Absolute Truth

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2003-01-16 12:08am

Why did you respond to this?

You are abusing the question. It's about the system of mathematics, not the state of on/off.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-16 12:29am

SeebianWurm wrote:Why did you respond to this?

You are abusing the question. It's about the system of mathematics, not the state of on/off.

I got that off of here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abs_true3.htm

i was wrong. it was 1+1=10, not 1+1=11.

i wasn't trying to bring the state of on/off into this. this topic is about absolute truth, and people were arguing over wether 1+1=2 was an absolute truth. obviously, in the binary system, it isn't.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-01-16 12:33am

1+1 does = 2 because we define 2 as the number that results from 1+1.

the belief that 1+1 does not always = 2 implies that there is some ultimate truth we do not know of. If im not mistaken, thats the exact opposite of her arguement.

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2003-01-16 12:38am

UltraViolence83 wrote:
SeebianWurm wrote:Why did you respond to this?

You are abusing the question. It's about the system of mathematics, not the state of on/off.
I got that off of here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abs_true3.htm

i was wrong. it was 1+1=10, not 1+1=11.

i wasn't trying to bring the state of on/off into this. this topic is about absolute truth, and people were arguing over wether 1+1=2 was an absolute truth. obviously, in the binary system, it isn't.

So what? We were not talking about binary here. We were talking about normal everyday mathematics. And even if 1+1=10 in binary, that doesn't change the fact that 1+1=2 in normal math too.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-16 12:52am

Fine.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-01-16 12:59am

Is there an absolute falsehood? Can the existence of something be proven by the existence of it's opposite?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-16 09:47am

UltraViolence83 wrote:
SeebianWurm wrote:Why did you respond to this?

You are abusing the question. It's about the system of mathematics, not the state of on/off.
I got that off of here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abs_true3.htm

i was wrong. it was 1+1=10, not 1+1=11.

Don't be a jack-ass. 10 is simply binary for 2, you stupid shit.

1+1=2 because that is how numbers and addition are defined. It is necessarily true. This is like saying that you can't prove the definition of the word "raise". It is a word, it exists only as a definition of something.

i wasn't trying to bring the state of on/off into this. this topic is about absolute truth, and people were arguing over wether 1+1=2 was an absolute truth. obviously, in the binary system, it isn't.

Wrong, dumb-fuck. Since the original question was posed in base10 (which is implicit for all uses of numbers unless stated otherwise), 1+1=2. The fact that the same equation looks different in binary does not change the fact that it IS the same equation.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-16 10:12am

UltraViolence83 wrote:
SeebianWurm wrote:Why did you respond to this?

You are abusing the question. It's about the system of mathematics, not the state of on/off.
I got that off of here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abs_true3.htm

i was wrong. it was 1+1=10, not 1+1=11.

i wasn't trying to bring the state of on/off into this. this topic is about absolute truth, and people were arguing over wether 1+1=2 was an absolute truth. obviously, in the binary system, it isn't.

convertion from binary to decimal system:

10 = 1*2^1 + 0*2^0 = 2 (surprise!).

That's the lamest argument about truth relativity I've heard in a long time. And that's a really piece of shit site, too. It has one of those "holier than thou" attitudes, putting Creation "scientists" and geologists in the same bag. Too bad the dumbfuck who wrote it has not heard of factual evidence and the scientific method as means of reaching valid conclusions.

He also reaches the stupendous conclusion that the number of existing Gods is probably between zero (defended by most atheists

) and infinity, defended by other groups.

Be wary of your information sources.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-01-16 10:18am

The people who thought this up are obviously following the same kind of 'Perception creates reality' idea that was used in 1984 (eg, when Winston is getting tortured & O'Brien (is it O'Brien?) says that he can fly because he can make Winston SEE that he is flying)

Similar to the 'How many lights do you see' line from Chain of Command...

1+1=2 because our perception is that 1+1=2 & thats what we expect it to be, if our perceptions are wrong or being manipulated then 1+1 can = anything we are told it can equal...

If anything this tells us that an absolute truth depends on whether we perceive it as absolute...

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-01-16 10:39am

DocHorror wrote: 1+1=2 because our perception is that 1+1=2 & thats what we expect it to be, if our perceptions are wrong or being manipulated then 1+1 can = anything we are told it can equal...

No, it can't. Changing bases is a simple game, and basing an argument on it reveals the author's imense ignorance of math.

1 + 1 (d) = 10 (d) is always a false statement. 2 (d) = 10 (b) is an simple equality, always true. It represents the same number. The only difficulty in thought arises from our lack of training to think (and do math) in other bases rather than the decimal. This is not an handicap, since it is really a trivial and futile thing to do. It's better to let the schools teach the really important stuff in math.

edit: I may also add that 10 in binary notation does not read "ten", but one-zero. Can anyone say red-herring?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-16 11:07am

What a retard. The actual value of the equation stays the same no matter which base number you use. If there's one of anything lying on the ground and you put another one one the ground next to it, you then have two of that something.

