I have written the below article to argue for the subjectivity of reality by taking the simple mathematic equation 1+1 = 2 and proving it is not a fact in the sense we used to consider it (being true independent of self) but a subjective opinion.
A reality without objectively true facts is subjective. All counter-arguments and questions welcome.
Your problem begins with the expression âsubjectiveâ and then following it with the human symbolic representation of 1 + 1 = 2, which does not exist in reality at all.
The symbolic equation 1 + 1 = 2 does not represent objective reality. It is a subjective human symbolic code representing abstract logical equal âvaluesâ that are true facts in reality.
Yes, you just debunked your own argument. Human subjective symbolisms are just that, symbolic representations of objective natural values.
Your example of two oranges, only addresses the total number of objects, not the mathematical configuration of each orange.
No mathematician would claim that a healthy orange is equal to a diseased orange in âvalueâ
Thanks for the succinct response W4! I knew there was something off about this before I was halfway through the post, but couldnât quite put my finger on it like that. Once the âarticleâ got to the two different ones being in different places on the screen, my head just hit the table and knocked a couple times.
Am I the only one who remembers the math teachers saying ârepresentsâ? Itâs not like they went it over every day, but anytime something was introduced, points, lines, graphs, imaginary numbers, they were always said to ârepresentâ something. No math teacher ever talked about Platoâs perfect forms existing somewhere.
It not normal to notices the differences as you have stated when counting 2 oranges. If I saw thing that way everything is different nothing is the same. Orange is a general description not an exact , only one could be called the orange in the entire world using your logic. But I see where your going. Language is not a fair comparison to mathematics where one is precise and the other are general terms that can cover a range of objects. .
People do it every day though, so yes, it is normal. Everything is different, yet is is the same. Chimps, humans, and gorillas look similar, yet we can see differences. Two humans look alike, but we can tell the difference between them and racist people get bent about some differences. So yes, it is normal to notice differences, even in two oranges or even twins.
I removed my reply for this one
human symbolic representation of 1 + 1 = 2, which does not exist in reality at all.
representing abstract logical equal âvaluesâ that are true facts in reality.
Arenât you contradicting yourself here?
Answer me this, are facts real? Do they exist in reality?
Human subjective symbolisms are just that, symbolic representations of objective natural values.
Again, is the equality between two entities a subjective human concept or an objective natural quality? Which one is it?
Your example of two oranges, only addresses the total number of objects
Okay, so are they equal as objects? But arenât they two different objects as well? You wonât count the same object twice would you?
Language is not mathematics one word can describe both objects so a person knows what they are you want it to describe only one object if thatâs the case yes they are different but thatâs not how language works its not meant to be as precise as mathematics - you want words to be as precise as mathematics and its just notâŚ
my head just hit the table and knocked a couple times
Iâm sorry. Hope you didnât hurt yourself. As stupid as it sounds, itâs there for a purpose.
Am I the only one who remembers the math teachers saying ârepresentsâ?
Ahh yes, representation. It doesnât matter where we write our 1âs right? Theyâre there to represent a certain concept. The concept of 1. The minor differences between the oranges donât matter, they both represent the concept of an orange.
So in essence, the two 1âs in 1+1 can be considered absolutely similarly to each other, right? So why canât I replace the second 1 with the first 1? Although you say the differences donât matter, they do matter donât they? We need two different 1âs to right 1+1. We need two different oranges to perform 1+1 = 2. We need two objects that are simultaneously different and equal. Such objects do not exist in ârealityâ. They exist in our perception, because we all have our limit of how different is too different to be considered equal in different contexts.
Please remember that Iâm not arguing mathematics is wrong, just that it depends on subjective emotional perception of the individual⌠thatâs itâs not fact.
Everything is different, yet is is the same.
This is my argument. No equality is objective because they require two DIFFERENT objects that are then considered (by us) to be SIMILAR.
you want words to be as precise as mathematics and its just not
Okay. Letâs leave the language aside, is the mathematical concept represented by the language precise? Can you perceive in your mind two similar objects and add them together? Make sure you pick two different objects before you start to convince yourself they are similar.
[quote=âweareinthematrix, post:7, topic:8480â] W4U said:
human symbolic representation of 1 + 1 = 2, which does not exist in reality at all.
representing abstract logical equal âvaluesâ that are true facts in reality.
Arenât you contradicting yourself here?
Answer me this, are facts real? Do they exist in reality?
The symbolic equation â1 + 1 = 2â does not exist in reality. There are no numbers floating in the sky. However, the abstract âvaluesâ that the human symbols represent do exist as inherent qualities (potentials) of physical objects.
Perhaps a better abstract representation of abstract values is our algebraic lexicon, but of course, there are no letters floating in the sky either.
Our algebra basically represents the logical âfunctionâ that processes an objective âinput valueâ and produces an objective "output value, which can be represented with human symbolic mathematics,.
Schematic depiction of a function described metaphorically as a âmachineâ or âblack boxâ that for each input yields a corresponding output
These are called; âArithmetic _Operationsâ and fundamentally is what makes the Universe an âundefined mathematical objectâ.
An example is contained in the universal arithmetic operation of âadditionâ.
ADDITION
Addition, denoted by the symbol â+â, is the most basic operation of arithmetic. In its simple form, addition combines two numbers, the addends or terms, into a single number, the sum of the numbers (such as 2 + 2 = 4 or 3 + 5 = 8).
