WTF is this idiot?!

[mauldooku]

I was just reading http://forum.lddebate.org/ , when I came across an...odd...post by a mod named Quandary. I've been questioning his sanity for a time, but I think this drives it over the edge:

Just because certain premises always yield certain conclusions does not mean that those conclusions are objective truths. The problem is that euclidean geometry relies on premises that simply do not exist (at least as far as science can find). What actual entities exist that follow euclidean geometry?

In fact, most basic assumptions of mathematics are, to the best of our collective knowledge, false. Or perhaps a better word would be 'mu'. 2 + 2 does not equal 4 (close but no cigar), I think quantum theory shows this quite readily. And there is no objective reason whatsoever for fitting anything and everything to a base-10 counting system; in fact, base-10 is about as blatant a social construct as you can get. Let's see, we have 10 fingers, we base our mathematics on 10 digits... interesting...

What do you make of this?

[Trytostaydead]

Lol.. he is someone who's taken one to many mathematics and philosophy/sociology class.. rofl.

Actually, in a strange I'm taking the good-shit now kind of way, it does make sense.

Our numeric system is basically a social construct and I think he's deriving his theory that 2+2 does not quite equal 4 based somewhat off of that and the uncertainty principle.

Though I'm not sure how the latter really applies to the situation unless you're trying to count electrons there or something..

[neoolong]

Mathematics being an artificial construct means that 2+2=4 because we want it to.

[Kuroneko]

To a certain point I agree with him. Mathematics is an invention; it is a closed deductive system. At best, it can be applied to make a model of 'the truth', but mathematics itself provides no knowledge but of itself. It is not more 'true' or 'false' than, say, games of chess or Go. It simply valid of invalid. 'Mu', indeed. 2+2=0 in the group Z4, and there is no four. The fact that we prefer 2+2=4 is merely because it is the most practically useful system, but mathematics itself has little concern with usefulness.


My only disagreement is him bringing quantum theory into this. It has no relevance as far as I can see.

[kojikun]

2+2 always =4 no matter what because 4 is defined as the sum of 2 and 2. This guy is another git who likes to think that there is no objective reality and that nothing is valid. Ignore him and his stupidity.

[Kuroneko]

This guy is another git who likes to think that there is no objective reality and that nothing is valid. Ignore him and his stupidity.

So that's what he's arguing? I didn't understand the relevance of his bringing up physics at all... dang, that's possibly the largest non-sequitur I've heard so far this month.

[SyntaxVorlon]

But 2+2 = 5!!!!!!

[DPDarkPrimus]

"Neeew math, yes, neeew math..." *Sings along with Tom Leher*

[Ghost Rider]

I was just reading http://forum.lddebate.org/ , when I came across an...odd...post by a mod named Quandary. I've been questioning his sanity for a time, but I think this drives it over the edge:

Just because certain premises always yield certain conclusions does not mean that those conclusions are objective truths. The problem is that euclidean geometry relies on premises that simply do not exist (at least as far as science can find). What actual entities exist that follow euclidean geometry?

In fact, most basic assumptions of mathematics are, to the best of our collective knowledge, false. Or perhaps a better word would be 'mu'. 2 + 2 does not equal 4 (close but no cigar), I think quantum theory shows this quite readily. And there is no objective reason whatsoever for fitting anything and everything to a base-10 counting system; in fact, base-10 is about as blatant a social construct as you can get. Let's see, we have 10 fingers, we base our mathematics on 10 digits... interesting...

What do you make of this?

Someone who's been reading one too many fortune cookies...or trying to solve far too much that one doesn't know.

[Utsanomiko]

That what it sounded like to me. Seems the little hatfucker can't deal with an objective reality, so he wants to pretend math and everything else is baseless just so he can make up his own situation-by-situation reasoning.

That's not a functional perspective to even be on a message board, let alone moderate one. What a twat.

[Joe]

Well, he is correct about Euclidean geometry; it's based on deductive postulates and axioms which you can't really define or prove. Gotta start somewhere.

[Kuroneko]

Well, he is correct about Euclidean geometry; it's based on deductive postulates and axioms which you can't really define or prove. Gotta start somewhere.

