1 + 1 = Invalid: cannot add distinct objects

[Ryetta]

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

I don't know why you are replying with whole paragraphs to out of context sentences devonin. I think the main point to what he is saying is that nothing we do is actually certain because the methods we use are completely artificial in nature. Life doesn't revolve around numbers because the number systems we use aren't real. Yes everyone would agree that they help us solve uncertainties within the confines of our own artificial problems. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is right.

I don't see what you are actually trying to point out by rebutting so many random metaphors. Seems like you are debating something offtopic.

[devonin]

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

I address my responses to each statement. My use of quote tags just makes it actually clear to the reader which are my words, which are someone else's etc. You'll find that Vulcan did precisely the same thing, except putting my words in "quotation marks" without using the quote tags.

Responding to each statement takes nothing out of context because I respond to each statement in the context of the greater point.

I'm responding to issues I see with what is being said. I respond with requests for clarification of things that seem irellevant to their overall point, and I respond with my reactions to interrogative statements being made. I don't see any issue with doing any of those things.

If I'm "rebutting so many random metaphors" and this is problematic to you, the solution would be for you to advise Vulcan to stop -using- so many random metaphors, and I won't have any to respond to anymore.

[slipstrike0159]

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

I missed the last couple post just from some kind of weird way my window openend up but i think my post will still hit on the same basic principles.

I think you are all taking the OP in a realistic way instead of the conceptual way it was meant to be taken. The analogies are irrelevant, merely a way of showing the principle he is trying to get across. It has nothing to do with the similarities between two objects but rather a comparison of similarities and their 'alternate perspective' comparisons in relation to humans in general.

Think of it in terms of how we...think, as well as in how we interpret those mathematical numbers. I think he hit on his main point in how he described emotions (which seems to ironically be the thing most of you have skipped over). We in every day will often times use our categorization systems to categorize emotions with assumed circumstances behind them. "He's just upset because his girlfriend broke up with him" - Harmless enough, but could completely be wrong. Even if you know he exhibits and X emotion and you know Y incident happened to him, no matter what you know about the natural tendencies of humans he will not act the same as another person in the same situation. You can even bring it to the mathematical situations that seems to be craved here. Consider what goes through your mind when you read statistics. Even though those statistics were developed through a system of grouping you cannot accurately say that it applies that way that is assumed. For example, someone who sees a medical procedure with high success rates and comes to the conclusion that it is safe for them and gets massively taken surprise and angry when it goes differently for them. This is because every situation is different and JUST BECAUSE there is a statistic for something, there is no inherent correlation towards a new individual variable. That test has its flaws because it doesnt take everything into consideration so it would be a fallacy to even have the assumed notion that "nothing will go wrong". Apply it to any sort of social, medical, financial, etc. situations you like, relying on assumed notions of security based off of a system can only be described in terms of "likely" or "not likely" at best.
Now as far as applying this to something that you can do you have to relate it back to your reactions and emotions. What causes the emtion of anger? Unmet expectations (usually). Well just look around you at the people and how they react to things. Some people have high expectations and get angry when something doesnt go their way (usually based on whatever system they relied on to produce whatever result they expected) whereas someone of different expectations will act differently in the same situation. Anger, frustration, and all other emtions of the type can be remedied if it takes a different perspective. I would argue that one of the biggest problems with the world is its intollerance and expectations. One of the best way to solve many of our social problems is to take it to the personal level and dissect why people react in the way that they do.

I believe that what the OP was suggesting is that we as humans rely on systems (mathematical, categorization, etc.) too much when we come to our conclusions. What should be seen is that all of these systems are inherently flawed because they do not take everything into account considering NOTHING is exactly the same. So it is useless to get upset when you arrive at your unmet expectation when in truth you should have maybe not had that expectation to begin with (or at least taken a different perspective on the matter). No one said categorizing is a bad thing, just that it is a system that can be improved by means of taking a different perspective.

[devonin]

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

Even if you know he exhibits and X emotion and you know Y incident happened to him, no matter what you know about the natural tendencies of humans he will not act the same as another person in the same situation.

One assumes if you are drawing conclusions about the emotional state of a person, you are basing them on your knowledge of -that person's- emotional tendencies and history rather than saying "I'd be upset if my girlfriend broke up with me, he's upset, therefore his girlfriend broke up with him." I mean, we're assuming in this example that he's both upset and his girlfriend broke up with him, as well as assuming that I -know- his girlfriend broke up with him? And also that I at least know him more than 'not at all'?

For example, someone who sees a medical procedure with high success rates and comes to the conclusion that it is safe for them and gets massively taken surprise and angry when it goes differently for them.

