Utopia Temple Forums

Utopia Temple Forums (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/index.php)
-   Religious Discussions (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/forumdisplay.php?f=68)
-   -   2 + 2 = 5 (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/showthread.php?t=75647)

Gotterdammerung 09-Feb-2008 13:43

2 + 2 = 5
 
This admission is reminiscent of a scene in 1984 when the protagonist Winston Smith is electroshocked into declaring that he saw five fingers when in fact he only saw four. "Four! Five! Six! I don't know!"

The usefulness of the fact is what declares it a way of organizing the world. That's it. The grass, is "Green! Blue! Purple! I don't know!" What is colour? "I don't know!" What is grass? "I don't know!" etc. etc.

No, you don't know. How do you know what you know? What is usefulness? What is organizing? Stop! Just stop. After enough shocks we grow passive. We no longer concern ourselves with questions. What, then? You don't know.

You'll accept fact whenever you can. It saves you from paralysis. And the deeper you can dig for fact the greater it makes it. Of course, it doesn't really. It clogs the system and only the devil can get it out of you.

DHoffryn 09-Feb-2008 15:04

For everybody wondering what's going this is Gotterdammerung

Quote:

How do you know what you know?
Through education and observation

Quote:

What is usefulness?What is organizing?
The dictionary covers them well enough

Quote:

You'll accept fact whenever you can. It saves you from paralysis. And the deeper you can dig for fact the greater it makes it. Of course, it doesn't really. It clogs the system and only the devil can get it out of you.
Are you trying in your unique style to tell us that we rather accept reality as it is aka the physical world instead of concentrating on the spiritual or whatver world?

Caelis666 09-Feb-2008 15:41

Welcome back Gotter.

And all to familiarly, may I ask what the point of this thread is?

Peppie 09-Feb-2008 20:48

hes probably trying to level the playing field (again)

we dont know anything, so God is as plausible as gravity!

But heres the thing. Some decades ago a scientist was spraying something with electrons. No-one had ever seen them - but if you can spray something with them, they have use value and afaik a legit claim of existence.

When one can "spray" something with God, we can talk. Until then, observable tangible stuff have a definitive advantage.

The Other Sage 09-Feb-2008 21:14

I've always pictured Gotter as some guy going for a Ph.D. in philosophy or psychology, using us as guinea pigs...and composing his entire Ph.D. work around our responses.

This thread is a little more difficult than most, though. Usually he poses deep questions to us. The only questions I see in this one are rhetorical. He's just making observations.

1. We are inclined to accept things as fact because, as he says, to doubt everything would paralyze us.

This is true. In fact, these days, we accept almost everything we know on borrowed authority. How many of us "know" that we survive by taking oxygen into the lungs and breathing out carbon dioxide? Most of us. How many of us, though, have actually done the research and observed this happening? Only the scientists...we take it on their authority. It's a safe bet, but I suppose we have to ask ourselves how much we really "know."

What I don't understand, Gotter, is your implication that we are being coerced to believe facts on borrowed authority. We do it because it is convenient, not because of an outside force...unless you count peer pressure. :b

Also, how would you propose we do things? If we limited our knowledge to what we can observe directly, would we not be much worse off as a species?

(If I completely missed your point, it's your fault for being less comprehensible than usual :-) )

Syke 09-Feb-2008 22:06

Here's an interesting story, though I don't know its absolute validity as I read it many years ago...

There was a tribe of native american islanders who spotted in the great distance a strange ripple in the ocean, however, no one could understand why or from where this ripple originated. So the tribe's shaman spent 3 days examing this spot in the ocean which had been steadily approaching this whole time. At last, after this long stretch of attention, he was finally able to see it: galleons. As he explained what he saw to the others in the tribe, they too for the first time were able to see them. What happened is that the image of the ships was so completely foreign to them and their reality, that when the image had been transferred from their eyes to their brains it had become filtered out as an error due to its implausibility. What you percieve and what is real are not necessarily the same, since your brain corrects many fallacies in your vision. There are numerous tricks you can play with optics which will reproduce this affect where your brain will fill in what it thinks it should see.