Yes, along with the rest of mathematics.

[Wicked Pilot]

What do you make of this?

He's a dumbass, duh.

[Hobot]

I think he's right for the most part. Mathematics is a tool invented by people, as Kuroneko already pointed out. It starts out with basic axioms that we can only assume to be true, so basically we can't use math to prove math; it can only prove things within itself. I'm not sure why he mentions quantum theory, but it does remind me of the blinds experiment with the two slits and multiple bands of light (you'd figure that since one slit produces just one band of light, two would produe two, but that's not the case). I suppose he's trying to say that true objectivity does not exist, but I don't think that matters because we'll never be able to prove or disprove that. We're just going to have to accept that the basic premises we base our logic on are true.

[Temjin]

I have two Coke cans and two Pepsi cans on my desk right now. If I add those cans together (2+2), I come up with an answer of 4. Not 2, 3, 99, or 20,000, but four.

Now, someone please tell me why I don't really have four cans on my desk.

[Sriad]

I have two Coke cans and two Pepsi cans on my desk right now. If I add those cans together (2+2), I come up with an answer of 4. Not 2, 3, 99, or 20,000, but four.

Now, someone please tell me why I don't really have four cans on my desk.

[Quandry]In fact, you have mu cans on your desk. Quantum theory can easily be used to show that there is a small but measurable probability that not all of your cans are real, but rather that at least a portion of them is an illusion caused by quantum fluctuations. Furthermore, the very CONCEPT of "can" is artificial, arbitrary, and anthropomorphic. So indeed, while you THINK that you have four cans, another observer not subject to the same circumstances would think that you have 2 cans, or 3 or 99 and his opinion would be just as valid.[/Quandry] How was that?

[neoolong]

I have two Coke cans and two Pepsi cans on my desk right now. If I add those cans together (2+2), I come up with an answer of 4. Not 2, 3, 99, or 20,000, but four.

Now, someone please tell me why I don't really have four cans on my desk.

[Quandry]In fact, you have mu cans on your desk. Quantum theory can easily be used to show that there is a small but measurable probability that not all of your cans are real, but rather that at least a portion of them is an illusion caused by quantum fluctuations. Furthermore, the very CONCEPT of "can" is artificial, arbitrary, and anthropomorphic. So indeed, while you THINK that you have four cans, another observer not subject to the same circumstances would think that you have 2 cans, or 3 or 99 and his opinion would be just as valid.[/Quandry] How was that?

But the way that mathematics is set up to count things does not measure whether the object in question is real, merely that it exists as an object or concept to be counted. Thus there are only four cans. Even if you define that some of the cans are not real. The concept of it is real, and that is what is being counted.

And there are four lights.

[Yuri Prime]

I especially liked the part about base 10 numbers. The base of the number doesn't change the quantity and therefore is of no use to whatever point he is trying to make.

[Sir Sirius]

I am 17 years old, but of age. How can that be?

[Temjin]

I especially liked the part about base 10 numbers. The base of the number doesn't change the quantity and therefore is of no use to whatever point he is trying to make.

I also liked that part.

Whether you're using a base 10 system or not, the four fundamentals of math still remain true (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division).

We could use a base system of 6 and nothing at all will change.

[Queeb Salaron]

I say we chop two of his fingers off one hand, then two off of another, and ask him how many fingers he's missing. Then make him do math in a base-6 system.

[Kuroneko]

I say we chop two of his fingers off one hand, then two off of another, and ask him how many fingers he's missing. Then make him do math in a base-6 system.

He could do base twelve instead. I can count to twenty on my fingers.

[Utsanomiko]

I say we chop two of his fingers off one hand, then two off of another, and ask him how many fingers he's missing. Then make him do math in a base-6 system.

He could do base twelve instead. I can count to twenty on my fingers.

Yes, but how capable can this guy be to do complicated thinking like that?

[Kuroneko]

Yes, but how capable can this guy be to do complicated thinking like that?

Touché.

[mauldooku]

Ok, I asked the board their opinions on Marxism and Communism, and he replied with a link to http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_ar ... stenm.html

Can anyone decipher this?! Words...Too....Big....