CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The definition of "two" is "the sum of 1 and 1; 1 less than 3". In much the same way, the definition of "four" could be described as "The sum of two and two".
If you changed the definitions of these words then I suppose yeah it'd change the answer, but then you aren't really asking the same question as what we're discussing here.
2+2=not 4 is fundamentally illogical. The consequences of this would be impossible to describe, because if 2+2=not 4, then every single thing we know about reality would be false.
Consider the implications for a moment. If I give you two dollars, then another two dollars, you now have four dollars. If 2+2 doesn't equal four though, then me giving you two dollars then another two dollars could mean you have any amount of money other than four dollars.
Let's go further in than that.
If two cells split, then split again, we have 4 cells. But in this hypothetical, we don't have four cells. How many cells would we have? Fucked if I know
Let's go further
Every atomic and subatomic interaction in the universe follows the basic idea that the concept of integers is continuous. If 2+2 doesn't equal 4, then the rules that govern the universe are forfeit, and... I have no idea what would happen. It's literally impossible to conceptualise.
2+2 != 4 doesn't just mean "some of our math needs to be reconsidered", it means "numbers are now unreal, reality is untenable"
That's impossible to answer. If reality was to fundamentally change, then any conjecture on our parts is meaningless, because our conjectures wouldn't hold in this modified universe. It's like asking "If you were going for a run with your dog, and then "running" now meant "something that isn't running", where would Russia weigh?"
I suppose the real question, is if the integer can be questioned to exist. And then of course if the answer is yes, that raises the problem of the fact that the logic existed to be able to question the existence of the integer.
If I throw something off my balcony, can you tell me where it will land? Obviously not, because you have no idea where my balcony is. That being said, you can confidently assert that it won't land back on my balcony, because the premise of the question ("off my balcony") precludes that answer ("on my balcony"). In much the same way, if I ask you "what if 2+2 != 4", I can confidently assert that all the things I know to be true in a 2+2=4 universe to be false (because that equation presumes the fundamental consistency of causality that governs our universe), but also am unable to predict what exactly this new universe would look like due to the ambiguity of the question (if 2+2 != 4, then what does it equal?).
I couldn't confidently assert that, because it's possible that something with enough power could intercept that something's descent and reverse it's trajectory causing it to land back on top of the balcony.
You say that conjecture of that alternate universe is pointless because we don't know if our logic still would apply. How do you know that 3+3 no longer equals 6 in that universe? Which 3+3=6 is something that is true in ours.
Well yes naturally this analogy isn't perfect, because it's an analogy. It's used to illustrate the point, not repeat it perfectly. My purpose in raising that analogy was to demonstrate that just because you can't perfectly predict the result of an action doesn't mean you can't confidently predict what wont happen, based on the information in the action itself. I digress though; here I'll put it another way to you.
In this new universe 3+3 can not equal 6 (in the same way we say it here and now), because 3+3=6 presupposes the same things 2+2=4 does.
Consider it like this, and I'm going to introduce some other basic math here.
We know that, in our universe,
6 / 3 = 2
2 + 2 = 4
3 + 3 = 6
4 + 2 = 6
2 + 2 + 2 = 6
What we're showing here is that numbers all have continuous relationships. 6 = 2+2+2 AND 3+3 AND 2X3.
Looking at one of these relationships in particular, 2+2+2=6, we've got a problem. 2+2+2=6 only because 2+2=4 and 4+2 = 6.
If 2+2 no longer equals 4, then 2+2+2 no longer equals 6. 2+2+2 is simply 2X3 rewritten, so that means 2X3 can no longer be correct either. 3+3 is simply 2X3 rewritten, which means 3+3 can no longer be correct.
2 + 2 != 4, using the correct definitions of those numbers, simply doesn't add up (if you'll pardon the pun). It's fundamentally nonsensical.
Yes, because our universes logic is presupposed in the question.
2 + 2 must equal 4, that's what 2+2 means. If you break that rule, then 2+2 fundamentally change, and you're no longer discussing the same thing. I do not know what you'd be discussing, but I know that you're no longer discussing 2 + 2 = 4.
If 2+2=4, then our reality simply could not hold. I do not know what a universe would look like if 2+2 as we know it does not equal 4 as we know it. I do know, however, that it wouldn't look like our universe, because our universe is the one where 2+2=4.
"This room is painted red. If I paint this room a different colour, what would it look like"
Don't be facetious; you wanted to know how I was so confident that the universe would need to be changed on a fundamental level for 2+2!=4.
you can't logically know that everything we know would be false.
How do you know that 3+3 no longer equals 6 in that universe?
I've presented my counter arguments to these ideas. Now it's your turn to rebut them, accept them, or just leave the topic be.
Seriously dude I've been trying to explain something to you here, the least you could do is just leave it be, rather than cheapening the entire debate with comments like that.
It's intellectually dishonest because you are not applying the reasoning that you presented, to your own arguments, when it's necessary to your arguments consistency.
So I don't see any point in discussing this with you any further.
This discussion was meant to be a discussion of your claim that "everything we know would be false in a universe where 2+2 =not 4". A sub discussion, not the debate topic itself.
Then you claim that any conjecture we present would be meaninglessness in determining anything of such a universe , but still continue to use our universe's fundamentals to try and logically prove that everything we know will be false.
