[Lucid]

Originally Posted by coffeeloverfreak To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No it's not. It's a convention. All mathematics is merely convention. Like rules of a game, we define math conventions because they're internally consistent, useful, and they work. But, as is especially evident in higher-level mathematics, there are infinite different ways of defining these conventions. We've simply picked ones that seem elegent or useful to us, or that people have become accustomed to. It's like how most people use PCs because they're compatible, but that doesn't make them any more "right" than Macs.

No, 2+2=4 is a necessary truth. Like "a bachelor is an unmarried man" is a necessary truth. Another is that you cannot be both a member of this forum and not a member of this forum at the same time. These are logical constraints. Sorry.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[lordrrr]

	Originally Posted by MNRon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That goes over so well with jurors To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Really? Cool. I hope I can get them all to speak at once in outrage while the Judge is banging his/her gavel and the prosecutor keeps yelling objection but only gets the "overruled" response and the audience starts whispering loudly to everyone around them and the cameras start flashing with that POP the lightbulbs make and the witness/defendent is in the chair looking confused/appalled/irritated as hell and I'm up there having my mouth spout out point after point after point until everyone faints from too much awesomeness
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.






lordrrr added to this post, 4 minutes and 21 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, 2+2=4 is a necessary truth. Like "a bachelor is an unmarried man" is a necessary truth. Another is that you cannot be both a member of this forum and not a member of this forum at the same time. These are logical constraints. Sorry. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

His point is that we could be imprecise in our measurements/how we define our measurements. What if we went to another planet and they have developed a completely different number system? Is 2+2=4 going to matter? Nope. What if, on Mars or some other farwaway planet, the extra terrestrials are considered under marital status from the moment they are born, and they instead strive to be unmarried men but while they are married they are bachelors? Then the predicament has to be changed, thus we have no proof that throughout the entire Universe 2+2=4.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Actually, my point was that 2+2=4 is only true within the logical framework we have developed for mathematics, which makes it true. It's not an absolute truth; it's a convention we have defined, which is only true relative to the rest of the rules of math. "+" is a defined operation. "2" is a defined symbol.

And for the record (again), I'm a "she".

[Uytuun]

See, I intuitively agree with coffee - despite the paradox.

[coffeeloverfreak]

	Originally Posted by Lucid
	Like "a bachelor is an unmarried man" is a necessary truth.

Just one more nitpick about that statement. You're confusing absolute truth with definition. A bachelor is simply an English word that we have defined to mean "an unmarried man". But words are merely symbols, and they're only true within a context.

For instance, for the above statement to be true, we have to have a commonly accepted definition for "married" and "unmarried" (varies heavily from one society to the next), for "man" (just ask transgendered or intersex people about this one), and the definition of "bachelor" stems from those.

No words are absolute truths. Words are conventions, just as math is a convention. All are merely collections of commonly-understood symbols, used to facilitate human interaction and understanding.

[Uytuun]

BTW, can someone give me a fancy word for the study of truth? The closest I've come so far is epistemology, which isn't really about truth per se.

[Lucid]

Originally Posted by coffeeloverfreak To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Just one more nitpick about that statement. You're confusing absolute truth with definition. A bachelor is simply an English word that we have defined to mean "an unmarried man". But words are merely symbols, and they're only true within a context. For instance, for the above statement to be true, we have to have a commonly accepted definition for "married" and "unmarried" (varies heavily from one society to the next), for "man" (just ask transgendered or intersex people about this one), and the definition of "bachelor" stems from those. No words are absolute truths. Words are conventions, just as math is a convention. All are merely collections of commonly-understood symbols, used to facilitate human interaction and understanding.

