NationStates Jolt Archive

"No man can cross the same river twice, because neither the man nor the river are the same."--Heraclitus

So...what is real? Are we the same as we were ten years ago? Can we judge who we will be by what is passed? Is reality no more than a constant state of change, which creates and defines existence? I think its time we had a purely philosophical thread, debating about the same things contemplated for lifetimes by the aptly named philosophers of yore. So come forth, all ye Socrateses, Nietzsches, and Platos! Let's see what mettle can be brought in discussing questions older than life itself!

*Disclaimer: Argument need not be restricted to the above quote. Merely a guide. Other possibilities include: "If a man says something in the woods and there are no women there, is he still wrong?" or "Since everything we see is processed upside down, which is real?"

If you have any philosophical questions you want answered or discussed, post them!

"No man can cross the same river twice, because neither the man nor the river are the same."--Heraclitus

So...what is real? Are we the same as we were ten years ago? Can we judge who we will be by what is passed? Is reality no more than a constant state of change, which creates and defines existence? I think its time we had a purely philosophical thread, debating about the same things contemplated for lifetimes by the aptly named philosophers of yore. So come forth, all ye Socrateses, Nietzsches, and Platos! Let's see what mettle can be brought in discussing questions older than life itself!

*Disclaimer: Argument need not be restricted to the above quote. Merely a guide. Other possibilities include: "If a man says something in the woods and there are no women there, is he still wrong?" or "Since everything we see is processed upside down, which is real?"

If you have any philosophical questions you want answered or discussed, post them!

Oh wise teacher! Perhaps you can help me with a question.

If a non-existent land is created in an online political simulation game, does it generate a paradox? ;)

Oh wise teacher! Perhaps you can help me with a question.

If a non-existent land is created in an online political simulation game, does it generate a paradox? ;)

Mmm, yes, young grasshopper. A paradox there appears to be...unless taken from the perspective that an online forum exists to generate generally non-existent lands, and therefore validates the name as identifying what all nations on a certain forum actually are...in accordance with the prophecy, of course. :p

Mmm, yes, young grasshopper. A paradox there appears to be...unless taken from the perspective that an online forum exists to generate generally non-existent lands, and therefore validates the name as identifying what all nations on a certain forum actually are...in accordance with the prophecy, of course. :p

Damn. Always a prophecy in the way of my reason...

I love that one of Heraclitus'. He was pretty deep in his cups that night, if I remember correctly, too. The river one was right after "An Athenian, a Spartan and a Theban went into a bar ..." I forget the rest but the punchline was something like, "Well, at these prices, I wouldn't, either."

I guess you had to be there.

I love that one of Heraclitus'. He was pretty deep in his cups that night, if I remember correctly, too. The river one was right after "An Athenian, a Spartan and a Theban went into a bar ..." I forget the rest but the punchline was something like, "Well, at these prices, I wouldn't, either."

I guess you had to be there.

Speaking of cups--half-empty or half-full?

You can step into the same river twice, despite both you and the river changing, the connection between your former self and river's former self is still strong enough to consider them a continuation.

You can step into the same river twice, despite both you and the river changing, the connection between your former self and river's former self is still strong enough to consider them a continuation.

I agree. Despite our ever-changing status, we are still who we are by virtue of our existence, in that there is enough of us that stays (and does not change) that we can still be considered "the same."

The terms "a man" and "a river" define objects that when used by most people refer to a set of members that are al causually related to eachother in a specific way generaly such that there is no morethan one in any particular moment in time.

If you were to take "man" and "river" to mean objects that only exist instantaniously (over let us say a period of time defined by planc's constant) then those terms would cease to be useful for most poeple in almost any situation. So it would be odd for that to become "the definition" however you could make it so.

So, while probably 'wrong' technicaly, what it does do is raise an intresting question about the nature of continuality and what exactly it is that defines "A" as still being "A" next time we see it.

:rolleyes:
and where is my beer? :gundge:

We can even post twice in the same forum...

What? This is my glass? I don't think so! Excuse me? Excuse me? My glass was full! And it was bigger. :rolleyes:

Reality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
It is, in my opinion, perception.

