Do you believe in god or math?

[Abracadabra]

Care to "prove" that 1+1=3 for somebody somewhere? Any given persons score on a math test has absolutely no bearing over whether or not math is different, that's a measurement of an individual's aptitude and memory with regards to a system.

You're talking about utterly simple arithmetic there.

Moreover, 1+1=3 or even 1+1=2 is utterly meaningless until those numbers are actually associated with physical quantities.

Here's an equation for you of the form of 1+1=3 that is actually true.

1 pint of milk + 1 cup of milk = 3 cups of milk.

That's 1+1=3 and it's a TRUE statement.

Simple arithmetic? Simple arithmetic and theoretical physics are both based on the same well demonstrated principles. "Simple arithmetic" is foundational. If the system that we call math were to somehow change the manner in which it is composed or determined as we get beyond "simple arithmetic"..if 1+1=3 at a higher level then it is not uniform, and someone somewhere is incorrect. Fortunately for us this does not occur.

Meaningless? 1+1=3 is a "statement" utterly comprised of meaning..there isn't a wasted breath start to finish. It is incorrect, as is your attempt to shoehorn it in to fit your argument. 1 pint of milk (2/1)+ 1 cup of milk(1/1) = 3 cups of milk (3/3), as has been pointed out, you used bad notation. You wanted your sum in cups, but you failed to account for the number cups in a pint with your equation, which is why it ended up being incorrect (even though the sum was correct...see, in your head you actually added the cups, used proper math, but you didn't express that in your post, because you're trying to manufacture an argument out of thin air). That's why mixing words with meaning into math is a bad idea, and why language complicates arithmetic whilst numbers simplify it, which I think I mentioned pages ago. If you're going to add pints and cups, you have to use notation which demonstrates each unit of measure in relation to each other (which is why I placed the fractions above in parenthesis). This same "equation" could be leveraged to human reproduction, where 1+1=3+....but that's not an accurate representation of the scenario is it? In both cases math is being used to obscure rather than simplify, and it's being done by leveraging bad notation. This isn't highbrow stuff, I don't see what's so hard to understand here.....

1+1=3 is not a true statement, and never will be. Next?

Look, you can both beat your heads into a wall trying to prove that 1+1=3, or that math isn't "perfect", but the arguments presented thusfar are not compelling, it would probably be better to address whatever concepts you've both settled upon that rest on this mistaken assumption..as I'm entirely sure that a discussion about whatever that is would be more interesting than this one. I've been waiting to hear where this is going for ages, if it isn't going anywhere at all (if we're just on a merry go round of bad analogies and poor arithmetic) then I think I've spent enough time in this thread already.

You are failing to grasp the deeper concept here.

YES, of course, the equation I gave to show how 1+1=3 is a bit of a "trick". However, it is precisely the fact that this trick can be made to work that illustrates my point.

1+1=2 is a totally meaningless statement until the "units" that are being quantified have been made clear. The actual assumption that these units must all have the same quantitative definition is the flaw in the very idealism of the so-called "pure mathematics".

1+1=2 is actually a shorthand notation that does not express the truth of what is required to fully describe the quantitative situation.

What a person must actually be aware of is that this seemingly short and concise mathematical statement is actually far from complete. It's simply shorthand notation that doesn't contain all the necessary information.

It should read:

One unit of well-defined and recognized concept a specific type of quantitative property combined together with another unit of the same well-defined and recognized concept of a the same specific quantitative property in an operation defined as addition will always result in a collection of two units of the same well-defined and recognized concept of a specific type of quantitative property.

That is what 1+1=2 is actually saying.

That's my whole point.

The problem is that those "well-defined" and recognized concepts of specific types of quantitative properties can (in physics) become quite murky. This is especially true in Quantum Physics where they can actually break down altogether.

In fact, this is what the Theory of Quantum Mechanics has basically taught us. It has taught as that at the quantum level of reality "well-defined" and recognizable specific notion of "quantitative properties" breaks down. And thus so does mathematics!

Because the very formalism of mathematics requires that quantitative properties be "well-defined".

That my whole point.

I mean, if you want to talk about applied mathematics in term of building bridges, airplanes, and such, then sure, our mathematics will work perfectly in those situations because everything we are attempting to quantify can indeed be defined in "well-defined" units of quantity.

However, in the more abstract concepts associated with a deeper physics that's trying to get at the "true nature" of reality those "well-defined" units of quantity may no longer exist (just as Quantum Mechanics predicts).

And thus our mathematical formalism breaks down.

Mathematics may not at all be what it has been cracked up to be.

Applied mathematics may be valid.

Extremely abstract "pure" mathematics where the definition of a unit of quantitative property breaks down may be nothing more than a human pipe dream.

Many scientist have actually suggested this, especially with respect to our pursuit of String Theory. Do we really have any reason to believe that mathematics should still be valid at that level of reality?

According to our "most successful scientific theory yet" (i.e. Quantum Mechanics) mathematics should be meaningless below the Planck scale.

Yet all of String Theory rests on the hope and faith that Quantum Theory is wrong and that mathematical quantitative relationships will continue to hold and be well-defined at sub-Planck levels, even thought Quantum Theory says that they won't.

That's where I'm coming from.

Mathematics may have limitation far greater than scientists and mathematicians are willing to face. Our mathematics may not be as "perfect" as we would like to think. It may be nothing more than a reflection of how the macro world works. Period.

And when it comes to the actual true nature of reality it may become totally useless.

That would be scientists and mathematicians worst nightmare, yet it may very well be the truth of reality. Quantum Theory suggest that it very well may be. "Well-defined" units of quantity may simply not exist below the Planck level. And if they don't then mathematics would no longer be valid either.

String Theory would be nothing more than a "reflection". A mirage. All we would be doing with String Theory is trying to push the quantitative nature of macro reality onto the microscopic world where it can't even apply at all.

Many scientists have recognized this possibility. This certainly isn't unique to me. Although I agree strongly that this does appear to be a very plausible case. I even have some possible solutions to offer in the face of this dilemma but that's a whole other story.

---

I should point out also that my replies in this thread are directly related to the actual thread Title and Topic,...

Do you believe in god or math?

That very question seems to imply that mathematics has some almost mystical, magical, or divine truth in it that goes directly to the core of the truth of reality.

That may not be the case at all.

Our mathematical formalism may be nothing more than a reflection of the "well-defined" quantitative properties of the macro world, and be totally inapplicable to the "True Nature" of any underlying reality that may give rise to the macro world.

That's the point that I'm attempting to make.

Comparing math with God (or a notion of divine knowledge) may indeed be a totally invalid and useless analogy.