# Why 1+1=2?

Why 1+1=2? Or we just accept it as it is?

1+1=2 is just a logical abstraction from reproducible experiment. Try it yourself! How many objects will there be if you put ‘one’ object with another ‘one’ object? ‘Two’? Correct! 1, +, =, and 2 are just symbols, which were given meaning in mathematics.

Actually this concerns more of the definition of ‘one’.
Can we define what is ‘one’?

in mathematics, it just so happens that 1=1 singular object or whatever but imagine you look at the sky and you see stars. Before the laws of numbers etc were in place you wouldnt have looked and though, ‘‘oh i see 100 stars’’ but rather that you are just looking at replicates of the same object. Not idential objects but the objects of the same kind. I would see a singular star and then realise that all the rest of the objects are exactly the same. I can’t really explain what i mean but it’s just that numbers/pairs are what we use to identify things. your take

I recall a humorous account of Frege’s objection to Mill’s view that arithmethical truths are empirically derived by the fact that we could separate, or arrange individual objects into parts, such that 2 + 3 = 5 could be something like: @ @ @ @ @ separated into @@ @@@.

Frege’s retort was, and I paraphrase: Well, then it’s great that many objects in the world are not nailed down (!), otherwise how can we arrive at some arithmethical truths if we cannot separate things.

Wow, this is a strange post…
How do you defin one? You define it by how many objects you have, such as if you have one object, that means there is one of it.
On the overall question, 1+1 is not 2, 1+1 becomes 2, 1+1 is exactly 1+1, reflexive property of addition, and it is only logical that a=a

[contented edited by ILP]

Through a conscious negation of the world. We do not need to assign a numerical value to an object to count it, we merely infer the space between it and another object. ‘That-ness’ is the quality of an object in the presence of consciousness, without which there would be no differentiation between objects and no numbers. It isn’t that ‘something’ is ‘it,’ but rather that something is not the other. A negation. To claim that an object is complete is to deny that it consists in infinite divisible parts, so there is never merely a case where something can have the value of 1. A paradox emerges at this point. To admit the impossibility that an object can have the value of 1, because it can be divided, is to simultaneously admit that each divisible part has the value of 1 by itself.

In reality there are only two distinctions which necessarily exist as a dichotomy. They are Being and Consciousness. Nothing can be counted further with a numerical value, as the presence to a being only entails the nothingness between awareness and object. There is no number, only the negation of other-ness in profiling a world that is not consciousness.

[contented edited by ILP]

Then we start using a function: X + 1 = ?

As for definition: we work backwards, 4 defines 3, 3 defines 2, 2 defines 1.

Well, complete objects are infinitely divisible, that is my point, and also a problem for mathematical coherency in my brand of phenomenology where nothing exists but the null set, and anything outside of this set is either a 1 or a 0, but again these are not numbers (this is tricky, stay with me). They are modes by which a wave function collapses and causes consciousness to emerge and differentiate itself from the quantifiable data existing as the wave. (I wish I could explain this using notational logic but that shit is incomprehensible to me precisely because it cannot exist, quite circular, I know, but give me a second)

I want to start at the very bottom of this ladder. First, quantification occurs when a stream of sensible data is interrupted by a break, or a space, if you will, so it isn’t that an object can be distinguished as existing individually and counted as 1, but rather that it is determined to be sensible as 1 because of the ‘gap’ or break in the stream which reduces its value to a binary state: ‘is,’ ‘is not.’ Without conscious awareness of the object there would be no phenomenological ‘thing-ness,’ there would be only ‘all-ness,’…‘is’ and ‘is not’ would exist simultaneously which is rationally impossible. ‘Thing-ness’ requires the break and the collapse of the wave function of empirical data for consciousness to determine itself as ‘not’ the objective data of which it is aware of, and it does this by pre-reflection of itself (consciousness) aware of itself as awarsness of ‘thing-ness.’ That is why number values go no further than 0 and 1, 0 is the nothingness of consciousness, 1 is the something-ness of the object. Without conscious awareness of the world ‘all-ness’ would exist which would cancel itself out: everything is synonomous with nothing. 1 is just 1 0. The world without conscious apprehension is a null set.