That's why it's a necessary truth. If the definition of a bachelor is that he is an unmarried man then a bachelor is necessarily an unmarried man. There is no situation in which a man is both married and a bachelor.
The number thing is a bit more complicated. One way to look at it is that numbers are contrivances that we have developed and set up rules for, as you mentioned, and that other people might possibly have a different version of mathematics. However, many people view numbers as concepts in themselves. The theory of numbers I am most familiar with is that while the words themselves we use to describe the numbers are societal contrivances, the idea of numbers and what they symbolize is a priori knowledge. You can never add the concept of two things to the concept of two things and get the concept of five things.
If you're interested in this concept (what exists) and have not already done so, you might be interested in reading Quine's On What There Is. Whichever side of the debate you come down on I think it's an interesting read.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.






Lucid added to this post, 14 minutes and 33 seconds later...

You know, I will say that there's a time and a place for playing devil's advocate.
My ex boyfriend is also an INTJ and plays devil's advocate all the time. This could be a problem when, for example, I had a huge fight with my brother and was really upset about it. I was talking to my ex about the fight and explaining what happened. He started arguing my brother's side (I wasn't trying to argue, just vent!). When I said, "Listen, it's ok if you agree with my brother, but right now I really don't want to have the argument again," he responded by saying, "I agree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate!"
Bad timing.

[Antares]

I've always wondered about absolute truth. I absolutely have a brain. Argue this.

[coffeeloverfreak]

Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You know, I will say that there's a time and a place for playing devil's advocate. My ex boyfriend is also an INTJ and plays devil's advocate all the time. This could be a problem when, for example, I had a huge fight with my brother and was really upset about it. I was talking to my ex about the fight and explaining what happened. He started arguing my brother's side (I wasn't trying to argue, just vent!). When I said, "Listen, it's ok if you agree with my brother, but right now I really don't want to have the argument again," he responded by saying, "I agree with you, I'm just playing devil's advocate!" Bad timing.

Well that's one of the down sides of INTJ-ness. The tendency to argue instead of to empathize.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.






coffeeloverfreak added to this post, 20 minutes and 55 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Camelopardalis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've always wondered about absolute truth. I absolutely have a brain. Argue this.

Someone's been reading Wittgenstein, I see.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[pavman]

	Originally Posted by coffeeloverfreak To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For instance, most of what we "know" about natural sciences applies only to our world; we're holding certain things like gravity, general climate and polar magnetic fields constant.

Actually, gravity is a pretty big constant. We don't know *why* it exists, but it exists in space relatively constant with all bodies. And as others have pointed out:

"Gravity does not exist like the frosting on a cake, embedded in some larger arena of space and time. Instead, the 'frosting' is everything, and matter is embedded and intimately and indivisibly connected to it. If you could turn off gravity, it is mathematically predicted that space and time would also vanish!"

So, I'm willing to say that gravity is an absolute truth, within the framework of our universe, as much as space and time are absolute truths. Gravity does not *just* exist on our planet. Every mass has gravity and the amount of mass defines how much effect that gravity has on other masses. Hence why we orbit the sun and the moon orbits the earth.

As for convention, regardless of our, or some other alien race's, convention to define a truth, the truth exists. I know we're on the verge of speculating about quantum mechanics and if an observation changes the outcome (which, IMHO, is total BS...but that's a totally different thread); realistically, mathematics is the purest form, even the language or blueprint, of the universe. Just because we happened to have figured it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside of our symbolic definition.

So again, I state, 1+1 = 2 is an absolute truth. Not the symbols, the underlying sentiment of the universe.

[Lucid]

	Originally Posted by coffeeloverfreak To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Someone's been reading Wittgenstein, I see. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Wittgenstein?? I thought this was Descartes.

[pavman]

	Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Wittgenstein?? I thought this was Descartes.

Speaking of Descartes.... I think, therefore, I am, I think.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lucid]

	Originally Posted by pavman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Speaking of Descartes.... I think, therefore, I am, I think. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well that's what I thought she meant by stating that she absolutely had a brain. Although I suppose it's possible to have a brain and not think (we see evidence of this all around us).

