|
SpanishMatMaster -> RE: 22 pages of dick thumping (12/17/2011 9:56:02 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I may have contrived a perspective from which SMM's claims make some sense. It's obscure, I'm far from certain it works and I haven't had the patience to plough through the previous 22 pages to see if it has already been suggested - so please don't jump up and down on me if I'm incorrect.
Firstly we use a decimal system of numbers to wit 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 0. The numbers are signs we manipulate to do maths ... so in this system, 2 + 2 = 4 always.
Secondly, the relationship the number (signifier) and its meaning (signified) is arbitrary. The relationship between the sound of the word 'cat' or the appearance/order/shape of the letters that comprise 'cat' and the meanings they signify - the everyday object/animal 'cat' - is arbitrary. It works because when we use language we enter into a system of shared meanings, we agree in advance that signifiers refer to specific things (meanings or signifieds). Without this agreement to share meaning, we can't communicate with language. We could, for example, all agree that the sign 'cif' refers to the animal we know as cat and as long as we all agree, it would work just as well. Maths can be seen as a symbolic language.
Thirdly some cultures use non-decimal systems of numbers and counting. I remember reading somewhere that some Aboriginal societies here used a numerical system comprising of only '1', '2' and 'many' ..... Anyways it is possible to imagine number systems different to our decimal system ...... The old Roman system for one (i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix and x) - Different symbols, same meanings.
It is possible to imagine a decimal system different to the one we currently use .... say, 7,5,9,2,0,4,6,1,8 and 3. All I have done is exchanged the symbols... changed their place in sequence but the meaning attached to the place in the system remains the same. So in the new system 7 functions exactly as 1 does in the old system, 5 replaces 2, 9 replaces 3 and so on.
In the new system 7 + 7 = 5 (old system `1 + 1 = 2) 5 + 5 = 2 (old 2 + 2 = 4) and so on.
A mathematician will probably have to confirm this but I see no reason why this can't work. I know it all sounds as clear as mud but this could be what SMM is trying to get at - that numbers are arbitrary symbols, not objective facts. ...... If it isn't apologies to one and all for wasting your time.
No, tweakabelle, this is not my point.
Ok, I will roll a scenario for you.
Imagine that we live in a Matrix-like universe. Imagine that the equivalent of the evil extraterrestrials in this scenario, are so intelligent and advanced, that they can actually control every one of our MINDS. They do not only control our perceptions, they can go into our minds and change what we think and how we think it.
If those beings decide that you see a yellow sun, the sun could actually be green (don't tell me about physics, remember that the whole world is simulated so the physical laws do not really have to be obeyed) . But if they can control our minds, they can decided that, no matter if the sun is green (in the simulation) we see it yellow.
What if they decide to make you believe that I hate you? The reality would be irrelevant. I do not hate you. But if mind-controlling super-beings can control your brain, and they want you to think that, you will think that.
And what about 2+2=4 ? It is actually the same. You are convinced that (in the decimal system and attending the meaning of the concepts, not the words) 2+2=4. I am, too. Everybody here around is. However, it is this a conviction. Something we think. The above mentioned super-being could be forcing us to believe something, which is actually... wrong.
I am not paranoid! I do not think that this is true. And actually, there is a way to rationally prove that these beings do not exist. The tool to do it is Occam's Razor. And we all use it in our lives, it belongs to common sense.
My intention (one of my intentions) when I present my argument it precisely to show that we actually use Occam's Razor, and that this is the main reason why people deny scenarios like this and do affirm that 2+2=4 . To demonstrate this, I show that we cannot be absolutely certain (please realise these words, they are the core of my discrepance with other people here) about anything, because we cannot disprove paranoid scenarios like that one with absolute certainty. And that we still carry on with our lifes and say that 2+2=4 because we use Occam's Razor to discard such scenarios anyway.
After lots of insults, personal attacks, etc... I made the summary you can see in the posting #427 . And I do invite you do what I say there. Find the first and tell me. Or agree. If you feel like it, of course, if not then - have a nice day :) .
Best regards.
|
|
|
|
