all batchelors are single
everything is identical to itself
1+1=2
what do u think?
all batchelors are single
everything is identical to itself
1+1=2
what do u think?
Define 1.
good response!!!
let me try…
one is infinity, and nothingness…
infinity is one…nothigness is one, i am one …hmmm what else…
u r right, it is indefinible, thank u for saving me from the absoluteness…
other cool responses are welcome
One is one. It’s half of two. It’s the essential singularity. It’s a concept. If you’re looking at it in physical terms, then it’s an adjective, and if you’re looking at it in mathematical terms, than it’s an adjective or a noun.
Define cake.
Absolute truth is the whole of existance, the closest we can get to communicating or expressing an absolute truth is through stating something for what it for eg - an apple is an apple, a bird is a bird etc. That and perfectly logical concepts, maths, equal or oposite etc.
Ones own existence is a relatively indeniable absolute truth, anyone who doubts or denies absolute truth(s) are how shall i put it… ‘Duuuuuuuuuh! brains…’
I have a batchelor’s degree, thus I am a bachelor, I am not single.
Fixed.
awwwwwwwwwww
so what is it oni omega?
what is it ? im not sure what youre asking, lets see if my answer suits the intention of the question.
my version makes more logical sense, it is closer to the truth.
stating what i mentioned in my previous post and ever so concise statements are the most true.
His statement is still terribly unspecific in my eyes, he didn’t mention what aspect of him was not single, an example among 100 and more, there are many reasons that leave a massive amount of possible things he could be intending with that statement, theres more but its 4.45 am here, im going to get some sleep.
when you have a group of things this size: @@@
and you add this many more things: @@
you group will then have this many things: @@@@@
I dont know how you can deconstruct that.
1+1=2
what do u think?
[/quote]
The numbers stand at a representational distance from that which we humans see them as representing (apples, cars or any other empirical reality we deem appropriate)
So the statement 1+1=2 is true, if the empirical reality is true.
In certain instances it wont be true-for example two drops of water may merge and make one drop, so we have to change the numbers to fit reality, in this case to 1+1=1.
But how can both equations be true?
In an absolute sense 1+1=2 cannot be true, since it does not always represent what is.
The equation is merely a way of making reality easier to deal with conceptually-2 is the same as 1+1, there is no new truth in 2, it is merely 1+1 represented in a different way-a way that may be easier for us.
If we take 4 it is merely 1+1+1+1 having and idea of 4 makes life simpler, but the amount of apples is exactly the same-in other words the empirical reality is the same.
In an absolute sense 1+1=2 cannot be true, since it does not always represent what is.
The example you gave is still 1+1=2, it just appears to be one greater whole. In the same way that there is a large amount of nothingness between, say, two apples, there is also a large amount of nothingness between two drops of water. When you put them together, they mix together, but there are still all of the individual molecules that made them water, and they can still be seperated; while it may appear that they are one, it’s just grown twice the size and it’s just two less seperated drops.
1+1=2 is a universal law, just like 10+10=20 or 11111+11111=22222.
1+1=2
what do u think?
The numbers stand at a representational distance from that which we humans see them as representing (apples, cars or any other empirical reality we deem appropriate)
So the statement 1+1=2 is true, if the empirical reality is true.
In certain instances it wont be true-for example two drops of water may merge and make one drop, so we have to change the numbers to fit reality, in this case to 1+1=1.
But how can both equations be true?
In an absolute sense 1+1=2 cannot be true, since it does not always represent what is.
The equation is merely a way of making reality easier to deal with conceptually-2 is the same as 1+1, there is no new truth in 2, it is merely 1+1 represented in a different way-a way that may be easier for us.
If we take 4 it is merely 1+1+1+1 having and idea of 4 makes life simpler, but the amount of apples is exactly the same-in other words the empirical reality is the same.
[/quote]
good answer…you got the words out of my mouth,…
logic fits empirical reality…
we should start talking about other types of logic and QM’
Define 1.
1 is a concept. It’s defined by how it relates to other concepts like ‘+’, ‘=’, or ‘2’. The concepts exist together in a conceptual world that is governed by a few simple laws.
Not coincidently, the conceptual world of '1’s, '+'s, '2’s, and '='s is practical for everyday use. If you can spot behavior or patterns in the real world that are analogous to ones in the conceptual world than you can predict what will happen to those patterns in the real world by studying what happens to them in the conceptual world.
For example, take F=ma, or Force equals mass times acceleration. In our conceptual world we proved that F=ma, so in our real world we assume that it’s true there too. Luckily for us, it does turn out true. If we take the force of a moving train it does increase as the train accelerates faster. This is exactly what are conceptual world told us would happen.
Therefore ‘1’ is a concept referring to a generalization or a simplified abstraction of a phenomenon arbitrarily given boundaries - the boundaries themselves being generalizations or simplifications - so as to make it a singular when it is multiplicity or temporality flowing endlessly and so never a “monad” or a singularity, as the concept ‘!’ insinuates.
definitions are not absolute truth
-Imp
Imp’s right.
Just because the proposition “1 + 1 = 2” is a truth-carrier under our resemblance-schema, the point remains that counting always encompasses a political truth.
If that’s obscure, think about it this way: number systems emerge first in relation to commerce. This indicates that a sort of pre-numeric political geometry pre-exists number systems. That is, our ontological topology determines the fields of the possible.
Extremely simply: sense, ultimately, is not a matter of truth or falsity. Asking whether it makes sense to suggest that “1 + 1 = 2” is not asking the same question as whether “1 + 1 = 2” is true or false.
We can see this with the problem of God’s existence, right? It doesn’t matter (per se) whether God exists or doesn’t; the point is that the sense of both answers is the same. Either position is a solution in search of a problem!
imp…so relative or absolute?
(your take on truth)
all batchelors are single
everything is identical to itself
1+1=2what do u think?
Let’s talk about another physical absolute, instead.
All planets and stars have some gravity.
There.
Universal absolute truth.
imp…so relative or absolute?
(your take on truth)
it (truth) cannot be known…
-Imp