*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #20 on: June 17, 2017, 10:45:54 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.

My post was about the value of two plus two.

The only reason we think we know the correct answer is because we're using the same old proofs. If we would use some different proofs for once we would realize that two plus two does not equal what we've been duped into believing it does.

The proof is only valid under a certain interpretation. A society of people who operate under a different measurement scale may find that 2 + 2 comes out to another value which is not 4.

See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2017, 11:00:18 PM »
This is completely incorrect.  I have seen plenty of substantial and consistent criticism of the literature.  There are multiple threads that demonstrate what complete and utter kife EnaG is, for example.

The criticism is weak and easily rebutted. But still, criticism is not bringing anything original to the table to demonstrate the shape of the earth. Modern astronomers have not really done anything original on this topic. This is why we have to look at the work of ancient astronomers who did not have authorities to appeal to when questioning the nature of the world.

I haven't seen any original proofs that 2+2=4 lately. Everyone just uses the same proofs that were used millennia ago. Weak.

That's right. Astronomers are just using the same proofs that were used millennia ago. No one is coming up with anything new, which is why it is important to look at Ancient societies who built alternative world models and were willing to consider the fundamentals from the ground up.

My post was about the value of two plus two.

The only reason we think we know the correct answer is because we're using the same old proofs. If we would use some different proofs for once we would realize that two plus two does not equal what we've been duped into believing it does.

The proof is only valid under a certain interpretation. A society of people who operate under a different measurement scale may find that 2 + 2 comes out to another value which is not 4.

See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always.

Sure. But that entirely evades the point as I'm sure you know.

According to the "same old proofs" when you have two objects and you add two more you will have four objects. We've all been duped into believing this since grade school. If we would start using some different proofs we would realize that two objects plus two more objects does not equal four objects.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #22 on: June 18, 2017, 03:16:49 PM »
I just provided a source showing that two plus two does not always equal four. It took considering of the fundamentals to do it. The proof is not valid in all situations. In fact, according to the link, in most models it is not valid.

Rather than invoking authority and relying solely on sooty old proofs, the fundamentals must be constantly challenged and understood. Challenges to status quo knowledge help to demonstrate its limits and flaws. This is why it is valuable to read about people who had to consider the fundamentals from the ground up. They may provide insight someone indoctrinated with an alternative educational background could not provide, and may spark a deeper understanding of the limits of a supposed truth.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2017, 04:29:22 PM »
Your source showed how two plus two didn't always equal four depending on how the numbers were used. That is why, in the following post I specified.

So are you acknowledging that the earth can be a globe depending on what proofs use?
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10027
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: 2+2
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2017, 08:33:44 PM »
So are you acknowledging that the earth can be a globe depending on what proofs use?
No. For that analogy to work, you'd have to redefine a globe to mean something else than what you currently mean.

That said, if you did accept that condition, then sure, the Earth could be a "globe".
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2017, 03:25:10 AM »
So are you acknowledging that the earth can be a globe depending on what proofs use?
No. For that analogy to work, you'd have to redefine a globe to mean something else than what you currently mean.

That said, if you did accept that condition, then sure, the Earth could be a "globe".

But he's saying that 2+2 can equal four (globe earth) but that it can also equal something else (flat earth) depending on how you use the numbers. To rule out the globe earth you must also rule out 4 as a possible correct answer to 2+2.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2017, 06:12:35 AM »
I saw a similar conversation regarding math on the other site so I pasted a post from this tread over there. For interest sake, I thought I would post Alien's response ( I don't know if I'm breaking any rules but if so I apologize in advance):

1+1=2


now go ahead and declare it to be refutable.

Enter Tom Bishop:
The proof is only valid under a certain interpretation. A society of people who operate under a different measurement scale may find that 2 + 2 comes out to another value which is not 4.

