Jump to content


Photo

Use Your "2+2" Logic


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 06 November 2015 - 08:01 AM

.
Nope. I don't have a problem. You have a problem. Do you REALLY want an example of when 2 + 2 IS NOT 4? You pretend that you do. I dare you to answer yes. My demonstration will NOT require I define "+" for anything real.

I await your answer. I you don't answer 'yes', then you will be revealed as a sham.

.

Lol

.
Sham.

#22 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 November 2015 - 08:15 AM

Schera, why do you take things so personally? Why is vitriol the sauce you spread on your sandwiches?

 

I thought you were working to make the rough edges smoother? You've been doing well by not deleting any of us from existence lately, but why do you have to resort to ad-hominem attacks just because we disagree?

 

 

 Schera, u naughty baba.. You feel the need to now start to say things about me, well - that's up to you, but like I said before this will not change me Sir, I shall continue to be friendly to you because I believe that deep down you are better than this.

 

(mischief on)If I can spot a jewel in the Schera-turd on my shoe, then it is because I see things through Christian-spectacles. ;) :D(mischief off)

 



#23 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 06 November 2015 - 08:17 AM

On the other hand, you might find a hole in this.

2 + 2 = 11 in base 3.

#24 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 06 November 2015 - 09:58 AM

B-b-b-b-but Schera Do, do you think it possible that his equivalent "grade-level logic" will find, uh, what did you call it?--a hole in that?

Hard to say. Possibly, maybe...It didn't work when attempting to evaluate the expression in the OP, don't you remember...eat vs. excrete?

B-b-b-b-but is there a hole in your reference to--the example of--addition in base 3 in this context?

Don't you think that the one who has presented the addition of nothing (no things) as something should use his logics to determine whether "2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 11" can both be true?

Shouldn't I be asking the questions?

What happened to your stutter?

W-w-w-w-w-what do you mean?

That's better...

#25 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 November 2015 - 10:41 AM

Perhaps this thread could just be used to discuss logic and maths, not so much as a debate but as a thread to discuss those subjects more generally, or perhaps how they might pertain to EvC?

 

Quid pro quo, Schera. :D

 

 

 

Schera: Don't you think that the one who has presented the addition of nothing (no things) as something should use his logics to determine whether "2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 11" can both be true?

 

They can both be true in my opinion then. :D (if I understand you correctly).

 

Your turn;

 

You have 5 bottles on a table from left to right. One of them has poison in, you have to find out which one. I will number each object from left to right, from 1 to 5 like in this picture;

 

Attached File  bottles.jpg   7.97KB   9 downloads

 

You deduce which number bottle it is from the following information;

 

- The poison is in a round bottle that is small.

-  The bottles at each end of the table are large bottles, and there are no other large bottles on the table.

-  There is a large bottle next to the poisoned bottle.

-  One bottle is a cylindrical shape

-  Bottle number 2 is not cylindrically shaped

-  The poisoned bottle is not next to a cylindrically shaped bottle

 

Which bottle number is the poison?

 

:D (this is not really aimed at you Schera, but at anyone who wants to have a go at solving the riddle using deductive reasoning.)



#26 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 06 November 2015 - 10:45 AM

Nope. I don't have a problem. You have a problem. Do you REALLY want an example of when 2 + 2 IS NOT 4? You pretend that you do. I dare you to answer yes. My demonstration will NOT require I define "+" for anything real.

I await your answer. I you don't answer 'yes', then you will be revealed as a sham.


Sounds like someone has been eating from the same tree as Adam and Eve!



#27 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 November 2015 - 03:10 PM

 

You have 5 bottles on a table from left to right. One of them has poison in, you have to find out which one. I will number each object from left to right, from 1 to 5 like in this picture;

 

post-2116-0-38807800-1446832263.jpg

 

You deduce which number bottle it is from the following information;

 

- The poison is in a round bottle that is small.

-  The bottles at each end of the table are large bottles, and there are no other large bottles on the table.

-  There is a large bottle next to the poisoned bottle.