[edit]The logic that leads me to say "2+2!=4 would change everything" is the same logic that lead me to say "I don't know how it would look".[/edit]
I suppose I can see where you're coming from there, but I stand by my statement. A universe could indeed appear similar to ours if 2+2 didn't equal 4, yeah. I have no idea how it would manage that, but it's entirely possible it could. That doesn't change the fact that the nature of our reality would be different to the nature of this other reality, because the nature of our reality is fundamentally linked to 2+2=4.
Put it this way - for everything to not be false in this other universe, it would need to perfectly mimic something from this reality. Anything in our reality can, when boiled down far enough, be described in a mathematical function. For a perfect mimic to exist, this mathematical function would also need to be reflected. If this mathematical function is perfectly reflected, then 2+2 must equal 4, which means this other reality is not an example of somewhere where 2+2!=4.
Even if things look similar in this hypothetical universe to ours, they can not be the same, because every single thing here depends upon 2+2=4. This alternate reality might appear similar at first glance, but it will always be fundamentally different.
The fundamentals of how 3+3=6 may be different in that universe, but as long as 3+3=6 occurs in both universes then that is something that would be true in both universes.
Fundamentals don't need to be the same for shared truths to occur. For example, people regularly reach the same conclusions that other people reach, but by taking different paths.
The fundamentals of how 3+3=6 may be different in that universe, but as long as 3+3=6 occurs in both universes then that is something that would be true in both universes.
The "fundamentals" I'm talking about here are the actual definitions of what 3, 6, +, 2, 4, and =. If they mean something different in this universe (as is stipulated in the question), then they are not the same thing and are not true in both universes.
For example, people regularly reach the same conclusions that other people reach, but by taking different paths
True, but a better analogy would be "Two people reach the conclusion "She told him she kissed him" and "She told him she kissed him". The conclusions appear to be the same, but the meaning behind them is vastly different. In much the same way, even if this other hypothetical universe was a near-perfect mirror to ours, we can still predict that it will be fundamentally different because that is the literal premise of the hypothetical.
Interesting point, but I'd say that if the reason behind something existing is changed, then that thing itself is changed too. The meaning of a thing is entirely based upon the reason behind its existence; that's how we conclude the meaning. Imagine it as something like two different programmers writing different scripts to achieve the same thing. One uses, say, C++ to write the script, and the other uses, say, Python. If the script they've written is very simple, then we as end users aren't going to notice any difference between thew two, but that doesn't mean they aren't still different.
Or, put another way, the "meaning" of the scripts has stayed the same, but the "reason" behind the scripts is different.
Still, at this point we're really just arguing a semantic difference between meaning and reason, which really won't go anywhere. I really enjoyed this topic though, thanks for keeping it active and interesting
It's pretty obvious, he said 2 as an integer, no 2x or 2y involved, and so, 2 integers, as in 2 bars of chocolate and 2 bars of chocolate adds up to make 4 bars. it's mostly logic.
Unless we change the meaning of the value label "two" , the system of addition, or the meaning of the value label "four" then yes 2 plus 2 will always equal 4.
If you are adding the same things or being specific to the same thing. 2 cats plus 2 cats will always equal 4 cats. 2 cats plus 2 dogs will only equal 2 cats and 2 dogs but it will also equal 4 animals.
Sure you can. A car plus a bus will always equal a car and a bus but it will also equal 2 vehicles. 2+2=4 is dependent on the criteria of the individual doing the addition. 2+2 will always equal 4 OF SOMETHING. if you're adding 2 different things you'll still get 4 of something. 2 cats plus 2 dogs equals 4 animals. But it still doesn't give you more than 2 cats or dogs.
I'm sure you would agree though, that 2 + 2 = 4 as an expression of logic may not "be" reality, but just expression, derived from the need to organise according to condition.
No. In reality the only reason 2=2 like it does is because, well. it just is how we do things. If everyone said 1 is now 2 and 2 is 1 then 2 would be the equivalent of 1 and it would be 2, 1, 3 catch my drift?
That's changing the definition of the words, which would undermine the premise of this question.
It's a bit like how if I ask you "How's Greece doing economically?" you'd know that I meant Greece now, as opposed to Ancient Greece. It's not exactly like that, but it illustrates the point reasonably well.
Let's just break this down: the premise depends on the definition you argue. The definition here being that 2 is II and II + II = IIII. The premise is that IIII need not invariably be the outcome of II + II.
II is the representation of the integer 2 (and here we have to assume that the integer is a mandatory function of reality); so on the condition that the integer doesn't just exist, but is compulsory to the Universe, then yes, there is no argument about IIII not needing to be the invariable outcome of II + II.
My own argument, is that reality as it is can't be such that IIII is the invariable outcome of II + II, because the meaning of life demands that IIII isn't. IIII being compulsory means that reality is structure, and that therefore anti-MoL.
If II + II can't equal IIII, the new question or issue that becomes is the problem of the existence of logic. What is the identity of logic, if causal sequencing can be challenged?
Is logic the purpose of challenging causal sequencing? What are your thoughts?
Mariel33, I do not understand or follow what points you're raising here.
Recently I sent you a message about things like this, please do take it into consideration. I wasn't joking when I said I find it legitimately concerning to see someone speaking like this.
Just, please keep what I said in that message in mind, okay?
