Thread: "Choosing to Believe" 2 + 2 = 5: The Interviews

Rooj wether it is a number or an object the principle remains entirely the same. There would not be 4 rocks if it was impossible for two to exist. I have justified the statement by explaining the equal dependence of the numbers on each other for existence as their identity. You basically need to re-read what I wrote and understand it. Maybe I am not good at explaining it.

2 rocks cannot be sustained without the aid of other things. If 2 rocks can exist. So can 4 of them. But if 4 rocks can't exist. Neither can two of them. It is not a flaw.

Dependency is not identity.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Slapping your own face will not make my argument go away. Try again.

Maybe if we slapped yours?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Just the fact that you're arguing with me is already enough evidence that I can indeed choose what I believe. If I couldn't choose what I believed in, we would have the exact same beliefs, and there would be no discussion.

Here you demonstrate your powerfully inadequate ability to infer. You assume that every person's brain functions exactly identical and that we've all been exposed to exactly the same experiences.

Originally Posted by Korittke

How hard is it to understand? You are not supposed to change the symbols. You are supposed to believe the actual content of the symbolic representation "2+2=5" in standard maths notation.

You haven't actually done that, either, I remind you.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

I believe in all religions.

Including atheism?

Originally Posted by Mark75

Including atheism?

My definition of religion doesn't include atheism. Neither does that of Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Lenin, or Marx.

But neverthelss, I can also choose to believe in atheism when it would fulfill a purpose. But right now, I believe it to be completely pointless.

Feel free to try and convince me that atheism has a point.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I have justified the statement by explaining the equal dependence of the numbers on each other for existence as their identity.

I believe i understand your theory a little better now:

That is that objects/concepts/whatevers that rely on other whatevers to form their identity can be said to be the same thing, that is the combination of all the whatevers. To go further with this theory then, as everything depends on the basic building blocks of the universe everything is essentially the same?

Please correct me if im wrong with the above.
So what it seems you are saying is because all numbers are part of a number system they're all "the number system" and equal to each other?

The very point of a number system is to aid human understanding, to seperate values, so your philosophy actually does more damage than good in this example. For basic human survival we need to be able to see things as seperate from each other, and to name them. They may well be combinations of other things for sure, but we still need to be able to view them as individual.. otherwise neat things like language can't exist. In order for you to expect us to be able to read and understand your words you expect us to view things as individual.
Although your example at first glance may seem to work as a rebuttal to UM's origional post its sadly overshadowed by the fact that its completely unusable in day to day life. If you did actually live, act and think in the fashion you put forward in your philosophical standpoint you couldnt function as a human being. You would no longer be able to think, speak or understand if you couldnt tell the difference between objects/concepts etc and their individual parts.
As expecting people to think in that way to form their belief systems is so impractical, and as you probably dont even do this yourself for your day to day belief systems, i dont believe it carries very much weight in the context of this debate.

Atheism is good for loosening stripped screws.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

My definition of religion doesn't include atheism. Neither does that of Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Lenin, or Marx.

But neverthelss, I can also choose to believe in atheism when it would fulfill a purpose. But right now, I believe it to be completely pointless.

Feel free to try and convince me that atheism has a point.

The point of atheism is that it doesn't have a point... at least that you understood.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

My definition of religion doesn't include atheism. Neither does that of Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Lenin, or Marx.

But neverthelss, I can also choose to believe in atheism when it would fulfill a purpose. But right now, I believe it to be completely pointless.

Feel free to try and convince me that atheism has a point.

Stop defining religion for me!!

I found it!

Well, theres no difference between atheism and theism anyway. Atheists are just in the closet theists.

Well, I've got my maths A level in eight hours, and I'll be fucked if I'm going to pay the slightest bit of attention to any of this bull in it. We all know that 2 and 2 makes 4 anyway and finding people who think that it's possible argue otherwise that is just a way of weeding out the loonies to be honest.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Feel free to try and convince me that atheism has a point.

Deism is a form of theism.

Do you agree that Deism as point and Atheism hasn't?

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

But neverthelss, I can also choose to believe in atheism when it would fulfill a purpose. But right now, I believe it to be completely pointless.

So you would change your beliefs for your convenience? That's a strong core belief system there.

Originally Posted by Kael Seoras

So you would change your beliefs for your convenience? That's a strong core belief system there.

Chayba lives in a world where he will say anything just so he doesn't have to admit that he is wrong... Or she...or whatever.

Originally Posted by Maestro

But I'll still have the same amount of rocks in my pile, cracked into pieces or not. Just different fractions.

If you take a crumb and break it in two, how many crumbs do you now have?

I believe i understand your theory a little better now:

That is that objects/concepts/whatevers that rely on other whatevers to form their identity can be said to be the same thing, that is the combination of all the whatevers. To go further with this theory then, as everything depends on the basic building blocks of the universe everything is essentially the same?

