Science and Randomness

[The Grand Nudger]

Human beings, so...no.

[Mark 13:13]

In the same way that all descriptive words achieve their function.
(Non-questions deserve non-answers)

where did it come from did it always exist?

why are these non questions? or are you saying that the concept of 2 is so obvious it needs no proof.

[pocaracas]

where did it come from did it always exist?

why are these non questions? or are you saying that the concept of 2 is so obvious it needs no proof.

I always thought that 2 was defined as 1 + 1, where 1 is the unity symbol and + is the addition symbol.... you should know these things...

Now the concept of 1 is something different.... but I leave it to you to define 1.

[Mark 13:13]

why are these non questions? or are you saying that the concept of 2 is so obvious it needs no proof.

I always thought that 2 was defined as 1 + 1, where 1 is the unity symbol and + is the addition symbol.... you should know these things...

Now the concept of 1 is something different.... but I leave it to you to define 1.

Where I am going with this is that in every field that has a logical basis we seem to have to start with some assumptions that we deem as acceptable without proof. No one can prove these assumptions to be true but we accept then as true because they seem obvious based on some inherent knowledge or wisdom, instictive, intuitive , common sense whatever we want to call it. The acceptance of it being outside the logical process we are about to build on it. They are so obvious that no one ever denies them. once I establish I may be able to play with it.

Also I would suggest that Science Theory that rely on us accepting that something exists that has no volume and infinite density is a little bit "magical" I do not mean it is wrong but calling something magical does not invalidate it. Magical is another way to say unexplainable.

[The Grand Nudger]

where did it come from did it always exist?

why are these non questions? or are you saying that the concept of 2 is so obvious it needs no proof.

Strictly speaking it doesn't need proof, not because it's obvious, simply because it's an agreed upon symbol to describe a quantity. We could refer to betelpumps in place of two, so long as both of us were on the same page. Similarly, one can use "2" in place of something that is not a quantity, but another concept, as part of some other statement where 2 might be useful.
(did you actually mean to quote yourself in responding to me?)

[Mark 13:13]

why are these non questions? or are you saying that the concept of 2 is so obvious it needs no proof.

Strictly speaking it doesn't need proof, not because it's obvious, simply because it's an agreed upon symbol to describe a quantity. We could refer to betelpumps in place of two, so long as both of us were on the same page. Similarly, one can use "2" in place of something that is not a quantity, but another concept, as part of some other statement where 2 might be useful.
(did you actually mean to quote yourself in responding to me?)

Well I think you are missing the arguement, that in order to get started in mathematics we must accept certain things as obvious like 1 + 1 = 2 and will always equal 2 but what proof have we that 1 + 1 = 2 except for its obvious. unless you are to say "its obvious" qualifies as a proof.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think I'm missing an argument, I think it's more likely that you don't have one. You know what leads me to think that this is the case? The way we've immediately gone from "what is 2" to "is there any proof of 2" to "is there any proof that 1+1=2", you can't focus, you can't make a point and have it stick...so we'll just meander like this, likely indefinitely. The answers to all of these questions has already been offered. It didn't leave you any room to bicker, so you'd rather avoid addressing it (or sticking on any one point).

If you'd like to make an argument, then make it plainly, lay it out, don't avoid making it-then complain that I'm missing it.

(if you're honestly having trouyble with figuring out what the proof that 1+1=2 is...the I'm afraid I can't help you..........)

[Mark 13:13]

You think I'm missing an argument, I think it's more likely that you don't have one. You know what leads me to think that this is the case? The way we've immediately gone from "what is 2" to "is there any proof of 2" to "is there any proof that 1+1=2", you can't focus, you can't make a point and have it stick...so we'll just meander like this, likely indefinitely. The answers to all of these questions has already been offered. It didn't leave you any room to bicker, so you'd rather avoid addressing it (or sticking on any one point).

If you'd like to make an argument, then make it plainly, lay it out, don't avoid making it-then complain that I'm missing it.

(if you're honestly having trouyble with figuring out what the proof that 1+1=2 is...the I'm afraid I can't help you..........)

ok i admit I was only throwing the first one out to tease around an idea a bit but lets focus on the 1+1=2 and your answer demonstrates my point as your answer is the response everyone would give. The fact everyone would give it means there is no need to prove it. We don't use logic or proof to accept it we accept it instinctively. So maths can then be built on what we all accept is true and doesn't need to wait to prove these "axioms". there is no debate about axioms

An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy

[The Grand Nudger]

Unfortunately, 1+1=2 isn't an axiom or assumption that has to be accepted. Nothing about 1+1=2 is accepted instinctively........

[Mark 13:13]

Unfortunately, 1+1=2 isn't an axiom or assumption that has to be accepted. Nothing about 1+1=2 is accepted instinctively........

Sorry if its not an axiom by the very definition of axiom then there must be some who would dispute the statement. Is there anyone you know that does not accept it is true or had a reason to raise a controversy about it?