[The Many]

Originally Posted by pavman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, gravity is a pretty big constant. We don't know *why* it exists, but it exists in space relatively constant with all bodies. And as others have pointed out: "Gravity does not exist like the frosting on a cake, embedded in some larger arena of space and time. Instead, the 'frosting' is everything, and matter is embedded and intimately and indivisibly connected to it. If you could turn off gravity, it is mathematically predicted that space and time would also vanish!" So, I'm willing to say that gravity is an absolute truth, within the framework of our universe, as much as space and time are absolute truths. Gravity does not *just* exist on our planet. Every mass has gravity and the amount of mass defines how much effect that gravity has on other masses. Hence why we orbit the sun and the moon orbits the earth. As for convention, regardless of our, or some other alien race's, convention to define a truth, the truth exists. I know we're on the verge of speculating about quantum mechanics and if an observation changes the outcome (which, IMHO, is total BS...but that's a totally different thread); realistically, mathematics is the purest form, even the language or blueprint, of the universe. Just because we happened to have figured it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside of our symbolic definition. So again, I state, 1+1 = 2 is an absolute truth. Not the symbols, the underlying sentiment of the universe.

I think this discussion just turned more interesting than I thought it would turn... I hold that mathematics is a concrete abstraction of the way that the human brain processes information (i.e. to think you have to think of something, but you would not be able to think about it if you only had experienced one phenomenon, for instance complete blackness; hence if you also experienced a certain note you would be able to distinguish it from the blackness, thus forming the basis for the abstraction that is mathematics, in that one perception plus another perception necessarily equates more than one perception, at least as far as the human brain is concerned). This does however not at all imply that the human brain is able to fully comprehend its perceptions, just look at the problem with Pi, which I would consider us very unlikely to fully comprehend - not to say it cannot be completely understood, however - of course we should try to fully understand the universe, but it is very possible that our ability to understand is, from an evolutionary perspective, not sufficient to fully understand it. But even if we cannot fully understand, further research will grant us more understanding, which perhaps is sufficient.

So what we have is this system of mathematics and logic, which we quite necessarily have to apply to the world to get even the slightest amount of sense out of it - and hence, 2+2=4 is an absolute concept as far as our understanding goes, but it is very possible that an alien consciousness would be able to interpret these conceptions in another way. The same goes for mathematics - there are most definitely laws behind the motions of the universe, such as gravity, but the question is which interpretation of these is the correct one.

Also as for metaphysics and what truth is necessary, first of all we are aware of our own thoughts, then "I", as a mind, must exist. Secondly we also know that when thinking, one has to think about something - hence, we know that there is a form of reality outside our minds. This does however not mean that our percieved world is the objective one; far from it, for we are, after all, limited to our perceptions (and our theories concerning these perceptions). Hence this reality could be divided into the Noumenon/a (i.e. the underlying structure/s which we cannot understand) and Phenomena, which are the perceptions to which our understanding is limited. I have developed a concept called approximate truth, which really is the only thing human beings are able to use - but as far as I personally am concerned, I am interested in finding an approximate truth that reaches as deep as possible.


------------

And yes, this borrows pretty heavily from Kant (and some from Quine, I have after all dismissed for instance the analytic/synthetic distinction), so I apologize if my vocabulary gets a bit messy at times.

[lordrrr]

	Originally Posted by coffeeloverfreak To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And for the record (again), I'm a "she".

Oh I'm sorry :embarassed:

[coffeeloverfreak]

	Originally Posted by lordrrr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh I'm sorry :embarassed:

No need. Just clarifying.

Actually I think it's interesting how gender roles are so defined that people automatically assume I'm male just from the way I write or argue. But that's for another topic altogether.

[lordrrr]

	Originally Posted by coffeeloverfreak To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No need. Just clarifying. Actually I think it's interesting how gender roles are so defined that people automatically assume I'm male just from the way I write or argue. But that's for another topic altogether.

I don't know. From my experience of posting on message boards, I can honestly say that 90% of the posters are male, most likely more, so I always slip up on gender specification with that assumption. It seems there are quite a few females on this forum though that sort of eases out all the male domination.

[MacGuffin]

Oooh devil's advocate! Fun times!

Sometimes it can really backfire. Do it often enough and people don't take you seriously when you are serious.

P.S. "absolute truth" is a concept.