See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always.

tim bishop is also wrong. 2+2 will always equal 4 and never vary. A different measuring scale eg a different base will still come up with 4 and only the symbol for 4 will vary. It remains an axiomatic truth that does not vary. Even if a society does not use integers (not that any actually do) the axiom is still 2.0+2.0=4.0

One rather obvious feature of FEers is to try and convince people that objective truth ie axioms, do not exist while they remain the foundations of pretty much everything.  The existence of a force that holds us to the ground is axiomatic - unless you are a FEer who create a variety of alternate mechanisms trying to avoid any possible existence of a force.

I think some People gran FEers far too much leniency in their baseless abrogation of basic scientific and social principles.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 06:15:00 AM by Boots »
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2017, 04:35:04 PM »
"AlienHunter" clearly did not understand the link. A proof like 10 + 10 = 20 is not valid in all situations. It is highly dependant on underlying assumptions of the model involved. It is not a universal proof that 20 is twice as much as 10.

http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html

Quote
The change in heat between 0oC and 10oC is the same as between 10oC and 20oC. But watch out! 20oC is not twice as hot as 10oC! Why? Interval scales have arbitrary zeros (just because we decided to call it zero).

Re: 2+2
« Reply #28 on: September 23, 2017, 07:02:07 PM »
I am Muslim and honestly, all verses of the Quran about Earth proves that Earth is flat. The Quran is in total sync with the Bible on this.

Plus extra information about Creation from my own understanding of the verses of the Quran

1. Earth was created before the creation of the 7 heavens (skies)
2. Probably, Day and Night was created before Sun and Moon
3. Earth has corners (Atraf)
4. Earth is very big, its usually gets compared with the 7 skies (heavens)
5. God Created Earth and designed all things on it in 4 days while Heavens in 2 days

The above is from my understanding of many verses of the Quran, other Muslims might have different opinion though

JohnAdams1145

Re: 2+2
« Reply #29 on: January 06, 2018, 03:18:46 PM »
I just provided a source showing that two plus two does not always equal four. It took considering of the fundamentals to do it. The proof is not valid in all situations. In fact, according to the link, in most models it is not valid.

Rather than invoking authority and relying solely on sooty old proofs, the fundamentals must be constantly challenged and understood. Challenges to status quo knowledge help to demonstrate its limits and flaws. This is why it is valuable to read about people who had to consider the fundamentals from the ground up. They may provide insight someone indoctrinated with an alternative educational background could not provide, and may spark a deeper understanding of the limits of a supposed truth.

This is wrong from a mathematical perspective. If I define for myself certain axioms about the numbering system (let's stick to the whole numbers 0,1,2,3,...). 2+2 is always equal to 4. Let's abridge those: 1+number before = that number, standard field axioms, etc. It follows as a logical consequence from the axioms. There is no wiggle room on this. It may be true that once you attach units or other meaning to them (such as 2 degrees C), then 2 degrees C + 2 degrees C is not equal to 4 degrees C, but that doesn't imply that 2+2 is not 4. It is always 4. Mathematics does not contradict itself and there is no argument from authority in modern mathematics. You need to prove it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6550
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2018, 12:18:12 AM »
I just provided a source showing that two plus two does not always equal four. It took considering of the fundamentals to do it. The proof is not valid in all situations. In fact, according to the link, in most models it is not valid.

Rather than invoking authority and relying solely on sooty old proofs, the fundamentals must be constantly challenged and understood. Challenges to status quo knowledge help to demonstrate its limits and flaws. This is why it is valuable to read about people who had to consider the fundamentals from the ground up. They may provide insight someone indoctrinated with an alternative educational background could not provide, and may spark a deeper understanding of the limits of a supposed truth.

This is wrong from a mathematical perspective. If I define for myself certain axioms about the numbering system (let's stick to the whole numbers 0,1,2,3,...). 2+2 is always equal to 4. Let's abridge those: 1+number before = that number, standard field axioms, etc. It follows as a logical consequence from the axioms. There is no wiggle room on this. It may be true that once you attach units or other meaning to them (such as 2 degrees C), then 2 degrees C + 2 degrees C is not equal to 4 degrees C, but that doesn't imply that 2+2 is not 4. It is always 4. Mathematics does not contradict itself and there is no argument from authority in modern mathematics. You need to prove it.

