Why is ID so successful?

[Iacchus]

Precisely my point - you can't take an arbitarially contructed human logical system and point to it as something with a timeless quality when I can make the symbols have any semantics I wish.

A rose by any other name? Call it what you wish but, it will "always" -- hmm ... in a timeless sense? -- be the same.

 

[Iacchus]

How's that computer you're reading this one working out for you?

Am merely referring to the baselessness of his argument here. If 1 + 1 = 2 is in fact baseless, then you may as well forget about espousing the virtues of science. Do you realize that the number 2 almost always follows the number 1 on just about any measuring device, scientific or otherwise? If there is no such thing as the increment of 1 to 2, then where is your science?

 

[cyborg]

Screw math, huh? Might as well toss it, and all the rest of your scientific hogwash out of the classroom, right?

Maths is technically not science. Mathmatical systems are essentially logical structures that cannot in any way be said to derrive from natural observations. That is reversing the way in which mathmatics is used: we use mathmatics to make predictions about reality, not the other way around. Hence it is a nonsense to point to something in mathmatics as timeless; it's a sugar-coated nonsense. Why choose that particular statement over any other? dx/dy x^2 = 2x is 'timeless' too!

Any mathmatical system will have statements that are logically inferred from its axioms. It is impossible to know all true statements for any system. That's slightly more interesting than 1+1=2 - so use that if you must.

 

[cyborg]

Do you realize that the number 2 almost always follows the number 1 on just about any measuring device, scientific or otherwise? If there is no such thing as the increment of 1 to 2, then where is your science?

That's not SCIENCE - 2 following 1 is a DEFINITION. It wasn't discovered under a rock. There is no experiment to prove it. It just is because that's how it's defined.

2 doesn't exist in certain bases, modulo arithmatics, sets etc.. I could define any logical system I like where 2 doesn't follow 1 etc... Put in short you don't really know what you're saying.

 

[cyborg]

A rose by any other name? Call it what you wish but, it will "always" -- hmm ... in a timeless sense? -- be the same.

If it wasn't always the same then it wouldn't be a LOGICAL system.

Bloody master of the bleeding obvious.

Why are you trying to give this some magical quality as if there should be times where 1+1 != 2 in a certain mathmatical system? What kind of use would it be as a system? Do you have a point? I suppose you're trying to say this is god ordained or something?

 

[Iacchus]

If it wasn't always the same then it wouldn't be a LOGICAL system.

Bloody master of the bleeding obvious.

Or, perhaps I'm making too much sense now, huh? Tell it to the other jokers who preceded you.

 

[cyborg]

Or, perhaps I'm making too much sense now, huh?

That would make a change.

Tell it to the other jokers who preceded you.

Presenting 1+1 = 2 as timeless is meaningless. What are you trying to say? You seem to have a real knack for spewing words forth in great number with little rhyme or reason for it.

The fact that you want to present it as mysterious doesn't make it so. It's no more mysterious than the semantics of English being as they are - someone made it that way so that's the way it is. English wasn't waiting under a rock to be found.

 

[Upchurch]

Do you realize that the number 2 almost always follows the number 1 on just about any measuring device, scientific or otherwise? If there is no such thing as the increment of 1 to 2, then where is your science?

Always, Iacchus? Are you sure about that?

 

[Upchurch]

I'll take it one step further, how would you like to bet that I can count from one to one hundred, in increments of one, and never hit the number two?

Not only can I do it, I can do it using a mathematical system that is very commonly used in real life everyday.

 

[Iacchus]

Are we referring to the symbolism here? Or, what's behind the symbolism? If we don't wish to refer to the rose, then why bother to bring it up?

 

[cyborg]

Are we referring to the symbolism here? Or, what's behind the symbolism? If we don't wish to refer to the rose, then why bother to bring it up?

What symbolism? If I want to define a mathmatics where 1+1!=2 I can do so. I can define any sort of mathmatics I want with any rules I want that lead to any sort of bizzare inferrations they may do. That you would choose such a childish example of something supposedly mathmatically 'timeless' indicates to me you really don't know that much about maths.

 

[Iacchus]

Always, Iacchus? Are you sure about that?

And do you know what "increment" means? Doesn't it always follow (no matter what scale you use) that the second increment should follow the first? Now I could be mistaken here but, I can't think of anything right off hand. Can you?

 

[Iacchus]

What symbolism? If I want to define a mathmatics where 1+1!=2 I can do so. I can define any sort of mathmatics I want with any rules I want that lead to any sort of bizzare inferrations they may do. That you would choose such a childish example of something supposedly mathmatically 'timeless' indicates to me you really don't know that much about maths.

The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 is self-evident. This is what makes it timeless.

 

[Mercutio]

The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 is self-evident. This is what makes it timeless.

The only timeless thing around here appears to be your inability to understand. Your example has been directly refuted, yet you continue to assert its truth, in defiance of any new information that has been presented to you.



I do owe you an apology, though--we were posting at the same time, so I did not see that you had answered my question before I asked it again in my last post.

So you read just enough to guess that the author agreed with you, but not more? And you will not read the criticisms? This, Iacchus, is why we say that you are "willfully ignorant."

 

[Upchurch]

And do you know what "increment" means? Doesn't it always follow (no matter what scale you use) that the second increment should follow the first? Now I could be mistaken here but, I can't think of anything right off hand. Can you?

Yeppers. I'll count to 100:

1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010, etc...

In binary, at no time is 1 ever followed by 2, but rather by 10. Not only is 2 following 1 not necessary for science, it makes a few tasks considerably easier. You're looking at one right now.

 

[Upchurch]

The fact that 1 + 1 = 2 is self-evident. This is what makes it timeless.

except that when 1 + 1 = 10, which it sometimes does.

1 + 1 = 2 isn't self-evident. You're just used to the idea because that's how you've been taught.

 

[Iacchus]

Yeppers. I'll count to 100:

1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, 1001, 1010, etc...

In binary, at no time is 1 ever followed by 2, but rather by 10. Not only is 2 following 1 not necessary for science, it makes a few tasks considerably easier. You're looking at one right now.

Then apparently you don't understand what the word "increment" means.

 

[Iacchus]

So you read just enough to guess that the author agreed with you, but not more? And you will not read the criticisms? This, Iacchus, is why we say that you are "willfully ignorant."

Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[drkitten]

Then apparently you don't understand what the word "increment" means.

So tell us what "increment" means and how Upchurch misused it.

 

[Upchurch]

Then apparently you don't understand what the word "increment" means.

Indeed I do. It means to repeatedly add a given unit. In this particular case, I added one each time.

Apparently, you don't understand what the word "binary" means, or do you think that all number systems are base-10?