If one man perceives something that no one else does, say for instance, a leprachaun, you call him crazy.
But to him, that lepracahun is real.
Because he SAW it.
In his mind, he perceived a leprachaun, and if he truly believes what he perceived, it becomes real, even if only to himself.

Now, if two people had seen this leprachaun, then the perception is enhanced, and it becomes real to more than just one person.
This makes it an even stronger reality, and the more people that perceive something, the more real, and accepted as real a thing becomes.

And thats how Gods are born, boys and girls.

I agree. Despite our ever-changing status, we are still who we are by virtue of our existence, in that there is enough of us that stays (and does not change) that we can still be considered "the same."

We completely renew our bodies every seven years, or so I understand. What is there that stays in order for us to be "the same?"

We completely renew our bodies every seven years, or so I understand. What is there that stays in order for us to be "the same?"

Your thoughts upon them, pupil. But you must learn to understand that these thoughts are Subject to change as well. Still, they are thoughts. So, the question is, what are thoughts? Meta-philosophy :D .

Reality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
It is, in my opinion, perception.

If one man perceives something that no one else does, say for instance, a leprachaun, you call him crazy.
But to him, that lepracahun is real.
Because he SAW it.
In his mind, he perceived a leprachaun, and if he truly believes what he perceived, it becomes real, even if only to himself.

Now, if two people had seen this leprachaun, then the perception is enhanced, and it becomes real to more than just one person.
This makes it an even stronger reality, and the more people that perceive something, the more real, and accepted as real a thing becomes.

And thats how Gods are born, boys and girls.

Your conclusion is the most acceptable of all your wisdoms :p . What if we only perceive lepracahuns with telescopes, but can't seem to get close to them? Is that justified perception?

Reality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
It is, in my opinion, perception.

If one man perceives something that no one else does, say for instance, a leprachaun, you call him crazy.
But to him, that lepracahun is real.
Because he SAW it.
In his mind, he perceived a leprachaun, and if he truly believes what he perceived, it becomes real, even if only to himself.

Now, if two people had seen this leprachaun, then the perception is enhanced, and it becomes real to more than just one person.
This makes it an even stronger reality, and the more people that perceive something, the more real, and accepted as real a thing becomes.

And thats how Gods are born, boys and girls.

That's how much of human knowledge is born.

A person on the street witnesses a man stealing an old lady's purse, and they testify in court that the man did so.

A scientist sees a repeated result in an experiment, and records and documents the data for others to use.

A man sees Allah, and tells others about the deity he has interacted with so that their lives can be improved.

They see it, and we treat it as real because we trust in their perception.

Is human perception always correct? I doubt it. A person witnessing a crime can be tricked by a visual trick of lighting. A scientist can be influenced by his conceptual framework to interpret the data a certain way. A man can think he saw Allah because there was a drug in his food that day that caused hallucinations. But it is not necessarily true that human perception is always inaccurate, or that it is only inaccurate in the way you think it is.

But it is not necessarily true that human perception is always inaccurate, or that it is only inaccurate in the way you think it is.

What?

What?

WHich means you might not ever claim any certainty, neither positivily nor negativily.

What?

This may help clarify.

A few thoughts on faith...

1. I have faith that I'm not operating in a solipsist fantasy, so I live my life, go to work, pay my bills, and try to help other financially when I can.

2. I have faith that my family exists and that they love me because they told me they do, so I visit them and make time to be with them when I can.

3. I have faith that my friends want me to tell them "Happy Birthday!" when their birthdays come around throughout the year, because the culture expects it.

4. I have faith that my cat exists and can scratch me because I have experienced it doing so.

5. I believe in melanin being the cause of skin pigmentation because it's the best explanation for the phenomena that I know of.

So why is it that when someone has faith in a deity, whether it's like in #1 "just because" or in #2 "because my family said so" or in #3 "because my culture expects it" or in #4 "because I've experienced it" or in #5 "because it's the best explanation for the phenomena that I know of" their faith is suddenly questionable?

But ah, we have reason. This will help, no doubt. But alas, we can't reason our way to God's existence. Does this mean God does not exist? Of course not. You'd be hard-pressed to reason your way to your own existence. Just ask the critics of Descartes. Reason doesn't seem to be much help in determining whether or not things exist, only in determining whether they can exist within the constraints of a system we've developed.