You demonstrate a superior understanding than most others on the forum.

So what it seems you are saying is because all numbers are part of a number system they're all "the number system" and equal to each other?

Very very close. But not entirely. In the context that 2+2=5. The logic involved is in understanding the nature of numbers themself and why 2+2 can equal 5.

The very point of a number system is to aid human understanding, to seperate values, so your philosophy actually does more damage than good in this example.

I didn't create a thread that asked to justify 2+2=5. I just responded to how it works. It doesn't do any damage if you understand the purpose of mathematics. My philosophy is using mathematics to allow room for the equation of 2+2=5. People have just lost touch with the purpose of maths and come to think that mathematics means you can't do something. Well the entire point of mathematics is using it as a means to making things possible. Not the other way around.

Maybe if I try it in more of a mathematical equation. Maybe that will help since people are more mathematically inclined here.

When X=infinite numbers. X=all numbers existent.
Therefore X=5, X=4. 2+2=4. Therefore 2+2=X. Since X=5. 2+2=5

For basic human survival we need to be able to see things as seperate from each other, and to name them. They may well be combinations of other things for sure, but we still need to be able to view them as individual.. otherwise neat things like language can't exist. In order for you to expect us to be able to read and understand your words you expect us to view things as individual.

I am not denying that. I'm just showing the way in which combinations can be used to achieve a certain result.

Although your example at first glance may seem to work as a rebuttal to UM's origional post its sadly overshadowed by the fact that its completely unusable in day to day life. If you did actually live, act and think in the fashion you put forward in your philosophical standpoint you couldnt function as a human being. You would no longer be able to think, speak or understand if you couldnt tell the difference between objects/concepts etc and their individual parts.

I think you know that I use this in my daily life constantly to communicate with you right now and I'm still able to respond to people and live. It's more efficient than if you didn't understand how it's done. If you understand that mathematical equation you are not going to be deceived so easily rather than the other way around.

As expecting people to think in that way to form their belief systems is so impractical, and as you probably dont even do this yourself for your day to day belief systems.

The problem here is your discernment about practical use of that equation is not the same as my discernment of how I think it should be used. You might think that I would then live completely passive unable to function. But the opposite is true I use the equations (we just need to call it that for now) only towards the goal of what needs to be done. If you need to measure a distance for example. You don't say ok all distances are the same. Even though this is a mathematical equation and true. You don't use that equation to measure things. Because that's not what it's for. That's why you need more than logic about what is true to function otherwise you would have no discernment about what complex equations is best to use for your situation. In that case I would use the numbers to measure the distance as it's the most effective for that purpose. If I wanted to prove that distance is illusionary I just use the golden ratio. The same way I just used X to prove that numbers were illusionary. The purpose of it is so you can get a better grasp on reality and use it to your advantage by having a stronger foundation about what is possible. Using it to have a richer existence in life.

Maybe if I try it in more of a mathematical equation. Maybe that will help since people are more mathematically inclined here.

When X=infinite numbers. X=all numbers existent.
Therefore X=5, X=4. 2+2=4. Therefore 2+2=X. Since X=5. 2+2=5

That's an 'equation', is it? -_-

X is a value in equations, a single value at one time, not multiple values. The domain of X can have infinitely many values including all real numbers and imaginary numbers. 'All numbers existent' is not a value, it is a domain, so you can't make a statement like 'All numbers existent is equilvalent to 5', that's wrong. Clearly.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I think you know that I use this in my daily life constantly to communicate with you right now and I'm still able to respond to people and live.

But this isnt quite true, you discuss your philosophy as true, but you do so in a frame of falseness. The reason for this is because its impossible to actually 'use' your philosophy while discussing it, its self defeating. Let me attempt to explain:
Lets take one of your statements from a different thread:

Originally Posted by MP

That's ok because I can keep beating you anyway.

From your own philosophy, both winning and losing rely on one another, they have the power to wipe each other out, because of this you cant actually win under your philosophy, because winning is the same as losing.

To run a little further with this then, we could question what philosophy actually is, what thought and imagination are, what the brain and neurons are, and we can come to the conclusion that your philosophy doesnt actually exist as an independant philosophy. In order for your philosophy to be valid, it cant actually exist as a philosophy at all (while using your philosophy), we must approach your philosophy without using it in order to validate it, because the most affective way to disprove it is to assume that its true.

Its a paradox, the most damaging thing to your philosophy is... the philosophy, which could be used again and again to annihilate itself.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

The problem here is your discernment about practical use of that equation is not the same as my discernment of how I think it should be used.