All sensible data is percieved because of the stimulation it incites in the nervous system through neuronal activity. A piece of sensible data represents a 1 when a neuron fires and then halts its activity. The most important part of this process is the halting. This is the break in the stream and what causes consciousness to emerge.

Imagine this: if I plugged an extension cord into an electrical socket it would become a conductive circuit. The electricity which existed before I plugged it in was waiting to pass through the cord, though is doesn’t need the cord to exist as electricity (data doesn’t need consciousness to exist). When the cord is plugged in it becomes a medium for the electricity to exist in, and until I unplug it there is no break in the stream. The only way to distinguish the electricity from the cord is to unplug it and cause the break. This is analogous to the neuron and its stimulation, and how consciousness emerges from the neural net (I learned alot of this from Dustin Ash, you remember him, Ab).

What causes the number, or quantification, to exist is the separation of the stimulus from its host whereby the only distinction between the two lies in the gap, or the halting of conductivity. Numbers are created by the mind to represent the bits of data that are recognized not by the fact that they caused the neuron to fire, but by the fact that the neuron ceased to fire differentiating itself from the data, like the cord from the electricity which it carries which can only distinguish itself by unplugging.

There are five known senses through which this takes place. Sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. I consider them all to be tactile forms of data and do not make an exception for sight and sound because they are just as empirical as the other three, that is, they are physical forms of data which must incite the stimulation of the neuron to fire and then cease, causing the number to appear.

Mathematics is a convention which exists through language by assigning either notational symbolic representation to the object of awareness by drawing the symbol, or a lingusitic representation of the object of awareness by the word ‘1’.

Mathematics is a useful paradigm in language only and serves as a tool for communicating. Without language ‘thing-ness’ would not be an entity in the world, it would remain as a phenomena in/of consciousness and would be a solipsistic experience.

[quote]
So what? There are ten million ergs in a joule, so we can’t distinguish between “one erg” and “one joule”?

[quote]

Sure we can, but the distinction here is a matter of subject/object differentiation. The ‘object’ is the quantification without the assignment of a subject/name. Both the erg and the joule are the same thing: empirical data streams which are ‘all-ness’ until they are broken down by the collapse of such data streams. When the neural net is stimulated by the sensible data it creates 1’s out of 0’s according to the combination and record it keeps of its binary states in the memory (another mystery I am working on). Every subject is a lingusitic form or representation of a specific set of firing/halting combinations.

Numbers do not exist because of the paradox of infinite divisibility. A subject is accorded to an object when its empirical data is collapsed as a wave function. The collapse is an ontological nothingness. The world is a null set which does not exist without consciousness (a form of idealism I am working on)

Again, I do not claim that my system is correct. I am building it and I welcome any questions or criticism.

1 + 1 = 2, because it’s highly (highest) probable within scope of the domain (macro).

1+1=2 because it’s defined that way.

As for the definition of quantity, for those of us living on earth, it’s very simple. We live in a quantized universe, so physical quantities can be defined as whole number multiples of a unit (a molecule, atom, subatomic particle, take your pick). Bond lengths between 2 atoms (C-C for example) are “quantized” in that all such bonds are the same length at a given temperature and E/B field strength. Volume is a product of lengths, and can be conceptually quantized. Etc. Etc. etc.

Long story short, we all understand the concept of a scale (be it a ruler, mass balance, pressure gauge, whatever). Thus, we can make a physical analog if we have a unit to base it on. Those units are sitting under guard at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.

Yuor definition doesn’t explain quantum entanglement.

1+1=3.

there’s that mystical thing called RELEVANCE that i try to acheive with my definitions. Sadly, entanglement didn’t make the cut on this one.

When two photons/atoms behave as one? How is that not relevant with 1+1=2?