You have
'*'
You add another
'*'
You now have
'*' '*'

Whether its called 2 or 10 is irrevelent.

Pink Eye · Post by **Pink Eye** » 2003-01-16 01:29pm

Temjin wrote:
Exonerate wrote:If I remember correctly, in abstract mathematics, or some other math course, you have to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.
*Wonders how the hell you're supposed to do that*

Just for fun:

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1.1 is in N.
P2.If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3.There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4.If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5.If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication (x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1,
then define a + b = a' (using P1 and P2).
If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N (using P4),
and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-01-16 01:31pm

I find that, for the most part, people who insist on claiming that there is no absolute truth are the same people who are absolutely incapable of telling the truth.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-16 09:10pm

Look, I'm not exactly a mathematical expert. Or a computer expert. I just put in a response I saw in a website that I thought made sense, from a certain point of view, in relation to "Absolute Truth." I'm sorry, but I really don't think I should have been insulted and ridiculed for that.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-01-16 09:39pm

Yes, and no. For math and other things that are cut and dry, like...math, and historical dates yes

But as far as the details of events go...no. For those it depends on who you talk to, one person versions of events may be VERY different from another persons telling of the same event.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-16 09:51pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:I find that, for the most part, people who insist on claiming that there is no absolute truth are the same people who are absolutely incapable of telling the truth.

I'll have you know I'm known for my brutal honesty. I've gotten into more trouble than I should due to it, too. "Do I look fat in this?" "Yes." *cry* that sort of thing...

I agree that site isn't the best, but I use it for information on religions.

As for my stance on Absolute Truth, I thought looking for "Absolute Truth" was subscribing to solipsism. (me wanting to stray as far away from it as possible.)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-16 10:19pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:Look, I'm not exactly a mathematical expert. Or a computer expert. I just put in a response I saw in a website that I thought made sense, from a certain point of view, in relation to "Absolute Truth." I'm sorry, but I really don't think I should have been insulted and ridiculed for that.

We don't know you. You're an Internet pseudonym. We don't know whether you're a nice person, a bad person, a mean person, a smart person, or a dumb person. But we do know that your post was fucking stupid, and that's enough.

So quit yer whining. If you didn't want to get blasted for making a stupid post, then you shouldn't have made the stupid post.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-16 10:23pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:As for my stance on Absolute Truth, I thought looking for "Absolute Truth" was subscribing to solipsism. (me wanting to stray as far away from it as possible.)

No, solipsism is the reduction of all knowledge to absolute truth, which is limited to the absurdly minimalist "I think therefore I am" statement. In essence, their problem is not so much that they seek absolute truth, but that they dismiss everything that apart from it.

Scientists look at the universe and say "look, maybe we don't have absolute knowledge that the universe is real, but it seems pretty fucking real, so I'm going to study it". Solipsists remind us that we can't absolutely prove the universe is real, so therefore, they conclude that all of science is a wasted endeavour. That's why they're idiots.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-16 10:30pm

What about nihilism? Nihilism's fun. "What does nihilism mean? That the highest values devaluate themselves. The aim is lacking; 'Why?' finds no answer."

-Friedrich Nietzsche

Temjin · Post by **Temjin** » 2003-01-17 12:09am

UltraViolence83 wrote:
*SNIP*

I'll have you know I'm known for my brutal honesty. I've gotten into more trouble than I should due to it, too. "Do I look fat in this?" "Yes." *cry* that sort of thing...

*SNIP*

You know, after someone insults your inteligence, that isn't exactly the smartest thing to post.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-17 12:13am

As I said, it gets me in trouble.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-01-17 12:17am

UltraViolence83 wrote:As I said, it gets me in trouble.

And yet you expect not to be insulted for posting stupid shit. Have you spent any time reading the forum?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-17 12:21am

Temjin wrote:
UltraViolence83 wrote:I'll have you know I'm known for my brutal honesty. I've gotten into more trouble than I should due to it, too. "Do I look fat in this?" "Yes." *cry* that sort of thing...
You know, after someone insults your inteligence, that isn't exactly the smartest thing to post.

Well then, it would seem that our assesment of his intelligence was accurate then.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-01-17 12:25am

I give up. I'm stupid.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-17 12:40am

UltraViolence83 wrote:I give up. I'm stupid.

There, there. You're not irredemable just yet. Go get some real science textbooks and read them. Educate yourself. Its not too late.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Absolute Truth

Do absolute truths exist in any form?