But then again, we do have science. That'll sort things out, right? Sadly, no. I love science, but it's not that easy. Do you believe in a deity just because a bunch of people (who experience a mystical reality) agree that there is such a deity? Can we really trust a bunch of people (who experience an experimental reality) to perceive reality as it is? But wait, what if we get a bunch of other people, and they agree that the same reality is the case? Of course we can, or at least we do. But believing in a particular experimental result because a based on trusting a bunch of people to perceive reality correctly is not really so different from believing in a deity based on trusting other people to perceive reality correctly.

I'm agnostic on the question of whether God exists or not, but it seems to me that it's a bit silly how folks find faith based on trusting other people's perceptions of reality so suspect, given our heavy reliance on it for science and many interpersonal and social functions.

WHich means you might not ever claim any certainty, neither positivily nor negativily.


Now that I can agree to.

As I said, its all about perception.

Christians, for example, claim to percieve God.
So to them, hes real.
Others do not perceive him/it, and thus to them, he is not.

Both are quite right.

[Edit]



I'm agnostic on the question of whether God exists or not, but it seems to me that it's a bit silly how folks find faith based on trusting other people's perceptions of reality so suspect, given our heavy reliance on it for science and many interpersonal and social functions.

Becuase we (if I were a christian) have two very different perceptions of reality.

You as an agnostic have an unclear perception of a given thing. It leads you to an uncertain answer.
My own personal view says differently
My perceptions of reality differ from yours.

Its natural to reject anothers view of a reality you cannot accept.

We completely renew our bodies every seven years, or so I understand. What is there that stays in order for us to be "the same?"

Our memories, our thoughts, or rather capacity thereof, primarily

When a thing is immaterial, definition and existence are equivilent. A non-physical thing has an existence in as much as it is defined by the observer. This is quite a controversial statement, and I've yet to put together a solid rational explanation for it, but to most humans it seems quite natural, if rather mysterious.

This concept can extend to things we might also consider physical. For instance, the river. When we see a body of water, we are not looking at its base physical structure. Rather, what we perceive is the result of the systemic interaction of the core components of that body, be it the way its flowing, how light reflects off it, its smell and viscosity or whatever. It is always that immaterial difference between the whole and the sum of the parts that we focus on in our consideration of any object we ourselves interact with.

Ultimately, definitions inherently depend on the notion of analysis by abstraction. A river can be a specific collection of fundamental particles, it can be a subsection of a body of water, it can be a geographical location through which water happens to flow, it can be an ecosystem for living things and an environment within which they live, and any other number of possible ways of looking at it. Each of these in turn redefines the river depending on how we wish to perceive it. Since these differences in definition all return to something immaterial about the river, the very existence of the river to us as an observer changes with the abstraction we apply to it.

At any given moment, therefore, whether the river is the same or not depends on if you're analysing it in such a way that its consistency is upheld.

I love it when you get such blatently obvious conclusions in philosophy. ^_^

Our memories, our thoughts, or rather capacity thereof, primarily

But memories change and accumulate, our thouhts are not necessarily the same and we all change on the inside too. So even if a man enters the river for a second/third/etc. time in his life he will still be a different man. And if the same thing is true for bodies of waters, the river is different too.

But for all us normal people the same man entered the same river many times. He liked swimming.

We completely renew our bodies every seven years, or so I understand. What is there that stays in order for us to be "the same?"

Continuity within spacetime, that's what. Just be thankful we haven't invented teleportation yet.

Anyhow, I'm with Cratylus and his claim that you can't even step in the same river once, as while you step both the waters and yourself are flowing. Panta rhei.

Continuity within spacetime, that's what. Just be thankful we haven't invented teleportation yet.

Anyhow, I'm with Cratylus and his claim that you can't even step in the same river once, as while you step both the waters and yourself are flowing. Panta rhei.

Just be thankfull we haven't invented time stoppers yet. Tempus Frangit.

The cup/mug/chalice/container/glass is...

Depends whether it contains hemlock or coffee.

to use the cartesian example;

if i have a lump of wax in my hands i know it is wax, but with heat it becomes mutable and it's shape changes accordingly. i know it is still wax, so what can i claim to have known about the wax in its first form that i can still claim to know now?