Right, but being upset that something with a 1 in 1000 failure rate failed for you isn't the same as being upset that something with a 1 in 1000 failure rate failed at all. I'm pretty sure that most people can and do become aware of the fact that something with a failure rate -has failed- and very well -may fail them- I've seen people going to undergo "standard procedures" with incredibly low failure rates take all the time beforehand to work out exactly what will happen if the procedure fails. And I think the majority of people about to undergo a serious procedure like that do the same.

Also, if you went into the hospital for something pretty standard, say an appendectomy or something similar, and it got botched, you woudln't be at all angry? You don't think you -should- be at all angry? YOu think life for everyone would be better if we just accepted things going wrong that had no particular business going wrong?

Some people have high expectations and get angry when something doesnt go their way (usually based on whatever system they relied on to produce whatever result they expected) whereas someone of different expectations will act differently in the same situation. Anger, frustration, and all other emtions of the type can be remedied if it takes a different perspective.

This sounds like you're saying "Always assume the worst" because if we NEVER have ANY expectations, our expectations can never be let down. But it is precisely -high expectations- and -lofty goals- that have allowed us to advance as far as we have. If everybody gave up when the first thing didn't go their way, just shrugged it off and went to do something else, how many scientific, technological, and creative breakthroughs just wouldn't have happened? People seeing something they want fail, getting pissed off, and redoubling their efforts is how important things get done. Sure it might feel nicer for each individual to just set the bar really low, so they are never upset when things go sour, but ugh, I could never live such a blasé life.

[Reach]

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

As much as I understand what the thread creator is getting at, it's an overvaluation of the probabilistic nature of the universe to assume 1 + 1 = Invalid, which is what I have a serious problem with. It's a nonsensical claim, and if you want to get your point about an uncertain universe across it's probably best to use another example.


Every formal theory, axiom etc of mathematics is by definition, a language. Everything that can be described or conceived, including every structure or process is isomorphic to a description or definition in language. For example, if you can grasp or perceive some conceptualization, you can name it and give it a definition as well.

Every sentient creature, i.e. you, constantly affirm the linguistic structure of reality by exploiting this isomorphism to make even a single perception. Cognition and perception are languages on their own as well.


Basically, what I'm saying here is that every perception you make only confirms that you're wrong and that this discussion is semantic nonsense. 1+1 = 2 is simply an extrapolation of the perceived universe onto a definition in language. Language and mathematics are something you depend on to make and evaluate even a single perception. To reject this idea you have to reject reality itself.

Arguing about whether or not the universe is unstructured and probabilistic is completely unrelated to 1+1 = 2. On one hand, we have a formal language system that maps a concept onto a definition in language, which is what 1+1 = 2 is. On the other hand, we're arguing that the universe is sometimes unpredictable, in which the vast majority of people here are replying with 'Well, no ****', because the two are unrelated concepts.

If you're still not getting it, this is equivalent to claiming that the following picture is not necessarily an apple, because the universe is unpredictable, despite the fact our language has defined it as such: http://pocketnow.com/html/portal/new...resh-apple.jpg

So really, there's no debate here. It has been said before, so it's basically kicking the dead horse, but if you have new ideas to discuss it's probably best to put them into a new thread or something that doesn't have a crap title.



Sadly, this is the only thriving thread in CT right now XD

[VulcanRevenge]

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

I think I understand your argument, Saik0Shinigami. "But really, why bother anticipating those circumstances? Just hit backspace and continue on :P" I completely agree with you on this idea. I'm not trying to say we should be paranoid and worry about uncertainty in objects or situations where uncertainty is rather low. Sadly I have to repeat this again, that "this is why uncertainty should be understood as something that applies to all things but only to a somewhat limited degree." Understand that we should feel confident in the certainty of objects of very low uncertainty, but still at least understand and know that it still has uncertainty. If you feel you can't accept that concept without being paranoid then perhaps a rereading and a rethinking on the concept could help.

Now, as to your argument Reach, you are correct in saying that according to mathematical terms and definitions 1 + 1 would equal 2. However, here is the question, what is the representation of the number 1 in the real world? It could be anything right? Now, you could be referring to something that doesn't actually physically exist in the real world, but when using the number one to refer to an object that takes up space you are referring to something that is an object of either matter or energy.

-Before I continue with this idea, let's establish a basic algebraic concept. According to mathematical definitions, what would x + y equal? Of course, you learned in perhaps 5th grade that "x" and "y" are not similar terms and thus cannot be added. So you would conclude that x + y would equal just that, it would equal x + y because you cannot add variables that are not similar.