-  One bottle is a cylindrical shape

-  Bottle number 2 is not cylindrically shaped

-  The poisoned bottle is not next to a cylindrically shaped bottle

 

Which bottle number is the poison?

 

Okay, I can't resist giving the answer, it is in the text below this sentence, you have to highlight the text, I made it invisible in case people still want to figure it out without knowing the answer:

 

It can't be bottles 1 or 5 as they are large bottles, and the bottle of poison is a small round bottle. It can't be bottle 3 because the bottle of poison is next to a large bottle. So the bottle of poison can only be either bottle 2 or 4. Since bottle 2 can't be a cylindrical bottle and the bottle of poison is not next to a cylindrical bottle then the bottle of poison must be bottle 2 because if it was bottle 4 then the cylindrical bottle would have to be next to it since bottle 2 is not cylindrical, and it was stated that the bottle of poison does not have a cylindrical bottle next to it.

 

 



#28 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 07 November 2015 - 08:01 AM

Perhaps this thread could just be used to discuss logic and maths, not so much as a debate but as a thread to discuss those subjects more generally, or perhaps how they might pertain to EvC?

Quid pro quo, Schera. :D


They can both be true in my opinion then. :D (if I understand you correctly).
...

.
Uhhhhhhhh, not so fast. We have a new issue!! It is: Did I give a legitimate example of 2 + 2 NOT EQUAL TO 4?

I dare "say" that if one performs the mental excercise of leaving the classroom or dream-state, the answer is easier than eat vs. excrete!

S-s-s-s-so then, "5th-grade-level logic" will be enough?!?

I'm thinking 1st grade...

O-o-o-o-oh my, that is serious! But what happened to "determin[ing] whether '2 + 2 = 4' and '2 + 2 = 11' can both be true"?

Well, phrasing the question that way was supposed to be a big, fat hint! If one understands the meaning of base n, then one knows that we would not have invented the symbol and word '4' if we always used a base 3 system. This fact doesn't change the number of cars I own, it changes only the word and symbol I use to represent that number.

Put another way, if the two equations are true, then 4 = 11, which it does because '11' in base 3 is not 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1, it is 1+1+1+1; In base 3, there are only the symbols '0', '1', '2' and 2 + 1 = 10. (You will notice that I've used '3' in the phrase "base 3" even though '3' exists only for higher base systems and invented for those systems; "base (2+1)" would be more accurate but more confusing.)

I-I-I-I-I carumba, think that you did NOT give a legitimate example of "2 + 2 NOT EQUAL TO 4"

You may proceed to 2nd grade.

D-d-d-d-does this mean that you baited the "2+2"-monger?

Back to 1st grade for you...

#29 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 23 August 2017 - 05:41 AM

In the thread called Man's Organs Create An Unsurmountable Problem For Accidentalists, I give an example of the so-called, misleading "2+2 logic" when the operands are liquids.

For convenience, I reproduce that post below and can be found at the link above.
 

...
I was talking about Man, and his 10 Vital Organs.. Man CANNOT live with less, so if we reverse time, we need to go back until there was a moment that Man (Or his mysterious "Ancestor") was able to live with LESS than 10.. The math is VERY EASY on this one.. So which one would you like to pick? Tough choice isnt it.
...

.
IMO, it harms your argument to use "if we reverse time".

Additionally, there is no math in this subject: Implicit in your argument--though you don't know this--is that the operation "-" (subtraction) is not defined with operands of flesh. I get into this in detail with respect to the charge that the logic of "x + y" is being violated. In this post in the thread "Use Your '2+2' Logic", I explain that the operation "+" is defined within the classroom as an abstraction--word-problems notwithstanding--which is, similarly, true for "-" (subtraction), which is the operation you are asking us to perform on the human body with respect to the collection of vital organs. "x - y = z" is ALWAYS valid ONLY when x, y and z are counting numbers or represent things that are being counted and "-" represents "taking-away (removing) from my collection."