...only that it is still wax.



BUT cartesian arguments can be defeated by 'hidden properties'

-lois lane loves superman
-lois lane does not love clark Kent
=Clark kent is not superman







....it also doesn't help when you try to think ''objectively'' which is why i consider myself a student of Nietzsche*; there is no subjectivity




*and NO, he was not responsible for anything to do with the nazi movement or anti semiticism, these are claims made by people who have never actually read a word of his works.

I'm GERMAN so i MUST be a Nazi!

... and talking about "ubermenchen" did probably not really help it either.

I'm GERMAN so i MUST be a Nazi!

... and talking about "ubermenchen" did probably not really help it either.

the ubermensch wasn't the idea of supermen that it has bene mistaken for, it was the idea that some people are 'the herd' and others are 'noble' or 'freesprits'...

at no point should Nietzsches work EVER be used to support Godwins law!

I'm GERMAN so i MUST be a Nazi!

... and talking about "ubermenchen" did probably not really help it either.

???

at no point should Nietzsches work EVER be used to support Godwins law!

You may very well have a grasp of Nietzsche, but you seem to have totally misunderstood Godwin.

the ubermensch wasn't the idea of supermen that it has bene mistaken for, it was the idea that some people are 'the herd' and others are 'noble' or 'freesprits'...

at no point should Nietzsches work EVER be used to support Godwins law!

Yea, i know (the ubermensch part). But who is this "Godwin" we hear about?

Yea, i know (the ubermensch part). But who is this "Godwin" we hear about?

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

Note that Shyft has apparently misunderstood the principle of the law.

So, because Shyft mentioned nazis, he lost?

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

Note that Shyft has apparently misunderstood the principle of the law.

i haven't misunderstood it, it's the principle that if an argument continues the chances of one side being comparedd to hitler and the Nazi's drops to 1.


unfrotunately due to some serious misunderstandings on other peoples parts they hear about Nietzsche and lump him in with hitler et al.

i haven't misunderstood it, it's the principle that if an argument continues the chances of one side being comparedd to hitler and the Nazi's drops to 1.


unfrotunately due to some serious misunderstandings on other peoples parts they hear about Nietzsche and lump him in with hitler et al.

Yes, which supports Godwin's observation. 'Should' or 'should not' is irrelevant.

So, because Shyft mentioned nazis, he lost?

Godwin doesn't speak of winning or losing, merely presents a statistical observation.

Yes, which supports Godwin's observation. 'Should' or 'should not' is irrelevant.

ok, i think i understand what you're getting towards here, the efforts of other people who invoke godwins law, which is what happens.
What i'm saying is that this is done wrongly, so while it does support Godwin, whenit happens involving Nietzsche, it is a fallacy

anyhow, the OP was about philosophy, not statistical observations....somehow we can find our way back to just philosophy?

Godwin doesn't speak of winning or losing, merely presents a statistical observation.

This Godwin must have had a wee bit too much free time for "statistical observations"...

What i'm saying is that this is done wrongly, so while it does support Godwin, whenit happens involving Nietzsche, it is a fallacy

Perhaps with Nietzsche, but not with Elizabeth Forster, obviously, and it is hard to divorce the two, expecially with regard to the Will To Power.

Perhaps with Nietzsche, but not with Elizabeth Forster, obviously, and it is hard to divorce the two, expecially with regard to the Will To Power.

i'm sorry but i must confess i know nothing of Forsters work off the top of my head... so at this point i can't continue the discussion.

But at least fredrich's off the hook! :)

i'm sorry but i must confess i know nothing of Forsters work off the top of my head... so at this point i can't continue the discussion.

But at least fredrich's off the hook! :)

Nietzsche's sister. Shacked up with a chap called Forster in the 1890's and headed off to Paraguay in the 1890's to establish a pure German colony - Nueva Germania - which continues to this day, racked by inbreeding as the colonists still refuse to breed with the natives. Elizabeth took on Forster's virulent anti-semitism and after she decided that the experiment in Paraguay was a failure she returned to Germany. Following Nietzsche's mental collapse in Florence she took on caring for the man, and began parading him as a new Messiah-like figure (see the famous photos of him in the white robes). She took a few courses in philosophy, but seemed incapable of grasping even the basics, this did not, however, stop her from editing Nietzsches unpublished later notes into the volume known as The Will To Power. Following Friedrich's death she established the Nietzsche museum and famously entertained Hitler and I believe Goebbels there. She was a strong supporter of the Nazi regime.

oh the cup may be half-full...

but what is it half-full of?



