1 + 1 = ?

[Kross]

Leo explained in one of his videos how one and one making two is relatively true. I did not understand properly. Tried to wrap my head around it some more, still not feeling it. Despite 1 , + , = being arbitrary symbols, doesn't a single undivided item, when taken with another undivided item give us two items independent of any sentient being able to understand this ?  1 + 1 = 2 is relatively true relative to what ? Maybe form or creation ? 

[LarryW]

Add together 2 drops of water or 2 pieces of string, or 2 areas of space, or 2 lengths of time. What do you get? One bigger unit or two separate units? I vaguely remember doing this in group theory in maths yonks ago (sorry I forgot the detail after 30 years) and to get round the problem they invented a new symbol for addition, a plus with a circle round it to indicate a different type of adding. So the arbitrary symbols relate to human-created logic and assumptions underlying it all. 

[DreamScape]

1 is infinite

2 is infinite 

infinite = infinite

1 = 2 

 

[Kross]

@LarryW But why add ? By 1 +1 = 2 I'm not really trying to add 1 and 1 , but referring to the fact that two entities if accounted for , are precisely that , two entities. 'Two' entities existing from the presence of individuals.  So before adding those two droplets of water, they were two ! 

@Johnny5 Yeah that seems kinda plausible .

[mandyjw]

1 plus 1, hmm, I'll just put them next to each other like this (11) since obviously they can't take up the same space at the same time, that would be ridiculous. They'll be like twins, sitting together on a bench. They look the same, and they are together, but they're still their own entities, with their own identities. 

So 11.

Duh. 

Numbers have feelings too, you can't just do whatever you want with them, you PEOPLE. 

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by mandyjw

[Patrick Lynam]

take 5meodmt and you'll understand

 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Kross said:

doesn't a single undivided item, when taken with another undivided item give us two items independent of any sentient being able to understand this ?

Of course not!

You need to carefully think through what your words mean.

"A single undivided item" << Okay, if you do that, you have Infinity. One thing. There cannot be two undivided things! You can't add together two undivided things, they must be divided to begin with for there to be two of them.

You can add together two divided things. But what constitute "a thing" is already relative to how your mind carves up the world. The world is not made up of things. Your minds projects division on the world and calls those conceptual divisions things. But even if you get past all that, there is no guarantee whatsoever that by combining two random things you will be left with 2. There are many instances in nature where you add 1 and 1 and get something that isn't 2. Fundamentally there is no reason why you couldn't add two things together and get 0, for example. You could design a virtual reality in which 1+1=0. Or whatever you want.

And none of this in independent of a sentient being because it's all happening inside your sentience. If not, where else is addition happening?

Even just the very notion of addition itself, is relative. After all, what is addition and how do you even understand it? Is addition something found in the outer world? Of course not.

Quote

1 + 1 = 2 is relatively true relative to what ?

Relative to:

• Language, semantics
• Your state of consciousness
• Your education
• Your culture
• Your worldview and entire schema of reality
• This physical universe
• Formal mathematics
• Being a human
• You telling yourself that it is true (you could, for example, deny it.)
• Etc.

If you were a donkey, 1+1=2 would not be true for you. How is this not obvious to you? 1+1=2 cannot be true for you unless you are able to think it and tell yourself that it is true.

[eggopm3]

 The system of math you use is also arbitrary and relative. In binary 1+1=10 

Check out some of the wildly different ways math can be represented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numeral_systems#Standard_positional_numeral_systems

We're used to the decimal system, but we could use any of these if we wanted to.

[Someone here]

@Kross  you are the one who assigns meanings to definitions. Theses distinctions are in terms of definitions. You forget that these distinctions are subjective and become therefore removed with the assumption that subjective distinctions has any kind of seperated existence independent from the mind that is assigning these distinctions.  

To clarify.. What is one?  Not-two. And what is two? Not - one!  Okay so you are defining each one in terms of the other in a circular way.  Numbers are just abstract entities. Just a projection. They have no actual existence in the real word.    If you have a glass of water.. Is that one thing?  Well one could say yeah its just a glass of water it's one object.  Another person could say no there is the glass and then there is the water inside they are two things.. Another person will say no there is the air in the empty Half of the cup!  Another person would say no there is just countless number of molecules there!!  Which one is right???   All of them and non of them simultaneously lol.  So even if what is counted as one or two is relative.. What about an equation that is composed of relative items? Obviously it is relative as well. 

[abrakamowse]

 

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by abrakamowse

[Kross]

@Leo Gura @Someone here

Got it, thanks !

 

[Toby]

Mathematicans know that it is not true but only based on assumptions and definitions. That is the first thing you learn.

[lmfao]

@Kross Enter into the cloud of not-knowing my friend. 

