Do you believe in god or math?

[Abracadabra]

No, because you attempted to make 1+1=3. Such a gross misunderstanding of that fundamental of a concept isn't likely to lead to a sage-like understanding of any concept which is built upon the foundations of math.

I thought I had already explained to you that I did that specifically to demonstrate just how important the units of quantity are.

1+1=2 is a meaningless concept in shorthand notation if you don't fully understand what these things mean.

You can't apply mathematics to the physical world and expect it to work if you don't pay very close attention to making sure that the "oneness" of the objects that you are quantifying is "well-defined'.

~~~~

I mean, gee whiz, we are light years away from the concepts and points that I would truly like to be discussing. We can't even get off the ground at all here.

You haven't yet understood this very simple point that I was making.

Neither has CliveStaples. He's also expressing a loss of understanding of what I mean by the need for things to be quantitatively well-defined.

He's totally lost in the pure abstraction of axiomatic thinking.

Hey, I fully understand how axiomatic systems works. Euclid gave us that gift of the axiomatic approach and mathematicians have run with it to extremes. And it certainly has panned out and is useful within certain restraints.

However, ironically it is this axiomatic approach to the formalism that is the the very thing that is crippling it.

Well, that's not exactly true. The ideas that I would like to propose to change things up can be defined axiomatically too. So it's not the axiomatic approach itself that is the problem. It's that this approach has caused certain things to become invisible.

So the very first thing that needs to be done is to back up and get past the axiomatic approach long enough to see what is currently invisible. Then after we see the problem, we can return to a the axiomatic approach again armed with this new insight.

So my example of how I could design an equation that ends up being 1+1=3 in shorthand notation was not an attempt to prove that mathematics can easily fail. That would be utterly stupid, because as you point out I broke the rules of "applied" mathematics.

However, it still served to demonstrate the importance of physical units of "oneness".

And that was the POINT I was attempting to expose.

You've got to comprehend very clearly the importance of the physical meaning of a quantity of "ONE" before it's even worth moving on to the next step.

Moving forward without that comprehension being made crystal clear would be totally futile.

And to be perfectly honest I don't see anyone grasping this trivial first step.

Rythmn thinks it was a cheap shot to belittle mathematics that miserably failed.

CliveStaples made it clear that he doesn't yet understand what I'm even talking about when I say "well-defined" quantitative property or "oneness".

So even if you guys were taking me seriously we appear to be at a dead end already anyway.