Thererin lies the rub

oh the cup may be half-full...

but what is it half-full of?



Thererin lies the rub
In that case, the cup can never be empty, for as long as it holds the shape of a cup it must contain at least something and be full to the brim of its contents.

In that case, the cup can never be empty, for as long as it holds the shape of a cup it must contain at least something and be full to the brim of its contents.

What if you sucked all the air out of the room around the glass?

What if you sucked all the air out of the room around the glass?
Then it would be full of nothing.

Then it would be full of nothing.

Nothing is not "something", its the complete opposite

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
That has to be the most amusing FAQ I've read. :)

Nothing is not "something", its the complete opposite
"Nothing" is as much of a something as "Truth", "Probability" and "Beer" are. They have conceptual existence, which is still a state of being nonetheless. The fact that we can define it means it has some sort of existence. It's all about abstraction and perception; just as the glass may be full of a single liquid even when the actual volume of matter inside the glass may occupy a relatively low proportion of the total volume enclosed by the glass itself and may cover a wide range of different kinds of matter, so too may the glass be full of a "nothing" when there is actually genuinely no matter present there at all.

Half full? Half empty? What the heck are you talking about? It's at 50% capacity. ;)

<- voted 'Who drank my beer?'

oh the cup may be half-full...

but what is it half-full of?



Thererin lies the rub

My guess would be beer, given the last option. ;)

So...what is real? Are we the same as we were ten years ago? Can we judge who we will be by what is passed? Is reality no more than a constant state of change, which creates and defines existence?

*Disclaimer: Argument need not be restricted to the above quote. Merely a guide. Other possibilities include: "If a man says something in the woods and there are no women there, is he still wrong?" or "Since everything we see is processed upside down, which is real?"
The only certainty is that things will change.

The only certainty is that things will change.
... unless they don't.

... unless they don't.

Which they always do. ALWAYS. I give you--Reality.;)

Which they always do. ALWAYS. I give you--Reality.;)

I beg to differ. The gravitational constant hasn't changed, nor has the speed of light. So, since some things don't change, your statement that says everything changes was false. ^^

I beg to differ. The gravitational constant hasn't changed, nor has the speed of light. So, since some things don't change, your statement that says everything changes was false. ^^
Actually, there is some evidence (while inconclusive) that the speed of light as well as the gravitational constant have changed over time.

So...what is real?

That which is material.

Are we the same as we were ten years ago?

No. Can we meaningfully be considered the same person in terms of, say, moral responsibility? It depends on how much we have changed. Can we be referred to by the same terms? That's a matter of convention.

Can we judge who we will be by what is passed?

Predicting the future is always difficult.

The gravitational constant hasn't changed, nor has the speed of light.
Prove it! :D

Prove it! :D

That's actually one of the hardest things to prove in astrophysics. Many of our current models assume these and similar constants have been well, constant throughout the bulk of the life of the universe.

But if you allow these constants to change... you can come up with all sorts of crazy theories :)

If anyone has already responded to the poll question of if a glass half empty or half full, sorry I'm late responding.

I think the answer depends on the action it took for the glass to become half. If the glass was recently filled, then it is half empty. But if the glass was empty recently and was being filled, then it would be half full.

It all depends on its past state.

I beg to differ. The gravitational constant hasn't changed, nor has the speed of light. So, since some things don't change, your statement that says everything changes was false. ^^

Meh. These things do not seem to be eternal, but instead limited by the temporal boundaries of our cosmos. They came into being, and will likely pass out of being again.

Now, if you want to argue with 'everything changes', the sensible thing is to ask whether the principle 'everything changes' is also malleable. I still prefer the Greek myself - panta rhei - or everything flows, which brings us back to Heraclitus again.

If anyone has already responded to the poll question of if a glass half empty or half full, sorry I'm late responding.

I think the answer depends on the action it took for the glass to become half. If the glass was recently filled, then it is half empty. But if the glass was empty recently and was being filled, then it would be half full.

