2+2=5

[idea]

Without getting into the issues of your application of relativity, I don't see how your argument follows. In a constrained universe with only a single particle, then yes nothing else would exist (including velocity). But we don't live in such a universe.

The argument "if there were only a single electron, everything else (including velocity) would not exist" doesn't mean that in a universe where other things do exist we can't speak of individual entities or particles without reference to other entities or particles. The fact that three apples wouldn't exist in a universe with only one electron doesn't mean I can't talk about the apples, or add two more apples, and so on. The inability of things to exist without other things doesn't mean we can't think of or conceive of these things singularly.

not "if there were only a single electron, everything else (including velocity) would not exist" " but instead The argument "if there were only a single electron, the single electron would have no charge, no spin, no velocity, no mass, no identifiable traits to define it with"

the single entity does not exist except in relative terms.

On what do you base this assertion?

macroscopic positions / energies etc. etc. are not quantized - so there are an infinite number of relative positions / potential energies / kinetic energies two objects can have with respect to one another. (an infinite number of different reactions people can have to one another too) new information is obtained through new interactions - so it's an unbounded system.

 

[Meow Mix]

not "if there were only a single electron, everything else (including velocity) would not exist" " but instead The argument "if there were only a single electron, the single electron would have no charge, no spin, no velocity, no mass, no identifiable traits to define it with"

the single entity does not exist except in relative terms.

Not to split hairs, but if there existed an electron it would have charge, spin (after all it's a fermion), and mass as far as I can think of -- but indeed, no velocity. Charge, quantum spin, and mass aren't relational like velocity is.

 

[idea]

idea, you're describing background independence as the best method to describe the cosmos (which was Mach's revolution, inherited by Einstein and Noether) -- but I fail to see what it has to do with the conversation at hand; or what it would possibly have to do with the broader question of mathematical realism that you were discussing with Poly earlier.

Can you expound a little more on where you were going with this?

the idea of emergence - the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts (2+2=5) because of the interactions between the parts. relativity has to do with interactions ...

 

[idea]

Not to split hairs, but if there existed an electron it would have charge, spin (after all it's a fermion), and mass as far as I can think of -- but indeed, no velocity. Charge, quantum spin, and mass aren't relational like velocity is.

what is charge? it is the force between two objects - if there is no second object, there is no force... spin - same as velocity. You can only tell if something is spinning if you can compare it to something else. A single object alone with nothing to compare it to - you can't tell if it is spinning or not. mass - think about how you measure mass...

Mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed

etc. etc. - if you cannot measure speed, you cannot measure mass....

none of it exists except relative to something else. The single entity does not really exist - there are only interactions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

the idea of emergence - the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts (2+2=5) because of the interactions between the parts. relativity has to do with interactions ...

Strange loops, neural networks, and other concepts related to emergence still won't make 2+2=5. But I'm getting the sense that you are being metaphoric. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that a finite number of parts can be organized in such a way that their interaction produces what none of the parts could individually? Or am I way off here?

so it's an unbounded system.

Again I'm not sure I understand you. What is an unbounded system?

 

[idea]

Strange loops, neural networks, and other concepts related to emergence still won't make 2+2=5. But I'm getting the sense that you are being metaphoric. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that a finite number of parts can be organized in such a way that their interaction produces what none of the parts could individually? Or am I way off here?

yes, this is what emergence is, emergent systems do in fact exist.

Synergy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again I'm not sure I understand you. What is an unbounded system?

unbounded = no upper bound (as opposed to conserved)

it's been fun guys, but I have an early morning ...
happy googling to you all!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

yes, this is what emergence is, emergent systems do in fact exist.

