Why is ID so successful?

[Iacchus]

A system should be as simple as possible while still remaining workable -- but no simpler.

Hot damn! ... I think you've got it!

 

[drkitten]

If 1 + 1 does not equal "2" (in base ten), would "E" still equal MC²?

Depends. What's E? What's M? What's C? And, of course, what's the superscript 2?

What you wrote are letters -- abstract marks that can be used to symbolize almost anything you like. I can use the same marks to symbolize other things -- E is a voltage, M is a unit of length, and C² is a radio channel, or perhaps a carbonated beverage.

 

[Upchurch]

If 1 + 1 does not equal "2" (in base ten), would "E" still equal MC²?

1 + 1 does equal 2 in base ten. It does not equal 2 in base two. The premise of your question is not true, so I can't really answer the rest of it.

 

[Iacchus]

Depends. What's E? What's M? What's C? And, of course, what's the superscript 2?

What you wrote are letters -- abstract marks that can be used to symbolize almost anything you like. I can use the same marks to symbolize other things -- E is a voltage, M is a unit of length, and C² is a radio channel, or perhaps a carbonated beverage.

I do in fact think the key word here is "context."

 

[Iacchus]

1 + 1 does equal 2 in base ten. It does not equal 2 in base two. The premise of your question is not true, so I can't really answer the rest of it.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[hammegk]

I'm unwilling to answer your questions at the layman's level.

Er, yes. That's been, and continues to be, obvious.

Hmmm. I suspect the answers are not to your liking, so you withhold them.

Why would you of all people wish to demonstrate the feet of clay Darwinian Evolution rests atop, any more than you would wish to examine your assumption that the existence of a non-sentient and material world is a tautology.

 

[Upchurch]

What the hell are you talking about?

What part don't you understand? Base 10, base 2, or "if...then" statements?

 

[Robin]

Indeed.

And much easier than applying one's self-admitted expertise to answering questions.


The exchage here on 1+1 rather than considering why ID is so successful is actually a good part of the answer that eludes y'all.

The answer didn't elude anybody, there was no real disagreement with the reasons (basically political), only the response. So in effect the thread is over due to lack of interest.

This discussion is simply a result of one of the hijacks.

Irrespective of the strength or otherwise of the ID case, it is being pushed essentially on the religious angle.

Even here in Australia it's proponents aren't claiming its a good theory or even a theory at all. They just make bizarre claims like that the theory of evolution was behind all the attacks on the family for the past 100 years. Even if that were true it would not be a good reason to reject some scientific theory.

 

[Iacchus]

What part don't you understand? Base 10, base 2, or "if...then" statements?

Or perhaps I'm mistaken here? Is E=MC² postulated in base 2? If so, then I'm fully unaware of that. Sorry.

 

[Ashles]

Or perhaps I'm mistaken here? Is E=MC² postulated in base 2? If so, then I'm fully unaware of that. Sorry.

Base 2 is Binary so no '2' would exist in it.
It would be E=MC¹⁰

 

[Jon.]

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

 

[Upchurch]

Or perhaps I'm mistaken here? Is E=MC² postulated in base 2? If so, then I'm fully unaware of that. Sorry.

Not even close to what I was saying.

You started with the conditional statement "if 1 + 1 does not equal 2 in base 10". By definition of base 10 numeric system, 1 + 1 does indeed equal 2, so the "if" portion of your "if...then" statement is nonsensical.

But assuming you were posing a hypothetical question, I would need some clarification along the lines that drkitten asked for. What part of the statement "1 + 1 does not equal 2 in base 10" has been changed from its normal definition in order to make that statement true? The only parts that would be directly applicable to e=mc² are "=" and "2", but if it's "1" or "+" there might still be some effect.

 

[Iacchus]

This discussion is simply a result of one of the hijacks.

Heck, I just brought this up in passing, for the lack of anything better to say at the moment. I didn't intend to make a full blown episode out of it. But, apparently this is what some people like to nitpick, oops I mean discuss.

 

[Iacchus]

Base 2 is Binary so no '2' would exist in it.
It would be E=MC¹⁰

So, E=MC² is a base 10 expression then? Thanks. At least we have one person here who is honest.

 

[cyborg]

I feel the need to reiterate:

However the stronger argument is that there is no reason I cannot formulate a logical system where by adding one object to another does not give two objects. Such a system may be of limited value but there is no logical reason why I cannot define it so. You may think "oh, in that case there's no REAL mathmatics that does this so my point stands." Wrong again my ignorant friend. I'll tell you why.

Consider geometry for a moment. Would you consider the shortest distance between two-points to always be a line? That two parallel lines never cross? Are these timeless? Yes you say? Dead wrong. There's a whole set of non-Ecludian geometry that deals exactly with such systems where parallel lines do meet and the shortest distance between two points is not a line. In fact Ecludian geometry may only be considered one particular case of an infinite number of possible geometries.

Have you got anything to say to this Iacchus? Are you going to admit to being out of your depth or not?

 

[Upchurch]

So, E=MC² is a base 10 expression then? Thanks. At least we have one person here who is honest.

That isn't what he said. He said that in base 2 the expression would be e=mc¹⁰. In any higher base it would be e=mc².

And no one here, that I've seen has been dishonest with you. You just don't seem to understand what you are being told.

 

[Ashles]

So, E=MC² is a base 10 expression then? Thanks. At least we have one person here who is honest.

Well it sure isn't you.

I pointed out that '2' wouldn't exist in any binary sequence so we would know that E=MC² couldn't be a representation in base 2.

And then you respond with this ludicrous non-sequitur?

I can see why everyone here is losing patience with you.

If you'd used another example (in fact base 3 or anything higher) then your point might have made more sense.
And when you are trying to make a point on specific absolutely incontrovertible logical statements then it makes sense to be precise.

It's hardly 'nitpicking' when your whole point is about what one can build conclusions on. You are trying to give examples of what we can build logically from, but using sloppy examples. Then not admitting the error.

 

[Iacchus]

That isn't what he said. He said that in base 2 the expression would be e=mc¹⁰. In any higher base it would be e=mc².

And no one here, that I've seen has been dishonest with you. You just don't seem to understand what you are being told.

What does base 2 have to do with anything when we're speaking of base 10? Isn't that "simple" enough for you?

 

[Upchurch]

What does base 2 have to do with anything when we're speaking of base 10? Isn't that "simple" enough for you?

When you made your statement that 1 + 1 = 2 was self-evident, you did not stipulate that you were speaking in base 10. Did you?

 

[Iacchus]

When you made your statement that 1 + 1 = 2 was self-evident, you did not stipulate that you were speaking in base 10. Did you?

No, I did not. But, according to Occam's Razor, do you really think it was necessary? Remember, I'm not the one who's trying to compound the issue. Whereas I have since corrected this (or attempted to) two or three times already.