Let the operands x, y (in x - y) be liquids. I can have a collection of x containers with each containing a liquid; similarly for y. As described above, the operation "-" is defined easily in this scenario: remove y containers from my collection. If I collect the liquids within one container, then I can not remove any particular (specific) volume of liquid which was added ("+") as one container added becomes indistiguishable from the rest when they mix. If their respective properties prevent mixing, then it is STILL impossible to remove ("-") exactly what was added, molecule for molecule. You will have noticed that in the one-container scenario, "+" is defined as "pour liquid to be 'added' into container holding liquid collection." Someone here--I have no doubt--can identify a liquid already in the container that, when another liquid is added, there is a nasty chemical reaction--and the proportions required for said reaction. Here, the operation "-" requires a great deal of magic to perform after "+" has transformed my collection into a whatever elements result from the reaction.

If you haven't noticed yet, Blitzking, I have re-stated your proposition with supportive specificity: Subtraction of organs from the 10 vital can NOT be accomplished for the reason that addition of the organs is defined in such a way as to PREVENT subtraction. The example of liquids collected into one container is the analogy.

Related and to repeat: As I suggested in my 2014 post about the "chicken vs. egg" question, it's the approximate _______ (fill-in the blank with impossible approximate physical entity) that puts the conundrum in biological evolution.
.

...
You[, Blitzking,] are correct that bicycles did not have a natural origin and are therefore a flawed analogy for life, which did.

.
I have, in the above, given specificity to the flawed analogy.

#30 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 30 August 2017 - 03:06 PM

Boy do I ever have a few good examples from the book The Perfect Theory of the dangers of thinking your "'2+2' logic" will suffice when adding things, but I haven't decided which is the best.

One of them is 1+1 where the operands are black holes and the operation, "+", is combining or merging of the two.

The other is "adding one to a collection" in two versions, where in each version the mass of the objects added are equal. The objects added are "this book" (the one I'm reading of the given title, item X) and an amount of a gas of equal mass to the book, (item Y). "Add X to the black hole" and "add Y to the black hole"

Hmm. How do I use my "2+2 logic"? Hmm....

#31 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,384 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 August 2017 - 06:17 AM

Schera it was November 2015 when you made this complaint about my 2 + 2 comment.

 

Since it frustrates you so much and since I admit I do like you and your colourful and unique way of posting, I shall try and alleviate your frustrations;

 

I understand what you mean, and you posed the same issue in the new "evolution" thread you opened. 

 

My answer is; I am betting on the fact that most people when they see, "2 + 2 = 4" aren't going to believe the, "+" sign equivocal in that context. I would hope that most people would automatically take my meaning, that I mean that if you add two to two you get four.

 

Even though code can have different meaning, usually the true meaning of how that particular code is being used, can be revealed in context. So my answer is to take the code in context. Here I will give one of Mike's (Summers) famous examples;

 

"Schera it seems, is not afraid of being imprisoned for crimes against innocent mikeys, he is a real lion, I bet that when he goes on safari to catch lions that the lions won't have a chance of killing this lion!"

 

See how you automatically "knew" when the term, "lion" switched meaning, and when to tell yourself it was literal and when to tell yourself when it was just a term used for bravery?

 

The defence rests it's case......

 

[m]Round of applause from the jury[/m]

 

(m = mischief.)

 

Conclusion: If you were saying things can be more complicated than at first it seems, I take your point and can appreciate your correct point and perhaps this post might get me parole from your ignore list. (When do I become illegible for parole, and have a review interview? I request a date please so I can be on good behaviour until then. ) :D



#32 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 31 August 2017 - 09:06 AM

Hmm. I wonder...
.

...
One of them is 1+1 where the operands are black holes and the operation, "+", is combining or merging of the two.

The other is "adding one to a collection" in two versions, where in each version the mass of the objects added are equal. The objects added are "this book" (the one I'm reading of the given title, item X) and an amount of a gas of equal mass to the book, (item Y). "Add X to the black hole" and "add Y to the black hole"
...

.
The speculation in the second case--the two completely different objects, book and bundle of gas--is that the result is equivalent. From page 196, The Perfect Theory, by Pedro G. Ferreira:
.

...
The end product will be exactly the same in both situations even though you started off in very different ways. In fact, we don't even have to wait for the black holes to disappear. While the black holes are radiating, they will look exactly the same and it will be impossible to reconstruct whether the starting point was this book or a bag of air. Information will have disappeared.