[DreamScape]

@Johnny5 They're the same size

I could have 100 lego pieces and one, and since they're all infinite in nature, they're the same size. 

size doesn't really exist, only relative to something. You have to be a certain size for something to be big vs small, otherwise you could zoom in and out on every object and see that size is a relative illusion. 

Not useless word games, it is the truth. 

 

[DreamScape]

@Johnny5 I only looked at the title.

 

[Mu_]

@Kross   Seems like you got some good info, but I'll add another thing to open your mind if its helpful. 

 

What is 1 of something?  An apple lets say.  But you know an apple is not just an apple, but made of many many parts, perhaps infinite?  Just look into a microscope and wala, theres fibers, various organic matter, space, electrons, protons, and the more you look around and zoom in the more you find and the more is unknown and explainable at this point by humans and perhaps forever.   And to be clear this happens with any supposed 1 thing, the more you look into it the more its not 1 thing.......

So ask yourself again what are you talking about when you say there is 1 apple, is it an apple or is "something" called a apple that is really just a combination of other stuff that you really can't nail down where or what it is, since it seems from the science view that theres always more to a supposed something.

Oh and to make it even more interesting, all the "stuff that is made of other stuff" is moving around all the time.....  And yet I imagine while all this is going on right now, there is something in you that thinks its a solid thing that is moving around solid no-moving terrain. 

[Scholar]

20 hours ago, abrakamowse said:

 

 

That's amazing.

 

Think about it. If you divide by Zero, Math cannot make sense because every number is potentially every other number. Every number is unmanifested, every number is in perfect union with every other number.

Division by Nothing, divided by Nothing. To make sense is to Divide, to manifest is to divide.

 

Ignore that and you can have math, you can have manifestation, you can have every individual thing. But Divide by Nothing and you shall perish into Nothingness, because everything will become everything, which is nothingness.

https://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/0by0.html
 

Quote

 

Now you could say that r=infinity satisfies (1). That's a common way of putting things, but what's infinity? It is not a number! Why not? Because if we treated it like a number we'd run into contradictions. Ask for example what we obtain when adding a number to infinity. The common perception is that infinity plus any number is still infinity. If that's so, then

infinity = infinity+1 = infinity + 2

which would imply that 1 equals 2 if infinity was a number. That in turn would imply that all integers are equal, for example, and our whole number system would collapse.

 

As Leo said, Paradox is a feature, not a glitch. Of course all integers are equal, of course your whole number system will collapse if you truly embrace it fully. This is it's nature, the Illusion. It can only be upheld so long as you do not allow for Division by Nothing, Undividedness.

 

You cannot escape the breadcrumbs, you can only deny them, as the mathematicians do.

 

God = Division by Zero

 

Look at this, it's just poetic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
 

Quote

 

In mathematics, division by zero is division where the divisor (denominator) is zero. Such a division can be formally expressed as a/0 where a is the dividend (numerator). In ordinary arithmetic, the expression has no meaning, as there is no number which, when multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming a ≠ 0), and so division by zero is undefined. Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression 0/0 is also undefined; when it is the form of a limit, it is an indeterminate form. Historically, one of the earliest recorded references to the mathematical impossibility of assigning a value to a/0 is contained in George Berkeley's criticism of infinitesimal calculus in 1734 in The Analyst ("ghosts of departed quantities").[1]

There are mathematical structures in which a/0 is defined for some a such as in the Riemann sphere and the projectively extended real line; however, such structures do not satisfy every ordinary rule of arithmetic (the field axioms).

In computing, a program error may result from an attempt to divide by zero. Depending on the programming environment and the type of number (e.g. floating point, integer) being divided by zero, it may generate positive or negative infinity by the IEEE 754 floating point standard, generate an exception, generate an error message, cause the program to terminate, result in a special not-a-number value[2], or a crash.

 

Almost reads like a religious text if you ask me. Of course division by zero cannot be defined, because it is no thing.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

Paradox is what happens when the dualistic mind -- which divided the world -- is finally forced to confront the consequences of that division in a sea of what is otherwise an Absolute Unity.

Eventually all dualities collapse and all divisions get unified.

Undivided = Infinity

[Nak Khid]

infinity is part of a duality with zero 

[Scholar]

Notice that mathematicians have to look out to not accidentally divide by zero. Notice how strange that is and what happens when they do so.

This is like the ego avoiding the underlying truth of Union, because if it were to embrace it, it's survival would collapse as it would be revealed as an illusion. The ego is basically an elaborate system of trying to avoid division by zero.

 

Even the words they use. They made it illegal to divide by zero, like they made it illegal to take 5-MeO-DMT.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Scholar