I'm not sure how terribly relevant this is to the opening statement, but I think it's about as useful and on topic as anything that will potentially come from this discussion.

Gotterdammerung 10-Feb-2008 00:57

Well, to address these concerns, a point could be this:

That there is an absence of 'right' knowledge, and that there is only righteousness. When you kneel before your captors you can't say that you were merely told by others to do so, that it was by convenience, or that by some defiance against nature they had forced themselves upon you.

It is a frightening condition of idleness that has led to a reality in our mind's eye that is organized by facts rather than wills. "Come now! We are doing this!" And we respond, "how come?"! It is as if all action must pass through our condition of reality in order for it to be plausible. Much again like Syke's story. But at the point of a sword, what does it matter?

Only the righteous and dogmatic can overcome a pending self-bretrayal. For all knowledge that can be had can be taken away as if it was a dream in morning twilight, unless we ourselves take hold of this knowledge to make it much more. We are only subject to alternatives if we let ourselves be. Scienctific thought stands no chance in a arm-wrestle of wills against hardwired fanaticism. In this way, The Other Sage, we would not be worse off.

What kind of thought would allow such spiritedness? Well, in righteousness it is offen the grandeur of things which empower the most. To 'spray' someone with God, Peppie, as you've said, like this, would affect them most dramatically. And I am not distinguishing between worlds, such as what DHoffryn suggested; there is only one - under God - I might assert.

Ninjoo 10-Feb-2008 02:22

I only have a vague idea of what you are talking about so forgive me if im off topic.

Nature and being born into society makes it so nature keeps revoluting in the mental sence of the word.

Can you be a little bit more clear about what your talking about?

Mandraque 10-Feb-2008 02:26

"sanity is not statistical". No matter what we call it or how we may want to think of it, there are many absolutes that we cant change. May we call it green, or blue, grass is still the same color as a wall painted green, or blue. Even if the truth is forced out of you, it will always be true. The laws of nature will always be the same.

Ninjoo 10-Feb-2008 04:33

If you are looking at the laws of nature in a broad sense than yes the laws of nature will always be the same.

If you are looking at the laws of nature through a narrow sense than eventually things will en up changing over time.

We don't yet know enough about the laws of nature.

Most of this seems rhetorical though.. whats the discussion actually about

Chillin 10-Feb-2008 05:32

Well mathematics is the only "perfect science". By that I mean that without a doubt math proves itself. There is no way to argue that 2 + 2 = anything other than 4, because it can be shown perfectly.

Other sciences classify the degree in which they are sure of things, such as theories, scientific laws, ect. And even the pinnacle of their classification which I beleive is something that is classified as a scientific law, is not as definite as any math problem, because they cannot absolutely prove themselves. Granted those things are very very very likely to be true, something 99.9999% or something, but I can say absolutely no matter what 2 + 2 is and always will be 4 under any circumstance.

VonBooB 10-Feb-2008 06:01

Hahaha, questioning "convensions of communications"? To communicate a fact we need a common "language". In Chillin language, 2+2=4. While this language is pretty common, drug free and reeking of peer pressure you can't expect to communicate with him in language where 2+2=5. Simple.

Mandraque 10-Feb-2008 06:42

math doesn't exist, you could say we made it up from nothing to help order things around us. Scientific laws are absolute, F will always equal MA while in its limits. Scientific laws that are right, and proven right, will always be right.

Quote:

We don't yet know enough about the laws of nature
we know that most of what we know in science is absolutely true and proven. Without that engineering on its whole and all of society would be a fallacy.

Chillin 10-Feb-2008 07:08

I'm quite sure(although not positive) there have been "scientific laws" that have been proven wrong before. You will never disprove the fact that 2+2=4.

