Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00140)

Bart Lidofsky writes:
>Tom Robertson wrote:
>> I would be curious to know the name of the individual who arbitrarily
>> decided that 2+2=4.  But I'm flattered that you told my idea to several of
>> your friends.  I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4,
>> also.  When might 2+2 become 5?
>
>	Without the use of mathematics (i.e. without circular reasoning),
>please explain the meaning of 2 + 2 = 4. Mathematics is meaningless
>without mathematics; it is a self-contained, self-referential system.
>
>	Bart Lidofsky
There is a phsics equation in existence, I have seen it and tested it, which 
allows 1 + 1 to equal 1.  I'm going to talk to a physics instructor in the 
area soon and see if I can get it for you.  As far as explaining 2 + 2 = 4 
without using mathematics ...well I'll take a crack at it.  First of all, 2 
and 4 are merely symbols used to define a certain number.  And "number" is a 
symbol used to define and to help the psyche better understand quantity.  2 
represents a certain quantity, however, that specific quantity is not always 
equal, whether it is represnted by the two or not.  Two plus two equals four 
means absolutely nothing by itself.  All numbers are not nouns, even though 
they may be thought of in that way mathematically.  They are in actuality 
adjectives which qualify, perhaps a better word would even be quantify, a 
noun.  

For instance, mathematically, 2 + 2 = 4 seems logical.  However, that is only 
illusionary logic because when I say two plus two equals four, I could be 
talking about an entirely different quantity than when you say it.  I can tell 
you right now that I figured out the radius of the cosmos and can prove it 
mathematically.  For info, it's 2.  2 what?  I'm sure you can figure out how i 
did it.  Anyhow back to the point.

Like I said, numbers are qualifiers of nouns, not nouns.  In my hand I have an 
apple.  In my other hand I just happen to have another apple.  These two 
apples look nothing alike.  One is twice as big as the other and one has green 
skin and one has red.  Nevertheless, I choose to call them apples.  Notice I 
said two just now.  I could have said three if I had wanted to, it really 
doesn't matter.  But in order for my to call it three I have to change my 
whole concept of three.  Three would no longer be able to represent what I 
have let it represent most of the years of my life.  So, to avoid confusion 
and rediculous nonsense, I chose to represent the apples as a quantity by a 
symbol called two.

Oh my GOSH!  You'll never believe this, but each apple just self-replicated 
right before my eyes!  Please excuse me for a second while I pick the clones 
up off of the floor...

Ok.  Because my apples just cloned themselves, I have realized that I now have 
increased the quantity of apples by exactly the amount of apples I had before. 
 Now, logically, I can name the newly replicated apples' quantity with the 
same symbol that I named their parents.  I shall represent the new quantity 
with the number 2.

OKAY!  Here goes.  I just lined up the two quantities of apples on the table 
in front of me and I have decided to take these two quantities and make them 
one quantity.  To do this, I need to name the new quantity.  Once again, to 
avoid confusion, I will name the new quantity with a different symbol than the 
one I used to represent the smaller quantities.  I'll call it four.  Four 
sounds good.  Now that I have defined my quantities, I can come to a reasonble 
conclusion that two apples plus two apples equals four apples.  However, like 
all things, this is only a relative deduction, for you can symbolize your 
quantities in any way you want to.

In answer to Tom's question:
by using your free will to decide that the symbol four should be replaced by 
the symbol five, 2 + 2 can equal 5.

Oh yeah, and if you can convince the masses to do the same, a different method 
of learning may evolve.  Who knows?
---
The Triaist