I'm suggesting that since no two objects are similar, they are not like numbers that can be added or subtracted, they are more like variables in more than one sense; the fact that they don't necessarily have a value, and also that when you add x + x you get 2x not just 2. At the end of the equation you still have a variable to work out and define. I believe that variable to be the amount of uncertainty that the specific object has (or the level of uncertainty associated with the object). The title should be understood that in reality 1 is a variable that is unlike any other object, so the equation 1 + 1 could be seen as x + y. (Yes, yes, x + y isn't necessarily invalid, it was meant to spark your intellect and interest in how I could consider this equation to have a different result than the presumed one) Since numbers are not always exact in the real world, they have an element of uncertainty to them. This is one reason why in chemistry, or engineering classes teachers allow for a margin of error on your homework assignment answers; it's because in the -real world-, mathematical equations and numbers can get you close, but not always are they exact.

Once again, you bring up a very valid point that in some objects the level of uncertainty is quite low as to cause mathematical reasoning to be very helpful and accurate enough. However, it is only completely accurate, useful, and applicable to real life when the level of uncertainty is so low as to render the variable of uncertainty to be insignificant enough to make, very close to, all case results to be the same. This is true for situations and objects of relatively low uncertainty. For example, yes, if you press the "a" key on your keyboard when your computer is hooked up and your devices work relatively well then you can be confident that an "a" will be registered on your computer.

The main reason why this concept is difficult to understand, I imagine, is because most of your examples are of objects and situations that I consider to have a low level of uncertainty. Where the problems and fallacy of which I speak of comes from, is when we consider these numbers to be accurate in objects and situations of higher uncertainty. For example, trying to predict human behavior. We see this all the time, researchers and marketers think a product will do phenomenally well, and sometimes they are correct. Other times they are completely and utterly wrong. There are many people who do not understand this concept and do not consider the bias, mathematical errors, and uncertainty involved in these studies. This is the fallacy I am trying to help people understand and correct, but only if they are under the influence of it (which, like I've said before, I don't believe many of the posters here are under the influence of this fallacy. This is probably making it hard for them to see the relevancy and usefulness of it).

[dsliscoo]

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

The main reason why this concept is difficult to understand, I imagine, is because most of your examples are of objects and situations that I consider to have a low level of uncertainty. Where the problems and fallacy of which I speak of comes from, is when we consider these numbers to be accurate in objects and situations of higher uncertainty. For example, trying to predict human behavior.

its Illogical to be logical in that basing anything on any previous event is wrong because everything has changed with the progression of time. although it might help in any case where unpredictability is appropriate, these thoughts are hinderances to a working mind.

I would like to just point out there is no other working system by which to go by. Defining something as low level of uncertainty shows you dont even believe in your own argument. You know we aren't omniscient, although taking account for everything isn't absurd, problem solving simply shows what you should pay attention to. Its like this, if you want to account for every factor involved.

"I have two apples in this hand and 3 apples in this hand, how many apples do i have?"

and the kid says, "well lets look at all the factors first teacher, you have 2 apples in your left hand and 3 apples in your right hand a beard on your face and a nose inbetween your eyes. we didnt account for one thing"

"and whats that"

"kim jung eil. What if today is a bad day for him and hes already crazy angry and a servant girl gave him a dud grenade to use for fishing in the pond. Then today he finds out also that one of his ships was searched by the UN. He is going to launch a nuke and then you will have no apples."

"well we are in flordia, his nuclear strike range cant reach us here."

"well you forgot, what if the sun mivrowaves the world and you have no apples."

... enough of that story.

ANother thing, Human behavior is quite predictable. How many times have you interacted with someone in your life and they pulled out a shotgun and just starting hurting people?(sorry to re-traumatize those who have) or any other absurd thing that can possibly happen. its very unlikely. Social intuition comes around when you realize that you have an effect on people in your environment. or what about trying to pick up on someone?

Or i guess what you mean if you gave a human a choice in a maze, they are at the start a walkway to the left and a walkway to the right. how can you predict where they will go? Well its said that most people will choose their dominant hands direction when picking which way to go. and over 70% of the earth is "right-handed". Where do you think the man will pick.

Both of these are "high uncertainty" situations. Yet, there are still ways to grasp what is going to happen as an observer.
'
what i am getting at.
Can you offer another system besides math and words that will show accurately how to predict "low uncertainty" problems and "high uncertainty" problems? OH wait people did, its called Luck Chama and Intuition... I will stick to numbers and words.

[windsurfer-sp]

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

For what its worth, if you can not simply state what you are claiming in 2 or 3 sentences then you are probably being close minded in what you are saying.

Allowing your argument to be lost in the jungle of words and thoughts makes a weak point.