I understand this, but it doesn't change the fact that its impractical to use on a daily basis for all beliefs. Sure you may flex it to prove a point, but I think the idea of this thread is to determine whether normal everyday people can choose to believe something.
Another thing id like to point out is that you're not actually choosing to believe a different belief system, you already have a belief system that can incorporate the maths put forward here and you're simply using this.

I apologise that this response is rushed but im short on time, if you need anything clarifying just ask.

X is a value in equations, a single value at one time, not multiple values.

Infinite is a value expressed. That's what X was.

The domain of X can have infinitely many values including all real numbers and imaginary numbers. 'All numbers existent' is not a value, it is a domain, so you can't make a statement like 'All numbers existent is equilvalent to 5', that's wrong. Clearly.

X is the infinite value. An infinite value does not have a number and does not exist. So you can say whatever number and that can be as X. Since X doesn't even exist or have a limit you can make it anything and it will still be correct as X.

It looks like whatever education you had did not help you understand that.

Unfortunately, made-up maths aren't commonly taught.

That is part of mathematics. Look the value of infinite up.

Take your own advice, because you're the one who has it wrong.

But this isnt quite true, you discuss your philosophy as true, but you do so in a frame of falseness. The reason for this is because its impossible to actually 'use' your philosophy while discussing it, its self defeating.

Well I use my philosophy all the time. But not in a frame of falseness. I don't know why you think it's false or I would change it. When I say things like. 'I'll just keep defeating you'. It's just a little competition joke remark nothing to be taken entirely to heart. If someone can teach me something that is above me I'm grateful.

From your own philosophy, both winning and losing rely on one another, they have the power to wipe each other out, because of this you cant actually win under your philosophy, because winning is the same as losing.

I'm just trying to learn so winning is not my concern. But when you have more understanding you naturally do win. Wether the person who loses is aware of it or not. Some people don't want to lose and that is more important to them then learning. So they give up and just say they have won. There is a difference between pretending you have won and then actually having more knowledge and it depends on the results you are capable of preforming. That will be the final say.

To run a little further with this then, we could question what philosophy actually is, what thought and imagination are, what the brain and neurons are, and we can come to the conclusion that your philosophy doesnt actually exist as an independant philosophy. In order for your philosophy to be valid, it cant actually exist as a philosophy at all (while using your philosophy), we must approach your philosophy without using it in order to validate it, because the most affective way to disprove it is to assume that its true.

I have no idea what you are talking about. My philosophy can exist and does not disprove itself otherwise it would not be one.

Its a paradox, the most damaging thing to your philosophy is... the philosophy, which could be used again and again to annihilate itself.

It's actually the most vital thing. The most sophisticated because it can never die no matter how hard you try it will always prevail. This has gone way off track to my explanation for 2+2=5

I understand this, but it doesn't change the fact that its impractical to use on a daily basis for all beliefs. Sure you may flex it to prove a point, but I think the idea of this thread is to determine whether normal everyday people can choose to believe something.

Before you can choose a belief you have to figure out why it's true first. If you can't figure out how it's true you can't believe it.

Take your own advice, because you're the one who has it wrong.

So I'm just suppose to bow down to you and accept because you wanted to say I'm wrong?

\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \, f(i) = x means that the sum of the infinite series converges to some real value x.

In other words. X can go into 5. X can also go into 4.
Hence 2+2=4 If 4 is X
since X can be 5. 2+2=5

Apparently it's called an infinite series formula. I'm not an expert in mathematics but using my brain I already knew such a thing had to exist anyway.

X is the infinite value. An infinite value does not have a number and does not exist. So you can say whatever number and that can be as X. Since X doesn't even exist or have a limit you can make it anything and it will still be correct as X.

It looks like whatever education you had did not help you understand that.

Either you're trolling or you have no grasp of relatively simple maths.

The infinite value is called 'infinity'. It doesn't really exist and cannot be used in virtually all mathematics because it gives incorrect results. It is tantamount (and in fact equivalent) to dividing by zero.

Infinity cannot take any value as you claim because infinity is very precisely defined and has only 'one' - per se - value. If x is an element of the real numbers such as 5 then x is not equivalent to infinity.

\sum_{i=0}^{\infty} \, f(i) = x means that the sum of the infinite series converges to some real value x.

In other words. X can go into 5. X can also go into 4.
Hence 2+2=4 If 4 is X
since X can be 5. 2+2=5

No, those two things have nothing to do with each other. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Do you have any mathematics qualifications? What do these loose terms mean, like 'X can go into 4'? That's not a mathematical statement. x can go into 4 4/x times. x can go into 5 5/x times. The sum of a converging series is equal to a finite real number, not the 'infinite value'. For example 2 is the sum of the infinite addition of 1 followed by half of the previous term. That does not mean that 2 is equal to infinity in any shape or form.