.
Ignoring whether this speculation is accurate--it won't be tested any time soon--we can be sure that these particular operands and this particular definition of addition won't be susceptible to being understood by the devoid-of-context, abstract "2+2 logic" that's supposed to be all that's necessary to understand...what was it again? Something related to our pet subject, oh yes.

I've been mulling the name of the neo-fallacy, giving it an exhaled status of "named fallacy" and I've mentioned a prospective name in another thread...or two; but I've not been pleased and, as I've mentioned, the names can be unhelpful, which doesn't seem to be a consideration.

I'm considering M-the-Pee-Stream Fallacy. I won't forget the association.

#33 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 01 September 2017 - 06:18 AM

Don't you think that the one who has presented the addition of nothing (no things) as something should use his logics to determine whether "2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 11" can both be true?

don't fall for this mike.
when the base is absent, it's assumed to be base ten.
only the first equation is true, the second is false. period.
only when we include the phrase "in base 3" for the second equation can the second equation be true.

the corrected quote would be:
Don't you think that the one who has presented the addition of nothing (no things) as something should use his logics to determine whether "2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 11 base 3" can both be true?
it's easy to see from the corrected quote that they are both true.

#34 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 01 September 2017 - 11:07 AM

Don't you think that the one who has presented the addition of nothing (no things) as something should use his logics to determine whether "2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 11" can both be true?

don't fall for this mike.
when the base is absent, it's assumed to be base ten.
only the first equation is true, the second is false. period.
only when we include the phrase "in base 3" for the second equation can the second equation be true.

the corrected quote would be:
Don't you think that the one who has presented the addition of nothing (no things) as something should use his logics to determine whether "2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 11 base 3" can both be true?
it's easy to see from the corrected quote that they are both true.

.
For that, I'm going to remove you from the ignore list--your position being somewhere off the ends--and place you back on it so you are at the bottom...or is it top? Who could "say" for sure?

I can report for near-certainty that you will be on the list into perpetuity for the sole reason of your insufferable pseudo-sentences.
.

On the other hand, you might find a hole in this.

2 + 2 = 11 in base 3.

.
The above post precedes this:
.

B-b-b-b-but Schera Do, do you think it possible that his equivalent "grade-level logic" will find, uh, what did you call it?--a hole in that?

Hard to say. Possibly, maybe...It didn't work when attempting to evaluate the expression in the OP, don't you remember...eat vs. excrete?

B-b-b-b-but is there a hole in your reference to--the example of--addition in base 3 in this context?

Don't you think that the one who has presented the addition of nothing (no things) as something should use his logics to determine whether "2 + 2 = 4" and "2 + 2 = 11" can both be true?
...

.
You have reinforced the correctness of my decision to place you on the list.

#35 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 01 September 2017 - 12:30 PM

I will be quite happy to field any dispute with my treatment of the M-The-Pee-stream fallacy by anyone not on my ignore list and, even, requests for clarification on any of it by anyone.

X + Y = Z is always true for integers X and Y only when they don't represent any objects in the real world, that is, only in the abstract. That sentence shows that even stating the equivalent of the meaning behind "2+2=4" is not trivial.

It is only pure illiteracy of the subject that would lead anyone to insist that this abstract truth applies in the real-world of fossils, genetics, specie, biological evolution, as it may be defined today or tomorrow. I dare add that illiteracy in the real-world subjects may be an issues as well.

-----------edit-------------------

From page 11, Essays in Science, by Albert Einstein, translated by Alan Harris:
.

(I) It is difficult even to attach a precise meaning to the term "scientific truth." So different is the meaning of the word "truth" according to whether we are dealing with a fact of experience, a mathematical proposition or a scientific theory. ...

.
The equation "2+2=4" is a mathematical proposition.

All the knowledge accumulated in the fields of paleontology, genetics, biology and so on belong to the designation "fact of experience".

The theories proposed or tested in those fields, as the theory of biological evolution, belong to the designation "scientific theory."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users