Say someone makes a Scientific law that is right, and is tested to be right BASED ON THE INFORMATION that we know at the time. It could have very well been a "scientific law" that the world was flat in the year 1500, because based on the information we knew at that time, everything suggested the world was indeed flat. Later on, we learned more things and it was disproven. And yes, I realize this may be a bad example because that theory might not have been tested adequately, but you get my point. I am 90% sure I remember hearing of things that were actually scientifically classified as "law" and later disproven.

However, with mathematics your never going to be able to disproove the fact that if you add the quantity of 2 to the quantity of 2, you now have the quantity of 4. Thus mathematics being a "true science".

Gotterdammerung 10-Feb-2008 07:39

The green wall does not scream out "I am a wall and I am green!" Nor do objects say they are objects, how they ought to be organized and how they account for themselves as a simplification in abstract symbols refered to as mathematics. All statements are rhetoric. As well as questions. And answers.

If you say the wall is green and prove it scientifically and say that "This is a law of nature," I can just as well say that it is blue, or purple or hippopotamus, because it cannot not be a law of nature!

Mandraque 10-Feb-2008 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by You And God (Post 1626349)
If you say the wall is green and prove it scientifically and say that "This is a law of nature," I can just as well say that it is blue, or purple or hippopotamus, because it cannot not be a law of nature!

No matter what color you call the color of the wall it will always have the same color. If you say the wall is blue then that becomes absolute and the grass is blue as well, but the color that blue stands for will always be the same.


@Chillin: im pretty sure the world is flat has never been a scientific law. Tell me a real Physical law that has been disproved completely and i will believe your argument, Some may be altered to only work under a limited amount of situations, but the are not disproven. The rules that natures fallows are absolute, and as time goes on they will be better defined by man.

The Other Sage 10-Feb-2008 18:03

Re: 2 + 2 = 5
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by You And God (Post 1626283)
That there is an absence of 'right' knowledge, and that there is only righteousness.

You'll have to define "right" and "righteousness" for me. Your ardor for vocabulary is obfuscating your point. :b

Quote:

Originally Posted by You And God (Post 1626283)
When you kneel before your captors you can't say that you were merely told by others to do so, that it was by convenience, or that by some defiance against nature they had forced themselves upon you.

Who are my captors here? The scientists who get to do all the hard work for me so that I only have to pop an aspirin, rather than design one myself to relieve my headache? You seem to believe that judgment will be passed on us for our laziness. Is that true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by You And God (Post 1626283)
It is a frightening condition of idleness that has led to a reality in our mind's eye that is organized by facts rather than wills.

Define "wills" for me in the sense that you're using it.

Also, why is it frightening that we build our reality around facts? I was under the impression that you wanted us to build our reality around verifiable, observable facts, not taking anything on authority. If I were to build my reality only on the facts I verified for myself, would that be ok? Or is it still less than ideal, because I have not built it around "wills?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by You And God (Post 1626283)
"Come now! We are doing this!" And we respond, "how come?"! It is as if all action must pass through our condition of reality in order for it to be plausible. Much again like Syke's story. But at the point of a sword, what does it matter?

That has little to do with facts...more with motivation. That's just good evolutionary sense. If we didn't pursue action that benefited us, we would have died out as a species. All action must pass through the condition of "will this benefit me (or someone/something I care about) in some way?" before it is plausible.

And please tell me who's holding the sword, and what consequences fall upon us if we were to anger them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by You And God (Post 1626283)
Only the righteous and dogmatic can overcome a pending self-bretrayal.

Reword, please. I understand every word in that sentence but can't understand the sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by You And God (Post 1626283)
For all knowledge that can be had can be taken away as if it was a dream in morning twilight, unless we ourselves take hold of this knowledge to make it much more. We are only subject to alternatives if we let ourselves be.

Wrong. It is IMPOSSIBLE for every individual human to duplicate the scientific and intellectual efforts of all of human history on their own. There isn't enough time to do it, and most people aren't smart enough to do it on their own. Starting from scratch, even the most intelligent among us would not progress technologically to anything approaching modern day. Would you care to live without computers, medicine, or any other modern conveniences? Could you invent aspirin for yourself?

