I'm gonna patiently wait for rhythm to arrive in this thread. This is going to be so entertaining all over again.

(November 5, 2016 at 2:38 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 1:48 am)Irrational Wrote: Ok, this one I'm very iffy about.

You are iffy because it's a dumb idea.  That's because 2+2=4 isn't a rule or a set property-- it's simply a label.  If there were a universe where math worked differently, you'd just have different labels for whatever THAT reality was.  In any universe where there are 2 and 2, and the capacity to add, it will always be 4-- whatever you choose to call it. And if 2 + 2 = magic unicorn, then magic unicorn is just another representation of "4."

2 + 2 = 5 will never make sense to us because we're conditioned to this space-time. You can't rule it out on that basis. Goblygoop could very well have a strange axiom that simply makes maths different to what we're used to.

(November 5, 2016 at 7:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 3:57 am)Irrational Wrote: I'm still not sure how you have arrived at that truth. Logically speaking (i.e. using the logic that we hold dear to), we can rule out the logical possibility of concept(2) + concept(2) = concept(5). As such, even if it was somehow true that logic is wrong in this case, it would be true despite our logic. But if it is true despite our logic, then I'm not sure how we can ever know it's true.

We can't arrive at that truth using our logic, because our logic only works in this universe. But in a universe governed by goblygoop, 2 + 2 does equal 5. They could ask the same questions about our answer being 4, or not?

It really depends on how you define your terms whether the question makes sense or is just tautological. What do you mean by "2", by "4", by "5" and by "+"? This is why in my post above I started with the basics how we in this world formally arrive at the natural numbers and addition. If you define 4 as the result of the operation 2+2, then 2+2=4 is just tautologically true. So how do you define 4?

You have nothing but your imagination going for you.

Why are we discussing this. I know it's hypothetical, that doesn't mean you've showed that what you're talking about is possible in principle. It's a bunch of crazy statements so far backed up by nothing but your own wishful thinking, seems like.

(November 5, 2016 at 8:05 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: You have nothing but your imagination going for you.

Why are we discussing this. I know it's hypothetical, that doesn't mean you've showed that what you're talking about is possible in principle. It's a bunch of crazy statements so far backed up by nothing but your own wishful thinking, seems like.

Can you say what you are responding to here?

(November 5, 2016 at 8:03 am)Alex K Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 7:12 am)FallentoReason Wrote: We can't arrive at that truth using our logic, because our logic only works in this universe. But in a universe governed by goblygoop, 2 + 2 does equal 5. They could ask the same questions about our answer being 4, or not?

It really depends on how you define your terms whether the question makes sense or is just tautological. What do you mean by "2", by "5" and by "+"? This is why in my post above I started with the basics how we in this world formally arrive at the natural numbers and addition. If you define 4 as the result of the operation 2+2, then 2+2=4 is just tautologically true. So hiw do you define 4?

Well, I guess according to my understanding of this space-time, "4" is an abstract concept that can also be used to describe a set of things in our 3 dimensional world. But that's me with this logic. Couldn't another universe have a radically different way of being? Why/why not?

(November 5, 2016 at 8:07 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 8:03 am)Alex K Wrote: It really depends on how you define your terms whether the question makes sense or is just tautological. What do you mean by "2", by "5" and by "+"? This is why in my post above I started with the basics how we in this world formally arrive at the natural numbers and addition. If you define 4 as the result of the operation 2+2, then 2+2=4 is just tautologically true. So hiw do you define 4?

Well, I guess according to my understanding of this space-time, "4" is an abstract concept that can also be used to describe a set of things in our 3 dimensional world. But that's me with this logic. Couldn't another universe have a radically different way of being? Why/why not?

Ok, so this is similar to the second paragraph in my post. Please elaborate, how do you define 2 and 4 in relation to our 3 dimensional universe?

(November 5, 2016 at 8:06 am)Alex K Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 8:05 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: You have nothing but your imagination going for you.

Why are we discussing this. I know it's hypothetical, that doesn't mean you've showed that what you're talking about is possible in principle. It's a bunch of crazy statements so far backed up by nothing but your own wishful thinking, seems like.

Can you say what you are responding to here?

To this guy's hypothetical that in another universe 2+2=5

(November 5, 2016 at 8:09 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 8:06 am)Alex K Wrote: Can you say what you are responding to here?

To this guy's hypothetical that in another universe 2+2=5

Oh I see. I'd find it interesting to get a definition out of them what the terms in the statement even mean. It *can* be a potentially interesting question if done right...

(November 5, 2016 at 7:58 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 5, 2016 at 2:38 am)bennyboy Wrote: You are iffy because it's a dumb idea.  That's because 2+2=4 isn't a rule or a set property-- it's simply a label.  If there were a universe where math worked differently, you'd just have different labels for whatever THAT reality was.  In any universe where there are 2 and 2, and the capacity to add, it will always be 4-- whatever you choose to call it.  And if 2 + 2 = magic unicorn, then magic unicorn is just another representation of "4."

2 + 2 = 5 will never make sense to us because we're conditioned to this space-time. You can't rule it out on that basis. Goblygoop could very well have a strange axiom that simply makes maths different to what we're used to.

Then it's not math.  It's something else.