All mathematics destroyed (1 + 1 = 1)

[Truth Addict]

On Saturday, June 09, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Truth Addict said:

First of all, I'm not saying that mathematics is wrong or bad or anything like that, I'm here to make some things clear about it.

Also, I don't have any historical resources for my information below, I just assume that it happened the way I describe.

.

So we start:

Have you ever happened to question mathematics? Especially this special and most obvious truth of (1+1=2).

If you did question it, you'd immediately see what's really going on.

So my claim, in brief, is that all mathematics is only concepts within the mind, it doesn't have anything to do with the Truth.

For the case I'm here to discuss (1+1=2), whatever object in reality, it doesn't have any digital value (1 or 2 or anything else), because it is itself, and nothing else.

Mathematicians and logicians are (or maybe just the human mind) very intelligent thinkers, they were able to create conceptual values for objects, so then they could use it to benefit practically.

This means that we agreed (unconsciously, but they did consciously) that every distinct object in reality has a value of 1 and if we have another object then we have another 1 etc...

Now what happened is very smart and interesting, as human societies started to get complicated and increased in numbers, etc... They needed to create something to help them with their trades, relationships, life, etc... to make them easier, so they started to use mathematics; they (and we as well) agreed that they could combine distinct objects intellectually, so they created the "plus" symbol and used it as a tool to combine the digital values that they created in the first place.

They agreed that they could code this process with language (mathematics), just like any other language, to help socialize and interact easier.

So, for example, if we have an orange, we say we have one orange, and if we have another orange we say we have two oranges instead of saying we have one plus one oranges. (One orange + one orange = two oranges) rather than (one orange + one orange = one orange + one orange). Notice how beneficial this is, symbolic abbreviations that help us consume less time, especially these days when we deal with millions and billions. Actually, we can't perform without mathematics, because without mathematics, if you wanted to say one hundred you would say one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one etc... to a hundred, think about a million then ?

You see, we created this conceptual framework to make life easier, and it does make it easier. The problem here is that we take it for granted, and we tend to forget how it initiated and evolved.

This is the whole show at play, it's only a human convention. Not the Truth. And that's why we can't prove it, because you can't prove what you construct (you can't prove that C + A + T = CAT because it's it by your own definition).

In reality, we can't combine stuff together, if we have one orange and another one, and we want to combine them together, we will ultimately get one orange. An easier example to explain this is if we take each orange and squeeze it then combine the juices together, we will only get one single juice not two separate juices. That's why the final result of any combination must be one number that has one value, not a single digit necessarily, but a single whole number (a unity) (37485836 is a single number or a unity, because it's not 37485835 + 1)... (CAT is a single unity, because it's not C + A + T).

This is a proof of the unity of everything. One contains everything.

1 + 1 = 1

And I'm done.

@Dodo (hope I made my claims clear to you).

@Leo Gura (just in case you haven't seen the post). 

 

@Dodo Hey, sorry for the late reply, but I thought very much about what happened here (our discussion) and came out with this result:

First of all, I apologise for being blind of my arrogance. I should have seen it in myself and acted more maturely and admitted that I was not precise at all.

Now I realized the problem, I was metaphorical about my statements, and you took them literally. And that made me lose sight of the main point of my post, which therefore led us out of context, I guess this sums it all up.

And to be honest, it was totally my fault (because you should take every statement literally unless it's mentioned otherwise) and I'm sorry. I hope you forgive me cuz that will set me free.

So, just to be clear, 1 + 1 = 2 , no doubts. My whole post was just a pointer to show that mathematics is a collective conceptual agreement (couldn't edit post title), and you can disagree with me if you want, you definitely know better than me since you are a maths teacher.

Let us forget the past, and forgive.

I hope that mistake will not happen again, and I'm sorry if I caused you any discomfort.

Much much love and respect. ?

[Truth Addict]

@Outer I think I owe you an apology too.

[Dodo]

7 hours ago, Bane said:

Do you see it? It's Just like I said it! You have too little IQ to understand this EXTREMELY deep topic!

Yet if you answer 1+1=3 in an IQ test, your score would be EXTREMELY low.

Also if you're saying 1+1=3 you can't really talk about high and low IQ, because high and low would be the same value.

Differentiating between high and low is a privilige to those who follow proper maths rules.

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Dodo

[Azrael]

On 9.6.2018 at 10:29 AM, Truth Addict said:

So my claim, in brief, is that all mathematics is only concepts within the mind, it doesn't have anything to do with the Truth.

If you were a science major you'd know that you learn that in university as well. That's not unknown to the scientific community. If you take a logic course, you'll be introduced to various logic paradigms one on which mathematics can be formulated and proven, others where it can't. I think your post is valuable for the normal human being that never thought about that, but I wanna to argue that the scientific community is not as dogmatic as it is presented here all the time. It's just like with every big community, if you have a lot of people its harder to change things and so people get stuck in old paradigms. (That's by the way why globalism will fail as well, as you can even see rn. ) That doesn't mean that the actual individuals don't know that. It's a little bit like judging a society based on its politicians. Not a good idea. Anyway, just keep that in mind guys when you mock science. I personally know some scientists that don't give a shit who you are or how you look and will be very open to new ideas and paradigms. Most of the ones I know are that way.

[Hotaka]

Yay a topic to post in to try and prove my intellectual superiority above all of you! No not really, but I am curious as to what words come out of my mouth in this regard. So number 1 I would like to compliment Truth Addict for this wonderful observation.

I see the meaning in what you are saying and it is excellent, I think. So by the nature of what you are saying I understand that all things are one, and one is all things? So I see this as the ability to hold a single concept in one's mind even if it has many separate parts. So I can look at a person which will most definitely have many sub-personalities, but it is one for me as I speak of them, so the name of this person is one, without needing to refer to or even look at or allow to arise in one's awareness all the subcomponents of it, like a reductionist. I like this a lot, because you are leaving room to the mystery of life by seeing something as it is. But also it is nothing and all things, so you leave room for that also.

[Hotaka]

Continuing, may I place your observations into a conceptual framework?

This is an example of looking at essence and form.

Essence=what something really is (undifferentiated consciousness).

Form=how it is used in it's context (my definitions).

In it's context mathematics may be useful for absolute relations that are there whether you are aware of it or not, but they reside in your subconscious, like the mathematics in your brain. Two plus two=four, just like light isn't dark (it is physically occurring in your brain).

Mentally in your awareness something different is happening, you are looking at units as archetypes to understand the relations between them, so you are almost looking at the semantics of number, which has an essence. The qualitative essence of numbers is all the stories and analogies we can come up with regarding each number, in fact, we could create a spiritual teaching based solely on numbers and the absolute relations between them as they exist in permanent reality. The moment you create a number, all numbers are created simultaneously, so we come back to observation and the understanding that numbers are both meaningless, because they are already there, and also meaningful, because if you look at them they make sense to you and give you a reality that is obvious in some way. This reality cannot be contradicted in any way because it is self explanatory and is self existent. You can use numbers just like you use clay, in some way, when you mold it and bend it, it's truth remains the same.

So more clearly explained, while I am sleeping, two units are more than one unit, and my brain knows this, and even my decomposing body knows this when I am dying, as it will decompose more quickly if there are more bacteria eating it up. But as a mind who is now seeking enlightenment, I want to know the truth of all 'things' on an absolute level, and I have realized I don't need to store bottle caps when bottle caps are already in nature itself.

1+1=15 which IS