It all depends on its past state.

Ah, yes, but what happens if it was simultaneously being poured into whilst also being spilt out of? - imagine a shaky handed barman on an ocean going vessel tossed by the waves, what then?

Now that I can agree to.

As I said, its all about perception.

Christians, for example, claim to percieve God.
So to them, hes real.
Others do not perceive him/it, and thus to them, he is not.

Both are quite right.

Right and wrong do not apply to their perceptions, as perception is meaningless to truth. Right and wrong only apply to the predictions that their reason makes.

If Newton perceived gravitational forces, but never described a method to predict future occurrence of the force or a method for others to perceive and define the force, he would have neither been right or wrong.

Now, if you want to argue with 'everything changes', the sensible thing is to ask whether the principle 'everything changes' is also malleable. I still prefer the Greek myself - panta rhei - or everything flows, which brings us back to Heraclitus again.

Well, since it is fairly established that nothing is actually stationary, nor is there absolute space or time, then I think we can assume that everything flows.

Ok, here's a question: if you believe in reincarnation, are you someone with past lives, or are you just a continuation of someone else's life?

Ok, here's a question: if you believe in reincarnation, are you someone with past lives, or are you just a continuation of someone else's life?

I believe in reincarnation. But that's because I belive much of my "self" is encoded in my genes. The rest is nurture, and that I plan to teach to my kids :) Either way, my "self" lives on.

i haven't misunderstood it, it's the principle that if an argument continues the chances of one side being comparedd to hitler and the Nazi's drops to 1.


.........
At which point in an argument would the probability of one side being compared to Hitler and the Nazis be greater than one?

Ok, here's a question: if you believe in reincarnation, are you someone with past lives, or are you just a continuation of someone else's life?
More of the former than the latter, I think, but both are involved and neither are entirely accurate. The matter that comprises each of us probably came from other living things, thus their role in reality continues as a part of who we are as per the nature of causality. However, the person we are now is a conglomerate of many such origins, and no single amount of matter remains within us for as long as we live, thus to call ourselves a continuation of a single being's life would be inaccurate.

So yes; someone with past lives sounds like the more appropriate answer.

Meh. These things do not seem to be eternal, but instead limited by the temporal boundaries of our cosmos. They came into being, and will likely pass out of being again.

What racks my brain is trying to understand the stuff that was created .oooooooooooooooooooooooo1 seconds before.... time was created.

Anyone ever play Runequest? I really dug the cosmology. Most everythign the gods did happened before time was created, so A could cause B could cause C could cause A, without contradiction.

What racks my brain is trying to understand the stuff that was created .oooooooooooooooooooooooo1 seconds before.... time was created.

Anyone ever play Runequest? I really dug the cosmology. Most everythign the gods did happened before time was created, so A could cause B could cause C could cause A, without contradiction.
If you want to look at a causal approach to the start of the universe, you can think of it this way;

There is no "before" the universe in our timeline. The universe has always been and always will be simply due to the fact that time is entirely local to the universe itself. However, whether the universe is linear or circular in time, there is a point in this time from which we could be said to "start" to move. Given the nature of our time, this origin had to have been decided from another time frame altogether that meets with ours at this point.

I like to think of time in our universe as a train track, with our space represented by a train. We might start our journey at one end and finish it at another. However, another train running on a different track might terminate at our start point, and yet another might actually cross over our tracks as part of its journey.

In other words, time may be a two-dimensional area through which we chart but one linear path. Our flow of time could well have been started by another which was half-way through its own path. In which case, "before the universe" would refer not to any flow of time in our own existence but rather to the flow of time in the reality that caused our own. And then we in our timeline might then go on to start theirs half-way through our own.

... Maybe.

Actually, there is some evidence (while inconclusive) that the speed of light as well as the gravitational constant have changed over time.

True... well, in that case, there will always be some sort of gravitational constant, and light always has a speed... THAT's not going to change. ;)

At the very least, 1+1 will always equal 2 in all bases above binary. ^^

Edit: Also... considering what happened .00000000001 seconds before time began is pointless, because time as a dimension didn't exist then. The only way it would have meaning is if there were a different temporal dimension outside of the universe that runs parallel to our time... which we can only guess at.