Its only valid according to certain axioms. Under different axioms, the result is different. Therefore 2+2 = 4 is not a universal concept.

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: 2+2
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2018, 03:24:45 AM »
We had a discussion about this 2+2 != 4 idea in another thread:

What you have is MATH. What I have is empirical observation. Your math only works under the model it is intended for. If the assumptions of the underlying model changes, or is wrong, the math does not work.

2 + 2 = 4 relies on the underlying model, and is not a universal truth. Under some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4. See Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always.

All math relies on the underlying model for it to have truth. You need to prove that your underlying model for perspective lines is valid.

the writer is a psychology PhD, explaining that 40 on a given test scale for, say, hydrophobia, is not necessarily twice as hydrophobic as a 20 is. ...

Here is an excellent paper on the universality of 2 + 2 = 4.
Quote
I admit, I cannot conceive of a "situation" that would make 2 + 2 = 4 false.  (There are redefinitions, but those are not "situations", and then you're no longer talking about 2, 4, =, or +.)  But that doesn't make my belief unconditional.  I find it quite easy to imagine a situation which would convince me that 2 + 2 = 3.

Suppose I got up one morning, and took out two earplugs, and set them down next to two other earplugs on my nighttable, and noticed that there were now three earplugs, without any earplugs having appeared or disappeared—in contrast to my stored memory that 2 + 2 was supposed to equal 4.  Moreover, when I visualized the process in my own mind, it seemed that making XX and XX come out to XXXX required an extra X to appear from nowhere, and was, moreover, inconsistent with other arithmetic I visualized, since subtracting XX from XXX left XX, but subtracting XX from XXXX left XXX.  This would conflict with my stored memory that 3 - 2 = 1, but memory would be absurd in the face of physical and mental confirmation that XXX - XX = XX.
...
What would convince me that 2 + 2 = 3, in other words, is exactly the same kind of evidence that currently convinces me that 2 + 2 = 4:  The evidential crossfire of physical observation, mental visualization, and social agreement.
...

It is observed from counting that 2 + 2 = 4. Whenever counting works, 2 + 2 = 4 is true; i.e., for anything you can count, 2 of the thing and 2 more of the thing is the same as 4 of the thing. If you can't count it, then the very terms of 2 + 2 = 4 don't make sense, but it doesn't somehow mean 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.

Expanding on my previous example, you can't count hydrophobia. There is no quantifiable measure in nature of 'how much hydrophobia.' So when psychiatrists form a test to figure out how hydrophobic someone is, they contrive a scale based on some indicators that they can observe and measure, and it results in arbitrarily scaled numbers. Even though this results in a number, it is still not countable, so saying 20 hydrophobic + 20 hydrophobic = 40 hydrophobic doesn't make any sense; '20 hydrophobic' is literally not a thing that can exist. This is the whole point of the paper you keep linking to, and you are badly misrepresenting it by insisting that it supports an idea that 2 + 2 = 4 is not universally true.

ANYWAY the whole 2+2 thing is like, all the way off topic! I think there was something about new vs old proofs, right? Astronomers only use the same old proofs, we were told.

This is incorrect. I think this particular one is only a few years old: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iss-hdev-payload

JohnAdams1145

Re: 2+2
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2018, 07:37:48 AM »
I just provided a source showing that two plus two does not always equal four. It took considering of the fundamentals to do it. The proof is not valid in all situations. In fact, according to the link, in most models it is not valid.

Rather than invoking authority and relying solely on sooty old proofs, the fundamentals must be constantly challenged and understood. Challenges to status quo knowledge help to demonstrate its limits and flaws. This is why it is valuable to read about people who had to consider the fundamentals from the ground up. They may provide insight someone indoctrinated with an alternative educational background could not provide, and may spark a deeper understanding of the limits of a supposed truth.

