why does 1+1=2?

[Harold O'brien]

Works how? By engaging other basement dwelling subhumans such as yourself? Congrats!

as in it's a legitimate criticism that any philosopher of mathematics would respect

 

[RecessedChinCel]

but it is also a construct itself

unless you think our perception of reality isn't heavily tied to human consciousness and the environment we find ourselves in?

Nigga can predict the orbit of planets with math but muh our perception of reality. So many mental gymnastics.

Are planets tied to human consciousness? Jfl

 

[Eduardo DOV]

summing and mixing are the exact same thing because no two things are identical

no, ITS NOT. I don't know where you got it from. You are confusing math class with chemistry class.

 

[Eduardo DOV]

I just finished your retardation, now log off and fuck off bitch

 

[Harold O'brien]

no, ITS NOT. I don't know where you got it from. You are confusing math class with chemistry class.

if you add two apples they are slightly different maybe one is red and one is green

you add two stones they don;t have the exact same physical dimensions etc

nothing in nature that is visible to the human eye is identical

 

[Harold O'brien]

Are planets tied to human consciousness? Jfl

yes

 

[RecessedChinCel]

yes

Toilet water IQ

Planets and the universe will exist independent of an observer. This is like asking does a falling tree make a noise if no one is around? YES IT DOES. There is no reason to assume otherwise

 

[Deprived]

philosopher of mathematics

Keep coping you autistic retard

 

[Harold O'brien]

Toilet water IQ

so if you were on magic mushrooms the planets would look exactly the same?

 

[Eduardo DOV]

if you add two apples they are slightly different maybe one is red and one is green

you add two stones they don;t have the exact same physical dimensions etc

nothing in nature that is visible to the human eye is identical

then tell me if these 2 different objects you call apple are so different why do you assign the same word to them?

 

[Harold O'brien]

then tell me if these 2 different objects you call apple are different why do you assign the same word to them?

because they can be grouped

any things can be grouped. I can put the sky, the sun, an apple and a carrot into a group and then I have four things.

 

[RecessedChinCel]

so if you were on magic mushrooms the planets would look exactly the same?

Thailand prostitute IQ

Subjective experience doesn’t change objective reality LMFAOOO

Just because you take dmt and think you’re speaking to god doesn’t mean you subjective experience should be taken seriously or as an accurate descriptor of reality.

 

[Eduardo DOV]

because they can be grouped

any things can be grouped. I can put the sky, the sun, an apple and a carrot into a group and then I have four things.

why you use the SAME word, bitch. hahahaha, i got you here, now shut up and learn:

answer: your human intelligence can perceive they are of the same ideal category in an ideal world, and you see them as such. And it only makes sense to add them to them, not them to one of other category.

 

[Eduardo DOV]

stop pretending to not to know what you know. this is ridiculous.

 

[Harold O'brien]

Thailand prostitute IQ

Subjective experience doesn’t change objective reality LMFAOOO

Just because you take dmt and think you’re speaking to god doesn’t mean you subjective experience should be taken seriously or as an accurate descriptor of reality.

how can you know anything about objective reality when you only have subjective reality to work with?

 

[Harold O'brien]

why you use the SAME word, bitch. hahahaha, i got you here, now shut up and learn:

answer: your human intelligence can perceive they are of the same ideal category in an ideal world, and you see them as such. And it only makes sense to add them to them, not them to one of other category.

exactly, so there is nothing wrong with adding the contents of one bucket to the contents of another bucket and arriving at 1+1=1 because there is only one lot of contents left

 

[Deleted member 13787]

Thailand prostitute IQ

Subjective experience doesn’t change objective reality LMFAOOO

Just because you take dmt and think you’re speaking to god doesn’t mean you subjective experience should be taken seriously or as an accurate descriptor of reality.

planets exist "objectively" because we decided to call those objects planets...
why are they not just a bunch of atoms, exclusively?

 

[Eduardo DOV]

exactly, so there is nothing wrong with adding the contents of one bucket to the contents of another bucket and arriving at 1+1=1

idiot, the last bucket will be bigger, this 1 now is other 1, that equals 2 first ones.

i hope u're not serious tbh

 

[Harold O'brien]

idiot, the last bucket will be bigger, this 1 now is other 1, that equals 2 first ones.

i hope u're not serious tbh

not if the content of one bucket creates a solution with the other. the volume will not change and simple observation returns 1+1=1

 

[RecessedChinCel]

planets exist "objectively" because we decided to call those objects planets...
why are they not just a bunch of atoms, exclusively?

Nigga it could be named anything. Planets could’ve been named cat piss and they’d still have the same properties.

You can make predictive models of reality. When somebody is 6ft tall you don’t just say “oh they are only subjectively 6ft”.

You use a fucking ruler and measure then like a sane person instead of arguing semantics about why a ruler is called a ruler instead.