If living under the current system is slavery, then the perceived slavery is so slight and minuscule that it hardly is worth mentioning. If every human is an equal slave to some other's authority, is it really slavery at all? How can their be slavery if nobody is the slave-driver?

Quote:

Originally Posted by You And God (Post 1626283)
Scientific thought stands no chance in a arm-wrestle of wills against hardwired fanaticism. In this way, The Other Sage, we would not be worse off.

Scientific thought has progressed throughout the ages, and the pockets of unscientific fanaticism are getting smaller. It may not win an arm-wrestle by itself, but luckily it can build a super-robot-arm-wrestler than can. :lol

When you respond, remember...the topic is lofty enough without throwing in the lofty vocabulary. You'll have a much more fulfilling discussion if you open it up to those who...say...don't accept the slavery of a dictionary's authority. (;

Ninjoo 10-Feb-2008 19:12

2 + 2 = 4

Definitions for things do change over time. What once could have been considered blue can now be considerd light blue through entrophy. When applying the word blue to something that matter will always be blue in the right circumstances. Blue will always mean the same thing when using that term to describe something.

Math also isn't perfect... look at examples like pi, we still can't figure out exactly what pi equalls, we can only estimate it.

2+2 has to have something applied to it to make the problem make sense. Like 2 apples + 2 oranges = four fruits.

In this instance though

Lets say a sofa ways 4 lbs and there are 1 person lifting the sofa from each side, the weight distrubtion becomes less.
1 + 1 in this case is equal to 2 thus 2 + 2 = 4
but if you take 3 people on one side to move a sofa and only one person on the other side to move a 4 pound sofa.
each of the three people are lifting 3/4 of a half part of 2 pounds while the other person is lifting the full two pounds

Thus its something like 3 people are lifting a 3 of 2 pounds and one person is lifting the whole to pounds.

The equation now becomes .05/2 + 0.5/2 + 0.5/2 + 2 pounds

I am not very good at math but I know with weight distrubtion things are diffrent.

Californication 10-Feb-2008 23:19

Post in fucking english next time.

Chillin 11-Feb-2008 01:25

Quote:

Math also isn't perfect... look at examples like pi, we still can't figure out exactly what pi equals, we can only estimate it.
Noone has ever claimed to know EXACTLY what pi is, its a number with infinite decimal places. Similar to how 1/3 would be expressed as 3.333333333333333(for ever), but people just usually express it as 0.34, the same way pi is shortened to 3.14.

I dont even understand what your trying to say in your other argument, sorry. I understand the math problem but I dont see how it disprooves math is perfect.

Quote:

@Chillin: im pretty sure the world is flat has never been a scientific law. Tell me a real Physical law that has been disproved completely and i will believe your argument, Some may be altered to only work under a limited amount of situations, but the are not disproven. The rules that natures fallows are absolute, and as time goes on they will be better defined by man.
Well a sceintic law is not absolute if it is ever needed to be modified. You will never hear anyone say, "Wait 2+2=4 only if your on the planet earth...on mars it equals 5." Or some similar crap. With these supposed "laws" being updated they are not absolute (if it was absolute it would not need to be updated, would it?). Heres one for you. States of matter. I'm sure that it was declared a "Scientific Law" that the only possible states of matter were solid, gas, and liquid. This was tested, and "proven" to be true. Then comes along the discovery of plasma, tada, your "law" is disproven. That will never happen with 2+2=4. 2+2=4 will never need to be updated, thus it truly is absolute.

You may or may not be right saying that laws DO exist in nature, but because our understanding of nature is always increasing we will continually disprove ourselves and our fallible ideas that we deem as "laws". For example, I'm POSITIVE that its now a law that there are 4 states of matter....whose to say 100 years from now we don't stumble upon a 5th one? Things like that cant happen with math...


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 21:24.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2005, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.