[Jughead]

I think it's an INTX thing, although my INTJ friend doesn't particularly care for arguments and keeps changing the subject when I try to argue about things.

[Reon]

I'm constantly told that I play Devil's Advocate when I try to get people to understand what actually happened and what the other person 'might' be thinking. (I'm super-impartial as well so it pisses off my friends, they think I won't stick up for them and such

[Melchizedek]

I'm not really that big a fan of arguing or debating. I used to be when I was younger, but then I realized I mostly enjoyed showing that I was smarter than everyone else. It wasn't really constructive.

What interests me, and the reason that I like this forum, is discussion. I enjoy the way people here try and elucidate on a matter, even when they're arguing. In that spirit, I'd like to throw wrench into the argument on math. It turns out there's a primitive tribe that has no concept of concrete numbers. They have words for "some" or "more," but there's no word for 2 or 1.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If I get some spare time soon, which I should, I'll try to make a more in-depth contribution to the discussion.

[johnnyz86]

Originally Posted by Melchizedek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not really that big a fan of arguing or debating. I used to be when I was younger, but then I realized I mostly enjoyed showing that I was smarter than everyone else. It wasn't really constructive. What interests me, and the reason that I like this forum, is discussion. I enjoy the way people here try and elucidate on a matter, even when they're arguing. In that spirit, I'd like to throw wrench into the argument on math. It turns out there's a primitive tribe that has no concept of concrete numbers. They have words for "some" or "more," but there's no word for 2 or 1. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. If I get some spare time soon, which I should, I'll try to make a more in-depth contribution to the discussion.

that just makes it more clear that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth.

take any creature and have a pile of 2 things, a pile of 2 things, and then a bunch of piles (say of 2 things, 3 things, 4 things, 5 things). put the two piles of 2 together and have them match it. they select the 4 thing pile, unless they are stupid.

absolute truth as in conceptual truth, by my definition. you can argue whether or not you believe absolute truth is conceptual truth, of course, but for the purpose of this argument, you must agree to it.

conceptual truth: have someone agree to the framework and have them put 2 and 2 together, so to speak.

arguing is absolutely pointless if the concepts that are being argued about can not be agreed upon. feel free to argue against that.

if i agree with whoever and say that conceptual truth is not absolute truth, then i will say define absolute truth. and well there really isn't any then, is there, and there is no point for the term.

the bachelor argument is more of the same. one must agree to the framework.

there are no truths if nothing is agreed upon.

Originally Posted by pavman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Actually, gravity is a pretty big constant. We don't know *why* it exists, but it exists in space relatively constant with all bodies. And as others have pointed out: "Gravity does not exist like the frosting on a cake, embedded in some larger arena of space and time. Instead, the 'frosting' is everything, and matter is embedded and intimately and indivisibly connected to it. If you could turn off gravity, it is mathematically predicted that space and time would also vanish!" So, I'm willing to say that gravity is an absolute truth, within the framework of our universe, as much as space and time are absolute truths. Gravity does not *just* exist on our planet. Every mass has gravity and the amount of mass defines how much effect that gravity has on other masses. Hence why we orbit the sun and the moon orbits the earth. As for convention, regardless of our, or some other alien race's, convention to define a truth, the truth exists. I know we're on the verge of speculating about quantum mechanics and if an observation changes the outcome (which, IMHO, is total BS...but that's a totally different thread); realistically, mathematics is the purest form, even the language or blueprint, of the universe. Just because we happened to have figured it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside of our symbolic definition. So again, I state, 1+1 = 2 is an absolute truth. Not the symbols, the underlying sentiment of the universe.

big constant or relatively constant? heh. what about two objects of indescriminant size? what about another universe? does absolute truth apply to other universes? in another universe, there may not be gravity, but the 2 things and 2 things will be 4 things, in their conceptual frame work, as in ours. no, gravity is not an absolute truth, unless you add a qualifier behind it like you did.

	Yeah? Prove it. I dare you.

i read enough books in my philosophy classes to know that isn't productive to prove existence to others.