 

[Harold O'brien]

Nigga it could be named anything. Planets could’ve been named cat piss and they’d still have the same properties.

You can make predictive models of reality. When somebody is 6ft tall you don’t just say “oh they are only subjectively 6ft”.

You use a fucking ruler and measure then like a sane person instead of arguing semantics about why a ruler is called a ruler instead.

how do you know that our "normal" perception of the planets isn't akin to being on magic mushrooms to a magical being that can view ontological reality?

 

[RecessedChinCel]

how do you know that our "normal" perception of the planets isn't akin to being on magic mushrooms to a magical being that can view ontological reality?

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
/ˈˌsīənˈtifik ˈmeTHəd/
Learn to pronounce

noun

1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
   "criticism is the backbone of the scientific method"

You sound like a fake woke stoner who took acid once and thinks he knows the secrets to the universe.

 

[Eduardo DOV]

not if the content of one bucket creates a solution with the other. the volume will not change and simple observation returns 1+1=1

sum is about pooling, not mixing chemical solutions

nigga, kill yourself as soon as possible.

 

[Harold O'brien]

sum is about pooling, not mixing chemical solutions

nigga, kill yourself as soon as possible.

arithmetic is based on observation. why is adding two apples together a good example but not mixing chemicals? isn't everything a "chemical" and what's the different between adding and mixing. it all seems arbitrary to me

 

[RecessedChinCel]

how do you know that our "normal" perception of the planets isn't akin to being on magic mushrooms to a magical being that can view ontological reality?

Because if our default perception of reality was wildly different from objective reality our species would’ve died out a long time ago.

There is no evolutionary advantage to being a delusion monkey on psilocybin

 

[Harold O'brien]

Because if our default perception of reality was wildly different from objective reality our species would’ve died out a long time ago.

There is no evolutionary advantage to being a delusion monkey in psilocybin

so humans and dogs have the same perception of reality? otherwise dogs would have died out

 

[RecessedChinCel]

so humans and dogs have the same perception of reality? otherwise dogs would have died out

Both aren’t identical, but very close. Both dogs and humans are mammals afterall who evolved close to each other. We ARE limited by our senses. But guess what? If LIGHT didn’t exist independent of humans we wouldn’t be able to see.

Same as dogs their ability to see is reliant on this EXTERNAL from humans. Same with touch, hearing, etc.

Our senses allow us to have a close approximation of reality.

It’s no perfect nor did we evolve to be perfect.

But that doesn’t mean reality doesn’t exist independent of humans.

 

[Deleted member 13787]

You can make predictive models of reality. When somebody is 6ft tall you don’t just say “oh they are only subjectively 6ft”.

You use a fucking ruler and measure then like a sane person instead of arguing semantics about why a ruler is called a ruler instead.

except if ppl have different definitions of what a foot is
then the person is indeed subjectively 6ft tall to the ppl who's definition of foot matches

Nigga it could be named anything. Planets could’ve been named cat piss and they’d still have the same properties.

what if we didnt have a word for a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit round a star?
then that thing wouldnt exist without us defining it...
because the only way for the thing to exist is if we manage to identify it based on our own definition.

 

[Harold O'brien]

Bot identical. We ARE limited by our senses. But guess what? If LIGHT didn’t exist independent of humans we wouldn’t be able to see.

Same as dogs their ability to see is reliant on this EXTERNAL from humans. Same with touch, hearing, etc.

Our senses allow us to have a close approximation of reality.

It’s no perfect nor did we evolve to be perfect.

But that doesn’t mean reality doesn’t exist independent of humans.

so you agree that our perception of the planets is tied to human consciousness?

 

[RecessedChinCel]

what if we didnt have a word for a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit round a star?
then that thing wouldnt exist without us defining it...

Sure. Planets didn’t exist until humans gave them a name.

Also when the geocentric model of the solar system was widely accepted the planets revolved around the earth until humans changed their minds, then we magically began revolving around the sun instead.

Say it with me

THE UNIVERSE EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF HUMANS.

Literal dog water IQ

 

[Deleted member 13787]

Sure. Planets didn’t exist until humans gave them a name.

Also when the geocentric model of the solar system was widely accepted the planets revolved around the earth until humans changed their minds, then we magically began revolving around the sun instead.

Say it with me

THE UNIVERSE EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF HUMANS.

Literal dog water IQ

tell me what existed before our definition of planets

 

[RecessedChinCel]

tell me what existed before our definition of planets

Niggas what do you mean? Before humans existed the earth was still here. How can you actually be this dumb?

By your logic nothing existed before humans.

Dinosaurs? No they are just larping lizards that never existed. It’s all a conspiracy.

Homoerectus? Never existed because of muh subjective experience

 

[Harold O'brien]

THE UNIVERSE EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF HUMANS.

how do you know? (serious btw)

 

[Deleted member 13787]

Niggas what do you mean? Before humans existed the earth was still here. How can you actually be this dumb?