Adding finitely many numbers can be viewed as repeated simple addition; this procedure is known as summation, a term also used to denote the definition for âadding infinitely many numbersâ in an infinite series. Repeated addition of the number 1 is the most basic form of counting; the result of adding 1 is usually called the successor of the original number.
One of the naturally occurring âexponential additionsâ is the Fibonacci Sequence named after the scientist " who discovered this natural additive sequence that occurs everywhere in the universe and on earth.
These processes are a result of natural selection of âgreatest simplicity yielding greatest efficiencyâ (Occam).
Addition is commutative and associative, so the order in which finitely many terms are added does not matter.
The number 0 has the property that, when added to any number, it yields that same number; so, it is the identity element of addition, or the additive identity.[1]
For every number x, there is a number denoted âx, called the opposite of x, such that x + (âx) = 0 and (âx) + x = 0. So, the opposite of x is the inverse of x with respect to addition, or the additive inverse of x.[1] For example, the opposite of 7 is â7, since 7 + (â7) = 0.
Addition can also be interpreted geometrically, as in the following example. If we have two sticks of lengths 2 and 5, then, if the sticks are aligned one after the other, the length of the combined stick becomes 7, since 2 + 5 = 7.
You need to drop all references to human mathematics in order to be able to address the abstract quality of universal mathematical processes, which deal with inherent âvaluesâ (potentials) being processed by abstract mathematical algebraic âfunctionsâ
Everything that can be observed by humans or any instrument is by definition ârelativeâ to the POV of the observer and can only produce an approximation of the true logical way the universe operates.
Perhaps comparing universal operations as an computational operation is more illustrative of universal mathematics. 1 = TRUE 0 = FALSE.
Iâm not a mathematician so I will step aside but I do find it interesting.
A wonderful informative NOVA presentation on the âGreat Math Mysteryâ
drop all references to human mathematics
You mean mathematics? Isnât that what all mathematics is?
the abstract quality of universal mathematical processes
It is the non-existence of this that Iâm arguing. Essentially that mathematics is invented not discovered. It doesnât exist independent of (subjective) human perception/ judgment. Simultaneously different and similar things do not exist external to perception.
A wonderful informative NOVA presentation on the âGreat Math Mysteryâ
I donât see how this is relevant here, but if youâre arguing for the usefulness of mathematics, please know that Iâm not arguing against it. Yes itâs useful for our existence to treat 1+1 as equal to 2, and 1 as equal to 1. But that does not grant it objective truthfulness. Usefulness by definition is subjective to the being.
Why would that matter?
Because thatâs what the article is about? And the article is about that because 1+1 = 2 has always been quoted as an objective fact as opposed to a subjective opinion?
If this is no interest to you then, by all means, please donât feel the need to engage in it.
[quote=âweareinthematrix, post:16, topic:8480â]
I donât see how this is relevant here, but if youâre arguing for the usefulness of mathematics, please know that Iâm not arguing against it.
You are missing the point. Ask yourself if the universe functions different without human observation of itâs regularities and patterns. Did humans create or interpret the Universal Laws of Physics"
Yes itâs useful for our existence to treat 1+1 as equal to 2, and 1 as equal to 1. But that does not grant it objective truthfulness. Usefulness by definition is subjective to the being.
Yes, and the universe is an existing object (an extant being). It doesnât go away when we stop believing it. And it is not a static object. It is dynamical and answers to universal Laws of Dynamics.
Ok, letâs try a different tack.
Do you agree that there are regularities in universal processes, regardless of the presence of humans?
Do daisies know mathematics? Why is it that they and many other biological objects follow the Fibonacci sequence in their growth patterns?
The answer to this riddle is that natural dynamics will find the most efficient patterns that are possible. That happens to be the Laws which we have been able to symbolize and codify as Mathematical quantifications, for human convenience.
Is it purely accidental that daisies petal growth follows the Fibonacci Sequence?
No, it is a result of billions of years of natural selection of the most âefficientâ petal and seed growth patterns. The Universe creates the mathematics which we discover when we observe and measure the natural âregularitiesâ that govern the universal geometries.
As I said forget human mathematical symbols and consider the objective universal âguiding equationsâ that govern all universal physical behaviors.
Is a straight line the shortest distance between two points? That is a mathematical question and the answer is yes. It is part of the mathematics that govern universal Laws of expression. Humans have nothing to do with any of that. We are just late-coming observers of mathematical regularities that pervade all of the universe.
Watch the YouTube. It will open your eyes to the Objective world that exists even without humans. Itâs NOVA quality and will present you with irrefutable proof of the mathematical essence of the Universe.
Watch the YouTube. It will open your eyes to the Objective world that exists even without humans.
Oh yeah YouTube, the most natural entity that exists without any human intervention. I remember when this was discovered back in 2004 just floating in the abyss. And who will watch it? Me with my subjective perception, or an objective being?
Let me put it this way. Dandelions, YouTube, cars, trees and all of reality exists in our perception, not outside of it. Can you name one thing that has not yet been perceived by any conscious being ever? (hint: When you name it, you being a conscious being perceive it, thereby violating the condition.)
The distinction you make between our perception and the ârealâ world is arbitrary. You assume the existence of a reality independent of your subjective perception, yet you cannot prove it (because you are limited to and bound by your subjective POV â you can never step outside of it to observe reality).