This is wrong from a mathematical perspective. If I define for myself certain axioms about the numbering system (let's stick to the whole numbers 0,1,2,3,...). 2+2 is always equal to 4. Let's abridge those: 1+number before = that number, standard field axioms, etc. It follows as a logical consequence from the axioms. There is no wiggle room on this. It may be true that once you attach units or other meaning to them (such as 2 degrees C), then 2 degrees C + 2 degrees C is not equal to 4 degrees C, but that doesn't imply that 2+2 is not 4. It is always 4. Mathematics does not contradict itself and there is no argument from authority in modern mathematics. You need to prove it.

Its only valid according to certain axioms. Under different axioms, the result is different. Therefore 2+2 = 4 is not a universal concept.

Yeah, axioms that are either (1) not self-consistent or (2) practically not used at all. Of course you can take 2+2 does not equal 4 as an axiom, but then 2 and 4 don't mean the same thing that EVERYONE TAKES THEM TO BE -- NUMBERS (maybe they're characters in some alphabet). Given the current definitions of 2 and 4 (which imply assuming the standard axioms, as that's how we define our "numbers"), they are always equal to 4. In summary, if 2 and 4 are what pretty much everyone takes them to mean, then 2+2=4.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2018, 07:50:00 AM »
If two meant carrot and four meant racecar then two plus two would not equal four. (It might possibly equal rabbits tho, in some situations.)

Therefore 2+2 = 4 is not a universal concept.
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline xenotolerance

  • *
  • Posts: 307
  • byeeeeeee
    • View Profile
    • flat Earth visualization
Re: 2+2
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2018, 03:41:18 PM »
If two meant carrot and four meant racecar then two plus two would not equal four. (It might possibly equal rabbits tho, in some situations.)

Therefore 2+2 = 4 is not a universal concept.

2 can't mean carrot. It means 2. If it meant anything else, it wouldn't be 2. Because it's a number, not a symbol or a word. Your argument is nonsensical. 2+2 = 4 is universal.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2018, 03:47:22 PM »
If two meant carrot and four meant racecar then two plus two would not equal four. (It might possibly equal rabbits tho, in some situations.)

Therefore 2+2 = 4 is not a universal concept.

2 can't mean carrot. It means 2. If it meant anything else, it wouldn't be 2. Because it's a number, not a symbol or a word. Your argument is nonsensical. 2+2 = 4 is universal.

Ok. You got me! lol
Where the senses fail us, reason must step in. - Galileo Galilei

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10027
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: 2+2
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2018, 03:56:39 PM »
Do your attempts at figuring out the (well-documented) ideas of syntax and semantics in propositional logic have anything to do with references to the Flat Earth in the Qur'an?

Can we please have a split?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8802
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2018, 05:32:48 PM »
The off-topic debate from FEIR has been split and moved here for now.

*

Offline Havonii

  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Rhythm of the Universe
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2018, 07:36:52 PM »
The ancients actually spent lifetimes studying and considering the earth's shape from a fresh start, unlike Astronomers today who merely point to Aristotile's Three Proofs when arguing that the earth is round.
[/quote]

Technology and basic mechanics develop and we are able to use them to make scientific discoveries... This progression in human civilization was used by these astronomers to discover the universe.
Aristotle and many other 'ancients' spent lifetimes and countless months of research studying how exactly the earth is spherical. Does the FES completely disregard their work as being futile?
        1        +        1          =2                    1         +         1       =  2
   'ancients' + 'a fresh start'= FE         Astronomers + Technology = RE
                           
                     2                           +                          2                       = ?    have we not discovered 4?    are we so biased as to shun opportunities for human growth?

       


Offline Ratboy

  • *
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: 2+2
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2018, 08:26:16 PM »
So can we all agree that the earth is sitting on top of a stack of turtles, which someone claimed some primitive people believed?  Those ancients with their lack of tools and computers and stuff are bound to be more correct than people today with their "rockets" and "cameras" and stuff.
Say you came upon two bridges that crossed a river and met the two designers.  The one said that 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=yellow, which bridge would you choose to drive over?  Bridges designed by people that believe 2+2=4 are preferred by me over bridges where the people designing them don't believe all that math and crap.