By your logic nothing existed before humans.

Dinosaurs? No they are just larping lizards that never existed. It’s all a conspiracy.

Homoerectus? Never existed because of muh subjective experience

indeed
you cant say that something existed without using a term for it

 

[RecessedChinCel]

how do you know? (serious btw)

This is the absolute most dog water arguement.

How do we solve crimes? We look at evidence nigga.
How do we know ted bundy kidnapped bitches and raped their dead corpse? We look at evidence left behind and then prosecuted him.

How do we know dinosaurs existed before us? Because we have found their fossils and dated their fossil using various methods.

You’re using circular logic. Imagine going up to an accomplish archeologist and telling him “you don’t know dinosaurs exist because how can you know you weren’t there”

Would literally laugh in your face

I’m sorry my nigga but if you genuinely think this way and are not larping you’re low IQ there is no other way to spin it.

 

[RecessedChinCel]

indeed
you cant say that something existed without using a term for it

Yes you can. Language is intrisic to humans, but the things we describe WITH that language aren’t

The word “rock” is made by humans.

The rock itself always existed

The actual terms we use are arbitrary. But at this point you aren’t saying anything just arguing semantics.

“Gravity didn’t exist before we gave it a name”

 

[Harold O'brien]

This is the absolute most dog water arguement.

How do we solve crimes? We look at evidence nigga.
How do we know ted bundy kidnapped bitches and raped their dead corpse? We look at evidence left behind and then prosecuted him.

How do we know dinosaurs existed before us? Because we have found their fossils and dated their fossil using various methods.

You’re using circular logic. Imagine going up to an accomplish archeologist and telling him “you don’t know dinosaurs exist because how can you know you weren’t there”

Would literally laugh in your face

I’m sorry my nigga but if you genuinely think this way and are not larping you’re low IQ there is no other way to spin it.

and your evidence that objects exist outside of the human mind is?

Idealism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Deleted member 13787]

The rock itself always existed

wait, say what existed again?

 

[RecessedChinCel]

wait, say what existed again?

I already answered this question. Caging at your IQ.

LANGUAGE is arbitrary.
Rock could’ve been any other word. It could’ve been spelled “dumbell” or “chicken”.

But the rock would still have the same properties. This is literally semantics

 

[Deleted member 13787]

But the rock would still have the same properties.

we decided to group those properties together and make a term for them
theres no objective grouping of properties

 

[RecessedChinCel]

we decided to group those properties together and make a term for them
theres no objective grouping of properties

Whatever i’m caging. The fact alone that I have to argue that things exist independent of human experience is lowering my IQ as we speak.

You literally think the earth didn’t exist before humans lmfao. That humans are the arbiters of reality. Even though there are rocks older than life has even existed on this planet. The only place on the internet you can make claims this fucking stupid

Arguing semantics about why words are the way they are. Nigga how about you study old english if you want to know why the word rock is rock?

Or did old english not exist because you weren’t alive while it was still spoken.

And why do ONLY the subjective experience of humans matter? Why not other mammals?

 

[Deleted member 13787]

Whatever i’m caging. The fact alone that I have to argue that things exist independent of human experience is lowering my IQ as we speak.

You literally think the earth didn’t exist before humans lmfao. That humans are the arbiters of reality. Even though there are rocks older than life has even existed on this planet. The only place on the internet you can make claims this fucking stupid

Arguing semantics about why words are the way they are. Nigga how about you study old english if you want to know why the word rock is rock?

Or did old english not exist because you weren’t alive while it was still spoken.

And why do ONLY the subjective experience of humans matter? Why not other mammals?

youre so far off from understanding my arguments its astounding

 

[RecessedChinCel]

youre so far off from understanding my arguments its astounding

indeed
you cant say that something existed without using a term for it

Pinhead IQ

Before the earth was named the earth it didn’t exist.

 

[Deleted member 18849]

if we had a socially constructed term that included meters and seconds it would work
it just depends on what youre adding

It wouldn't. The classic physics equations prohibit you from doing so and having a useful quantity number. It's all about what the number (2.167 meters) can tell you.

 

[Deleted member 17872]

Nigga can predict the orbit of planets with math but muh our perception of reality. So many mental gymnastics.

Are planets tied to human consciousness? Jfl

Have u ever touched a planet not named earth?

 

[Tom Jones]

What a fucking circus of a thread

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Have u ever touched a planet not named earth?

 

[Deleted member 17791]

Jfl.

how do you know?

ngl, you kind of people deserve to be killed, you're THAT dumb.

 

[Harold O'brien]

how do you know?

This is what in asking you. I'm not claiming to know anything here

 

[Deleted member 17791]

This is what in asking you. I'm not claiming to know anything here

What a shit thing to do, did you just read philosophy 101? Just learnt about some philosopher deny observable reality? Utter horseshit.