Edit: Directed mainly at op, but I feel like it is good general advice, as pretencious as it sounds

[VulcanRevenge]

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

When a lot of questions are asked, a lot of answering is needed. I try to eliminate the need for the, "but what about..? and what about...?" Anyway, I know this thread is old, but I received this article in my psychology class about the IAT (Implicit Association Test) that somewhat illustrates my point a little better than I can. The first page is the MOST relevant to my point. If you personally don't think it relates to my argument, that's alright, it's a good read anyway.

http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Nosek%20&%20al.IATatage7.2007.pdf

[richhhhhard]

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

I am gonna have to disagree with all of you. There is no such thing as uncertainty. There are plenty of things that we do not understand, but everything we experience is a reaction occurring from an endless chain of previous reactions. This is true for every thing. Every "random" event that occurs is a result of the forces acting on every bit of matter in the universe at a given time. This is true for consciousness, emotion, and every thought that we have. For this reason I don't think that anything is "uncertain." With a thorough enough understanding of these forces I think everything could be predicted.

After all, with the rudimentary understanding we currently have we can already predict much about our planet, our bodies, and the rest of the universe. I guess that means that I believe in predestination, but I still think that we have "free-will." I know that is a contradiction, but I think that one will respond to external stimuli in a way that one sees fit. You really can't control it though, it is just a chemical reaction in your brain.

So, whether or not the kid can categorize, or whether or not there is something to argue in this thread, or whether this response is relevant, it really doesnt matter. People will read this, or not read it, and think what they want to think based on what they have experienced. After all, if you were born deaf, blind, dumb, numb, and lacked the ability to taste or smell, what would your idea of the universe be? Every thought is just a reaction to an external stimulus.

[Reach]

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

This is a bit of a semantic game, but you need to differentiate between causality in the universe and uncertainty.

I agree, the universal is causal in nature, based on a set of reactions that abide by the physical laws that founded it. There's still uncertainty for every observer in the universe, though, as this uncertainty is built right into those very laws that link the universe causally (See quantum mechanics, e.g. heisenberg uncertainty).

This can be hard to understand, but in a nutshell the causally linked rules of the universe that ultimately always determine what happens next can never be fully known. There is always uncertain information that is changed and influenced by any and all attempts to know this information. As such, it's a bit like the universe can't really make up it's mind.


Anyway, this has very little to do with the OPs original argument.

[WTFBrandon]

Re: 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.

Everything you just said, is utterly and completely... wrong.

[VulcanRevenge]

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

"Everything you just said, is utterly and completely... wrong."

Wow WTFBrandon, are you certain about that? Please don't post if you truly have nothing to say. If you'd like to present an argument please do it in a sensible, logical manner.

Richhhard, I hope you understand that I'm referring to the present time of our understanding. I very much agree with you that maybe in the end, (assuming Quantum Mechanics are somehow more certain than we presently think they are) everything could be measured with perfect measurement. But as human beings we will never be able to reach that perfect measurement, or at least not for a very, very, very long time. As long as we cannot measure things perfectly, there will be uncertainty. (Sounds like a pretty basic concept) .

[richhhhhard]

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

NFD, you really haven't presented any kind of argument other than saying that everything he is saying is wrong. Any specific reasons why you think that?

To Reach and VulcanRevenge, sorry if my argument was not on target with the original post, I was mainly commenting on "Uncertainty is everywhere. However, it isn't something to get depressed about, it's only something to realize and accept."

I saw that as relating to the rest of the argument. If you are talking about right now, for us, I would agree. I do not think it is something you have to accept though, the reason we have made the scientific advances we have is because of people that did not accept that everything was uncertain. If you are depressed about the uncertainty in the world then go out and try to find the answers.

On another note,

I agree, the universal is causal in nature, based on a set of reactions that abide by the physical laws that founded it. There's still uncertainty for every observer in the universe, though, as this uncertainty is built right into those very laws that link the universe causally (See quantum mechanics, e.g. heisenberg uncertainty).

What you are saying is that we perceive uncertainty. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle does not prove that there is uncertainty in the universe, just that we cannot measure two things at the same time. Also, quantum mechanics is still relatively new. All forms of science are relatively new if you think about it. Considering how much we have learned in the last couple of centuries, consider what we will know in a few more. Obviously we can never understand everything, that would be a paradox, but I think it would be really interesting to see how people view the universe in a few more centuries.

[VulcanRevenge]

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

Sigh.... NFD, this is the third time you've come in here, and all you've said is 'you're wrong, because I think you are.' If I don't understand what I'm saying then why am I posting paragraphs of my thought process while you're posting one-liners with no backing, evidence, or information?

I can understand your frustration because you think this is common knowledge, but I'm sure you would think otherwise if you saw someone break down because their total confidence in someone or something was completely shattered. (Which, I imagine, you've probably actually already witnessed)