However, considering an extra-universal temporal dimension that does NOT run parallel to our time is also interesting, because that might mean that from outside, one of our other dimensions may appear to be time... or none of them would appear as time, and our universe would simply be a smear of spacial dimensions... with time appearing as one of those spacial dimensions. Wouldn't it be funny if our entire universe were just a spilled beaker, with time's arrow actually being the momentum of the spill? XD

At the very least, 1+1 will always equal 2 in all bases above binary. ^^

Ah, but that is a case of axiomatic systems, not anything in the external world.

It is possible to alter the axioms and create different systems.

Thus we might have an axiom 'any number added to a number identical to itself will create a number three times its initial value'.

So, here 1+1=3, 2+2=6, 3+3=9.

As the operations of addition and subtraction are no longer entirely opposite we probably need an axiom to determine which operation should be carried out first - 'additions must be carried out before subtractions'.

So, 1+1-2=1.

usw.

Ah, but that is a case of axiomatic systems, not anything in the external world.

It is possible to alter the axioms and create different systems.

Thus we might have an axiom 'any number added to a number identical to itself will create a number three times its initial value'.

So, here 1+1=3, 2+2=6, 3+3=9.

As the operations of addition and subtraction are no longer entirely opposite we probably need an axiom to determine which operation should be carried out first - 'additions must be carried out before subtractions'.

So, 1+1-2=1.

usw.

Fine... "Putting two single discrete objects that won't do funky things like split into two or more new objects or spontaneously disappear together will always result in having a pair of discrete objects that won't do funky things like split into two or more new objects or spontaneously disappear until one or more of those objects are removed in some way."

Happy? :D

Edit: Or... 1+1 will always equal 2 in standard arithmetic.

Actually, there is some evidence (while inconclusive) that the speed of light as well as the gravitational constant have changed over time.
No, there isn't. Our ability to measure them has gotten better.

The cup/mug/chalice/container/glass is...
...twice as large as necessary.

Fine... "Putting two single discrete objects that won't do funky things like split into two or more new objects or spontaneously disappear together will always result in having a pair of discrete objects that won't do funky things like split into two or more new objects or spontaneously disappear until one or more of those objects are removed in some way."

Happy? :D

Nope, that's concerning things in the world and as such has nothing to do with mathematics.

Edit: Or... 1+1 will always equal 2 in standard arithmetic.

You are under the impression that the standard has always been, and will always be the same?

be pessimistic, that's my motto. i'd get another one.. but oh, what are the chances of that....

Nope, that's concerning things in the world and as such has nothing to do with mathematics.



You are under the impression that the standard has always been, and will always be the same?

Still works though. The constantness is what's important, and putting those given single things together will always result in two things. Also, arithmetic where 1+1 doesn't equal 2 is pretty damned useless... and I'm not talking non-linear geometry here, but arithmetic.

Still works though. The constantness is what's important, and putting those given single things together will always result in two things.

No, at best putting a pair of single things together has always resulted in two things in the past. We have no firm evidence that they will continue to act in a similar manner in the future, all we do have is recourse to a learned habitual belief on the basis of past events. Check your Hume - the same way we do not know if the sun will rise tomorrow, we do not know that 1+1 will =2 in the future.

Also, arithmetic where 1+1 doesn't equal 2 is pretty damned useless... and I'm not talking non-linear geometry here, but arithmetic.

Useless? Since when were axiomatic systems judged on the basis of utility?

We completely renew our bodies every seven years, or so I understand. What is there that stays in order for us to be "the same?"


This object of continuance is not about physical being, as you refer to. It is in accordance with the being, or soul, or nonphysical existence that determines what pont "A" is and will be for what unsaid duration: Life. Thus, whenlife ceases, or was never instilled ( such as a nonhuman presence), then Point A is only a single moment, with which I mean a moment is a frozen frame of which there is no time at all. Think of the concept of "zero."

This object of continuance is not about physical being, as you refer to. It is in accordance with the being, or soul, or nonphysical existence that determines what pont "A" is and will be for what unsaid duration: Life.


What is the 'soul' of which you speak?

What is the 'soul' of which you speak?

It's a DNA sequence combined with a memeplex, typically expressed in the actions of a zygote.