don't get things they want?

Desire is the root of all suffering. That has nothing to do with thinking sameness is identicality, or that all inputs of a type will generate identical outputs. That has to do with the fact that as thinking beings, we desire for our wants to be fulfilled. It's a high-quality survival trait. The ones for whom their desires are made manifest the most often, they will be the most successful and most likely to continue their line. Being upset when you don't "get what you want" doesn't stem from illogic, it is just the emotional reaction, and suggesting that "proper understanding" of the fact that there is unpredictability in nature will somehow -remove- negative emotional reactions just shows, to me, a poor understanding of intrinsic human and animal nature.

Or what about those people who get angry when they lose?

You mean, people who get angry when they lose for reasons which are not based on failing in a test of skill against an opponent with a superior skill? Frankly, I would be -more- inclined to be angry if I lost for a stupid reason like an ill-timed gust of wind, or a poor random draw. Those -are- the times when you should get angry. When you shoudln't get angry is at the predicatable, logical loss to someone with superior abilities.

What about all those people who get upset over the weather?

I think by and large, people don't get upset about the weather. They get upset about inaccurate weather prediction from meterologists. But they'll be the first to tell you that any prediction over 24 hours into the future is an educated guess at best. Furthermore, rather than get upset about the weather, most people get upset because whatever they were planning to do was made impossible -by- the weather. It's disappointment at an unfulfilled desire again, not a raging at the cruel whims of fate.

Many people don't realize that life is more than numbers.

I'd suggest quite the opposite, that not -enough- people realise the degree to which life -is- numbers. The problem is that they expect these numbers to be nice to them, when in fact, numbers don't care.

We can't always depend on things that are created by mankind, like government, McDonalds, computers, science, statistics.

I object to the inclusion of 'science' and 'statistics' in that list. Either one, if used correctly, generates true information, and by its very nature is inherantly self-correcting for mistakes given enough time and proper application of itself.

has your computer ever randomly shut down on you while typing an essay, or your internet connection fail while you're writing a post? Then by chance did you slam your fist on the desk, shout a few expletives and grumble as you turned it back on?

What exactly are you suggesting? Expressing negative emotion when negative things happen is bad? I'd be better served in practicality as well as mental health to simply ignore my negative emotions and tell myself "It was only random chance causing a reaction that I happen to not prefer, ah well, maybe the next random chance will be better." and then carry on with my day? You -could- do that, but cathartic expressions of emotion of all sorts are far better for your overall mental health in my opinion.

The problems really begin when people believe they are entitled, think they know everything, or feel justified in casting someone's opinions and ideas aside because of how certain they are of their own.

Once again, what does this actually have to do with your earlier points on the non-identicality of things we often count as being samey? The problem with -what- begins when someone believes they are entitled? Sometimes you -are- entitled, sometimes you're owed, and sometimes you are so certain of your position because you know it to be correct.

I'd cast aside someone's position that the earth is actually made of cheese, or that the ocean is actually blueberry jello, because those positions are absurd, and so are many others. So you can't possibly be talking universal rules here, because many opinions and positions are -not- worth paying attention to.

[Momoko_Katsura]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

Can I quote that post for my siggy, Devonin?

[Cavernio]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

"I remember awhile back I created a thread about time and how I didn't think it existed. I argued my point for awhile, but I don't believe anyone really understood what i was getting at. This is the same thing though. Time and even the first three dimensions are just concepts that we created and defined. They don't really exist since we made them to be used to solve problems that are probably also entirely artificial. Just have to accept that everyone is probably wrong about everything."

Ah, but if a tree falls in the woods, and no one's around to hear it does it make a sound? By your logic, if it does then everyone's wrong about everything, and if it doesn't then everyones right about everything. Either position is stupid.

[Izzy]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

Sorry your statement makes no sense and is very irrelevant to my statement.

[VulcanRevenge]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

What's interesting Saik0Shinigami, is that even though you completely agree with Devonin, you still at least understand the basic part of what I'm trying to explain. "By definition categories sort similar objects together and different objects apart. A category doesn't necessarily mean that the scope of it's objects are exactly the same (in any sense of the word)" This is the root of my argument, that there are dissimilarities between two objects that we categorize as the same down to even the atomic level. Now this is only the root of my argument which I believe expands to other things. When we try to measure and analyze objects and organisms or larger things than molecules, the dissimilarities increase, increasing uncertainty.

I think I understand why it's difficult to get my point across and it's because my train of thought is that "things are less certain than you think they are." Which unfortunately is only true for some people. Others already understand that there is uncertainty in the real world and no matter how insignificantly you recognize it, I believe it is important to recognize it. For most of the people who are debating in here, you already understand the concept I'm trying to explain and if I were in your position I have little doubt that I would think it was irrelevant as well since I already understand it.

Perhaps I am suffering from a strange type of local cultural relativism, but it has been my experience, in at least what I have observed, that there are a lot of people who do not even accept uncertainty in the slightest bit. Instead of blaming mankind's creations for frustrations in their lives they blame outside forces like luck or deity when altogether it could very well be the uncertainties in the system. I'm not saying this is the only reason why people do this, I'm only suggesting that a comprehension of uncertainty can aid someone in understanding a very real and applicable reason for why things happen.

I'll give a real life example as my previous fictitious one was not that clear. The Challenger space shuttle at the time of it's construction in 1981 was probably seen as the pinnacle of the ability of scientists, engineers, and researchers to create a spacecraft that would be able to go into space and return with the crew alive and the spacecraft mostly intact. Unfortunately in 2003 we saw that that ability was probably not as sound as we thought it was. The disaster was said to have been caused by a brief-case sized piece of foam that had broken off and struck the leading edge of the left wing causing damage to the thermal protection system of the craft. Interestingly enough it was also said that similar previous episodes had happened that had caused no serious damage.

Sociologist Diane Vaughan termed this as a "normalization of deviance." The crew thought that, even at this high level of uncertainty, since it had happened before with no serious negative effects it would act the same way during this event. They were assuming that the effects of previous similar events would continue to be consistent, which sounds like a valid assumption. The error in logical processing comes when you are at this high level of uncertainty (such as new technology like space craft and their mechanical components) and you do not consider other options.

Of course there are also reports of people who actually knew of mechanical problems in the craft that could lead to this problem, such as the failure of the O-ring joints, but the craft was still launched anyway against safety regulations. This goes along with another point I'm trying to make, that some people fail to comprehend that government and businesses are made of people, not perfect robots. Since this is true there is quite a bit of uncertainty in our system that many people do not realize.

I apologize if it seems I'm going off topic, but I believe that this idea has many applications in several areas. Also, I believe that if it isn't understood (and I believe most of the posters of this thread already actually do understand the concept) it can have very negative effects, that expand beyond trying to land a space shuttle, which I have previously tried to explain.

[devonin]

Re: 1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

Edit: Eh, nevermind.