Synergy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm well acquainted with emergence. Although my focus within cognitive science is language/linguistics, I'm at least passingly familiar with the field as a whole. In particular, I've spent a great deal of time on neural networks and dynamical systems. Of course, it is true that the algorithms developed for neural networks and the physics involved in biological neural models differ in some ways from other dynamical systems. However, the mathematical tools are essentially the same. Whether one is studying neural firing, the stock marcket, or the climate, one still relies on differential equations, stochastic models, phase portraits, etc. Unfortunately, modern science and mathematics were dominated for several hundred years by deterministic thinking, and only recently have researchers across fields began to shift away from 19th century formalism and determinism. And despite the incredible developments since Newton and Liebniz, we are still stuck with treating curves like lines.
But that's neither here nor there. 2+2 still does not equal 5, metaphors aside. The issue of whether, to what extent, and how systems can organize themselves is a seperate issue.

unbounded = no upper bound (as opposed to conserved)

But no system in the physical world that we know of is unbounded (also, upper bound has a technical use in physics and similar fields which rely on calculus, so I'm not sure how your use relates to concepts like least uppper bound or lower bounds). Particles are constrained by phsyics, as is everything in the universe.

 

[Just Another]

It actually is possible.
2 * 0 + 2 * 0 = 5 * 0
2 * infinity + 2 * infinity = 5 * infinity

Your title says simply, "2+2=5". Then you throw in "advanced" math.



The statement 2+2=5 is absolutely :drool: (retarded). If I hold up two fingers from my left hand, and likewise on my right, why, Ive got 4 F'n fingers total.

This argument is a classic one for trying to disproove science on a most elementary level. Albeit not using elementary tactics.

 

[Meow Mix]

what is charge? it is the force between two objects - if there is no second object, there is no force... spin - same as velocity. You can only tell if something is spinning if you can compare it to something else. A single object alone with nothing to compare it to - you can't tell if it is spinning or not. mass - think about how you measure mass...

There don't have to be two objects to have charge. "What is charge" can be answered with quantum electrodynamics: "charge" is, in the best layman's term possible, to have a field of exchange photons. Same goes for mesons in chromodynamics, gravitons with gravity, and so on. Other objects aren't required.

Quantum spin is only analogous to angular motion. We describe quantum characteristics using macroscopic analogies but the fact of the matter is that it just ain't so (just as it just ain't so that particles are "points," even if it's convenient to treat them as such). Besides, even a lone electron spinning would generate a magnetic field which then provides a background from which to compare the angular motion

As for mass, I'm wondering if you're confusing mass with weight. Mass is an intrinsic property whereas weight is extrinsic: even if we hypothetically couldn't measure the mass of a lone-existing object (which isn't true), it would still be true that it possesses mass even if it doesn't possess weight. For instance, the lone object would certainly possess energy, which is equivalent to mass (E = mc^2).

 

[Meow Mix]

Hmm, on second thought, charge does only make sense with more than one entity in that exchange photons are best thought of as other entities -- but if we have a lone electron, then by definition of what electrons are then we also have self-energizing from exchange photons. I was thinking of it as a lone system, or category, or set -- where as you were thinking of the lone electron.

This raises a larger question: it isn't possible for you to have the lone electron unless you also have these other things. Maybe having a lone physical element (in the original sense of the word; a fundamental existing thing which can't be broken down into constituent parts) isn't physically possible since everything I can think of in particle physics comes with various circus freaks like exchange particles and fields.

Your point is taken, though, on some hypothetical, idealized level. I was just splitting hairs anyway.

 

[PolyHedral]

This raises a larger question: it isn't possible for you to have the lone electron unless you also have these other things. Maybe having a lone physical element (in the original sense of the word; a fundamental existing thing which can't be broken down into constituent parts) isn't physically possible since everything I can think of in particle physics comes with various circus freaks like exchange particles and fields.

The fields can be the elements, since AFAIK Relativity works perfectly fine if you apply it to just the EM field. (for instance)

 

[idea]

I'm well acquainted with emergence. Although my focus within cognitive science is language/linguistics, I'm at least passingly familiar with the field as a whole. In particular, I've spent a great deal of time on neural networks and dynamical systems. Of course, it is true that the algorithms developed for neural networks and the physics involved in biological neural models differ in some ways from other dynamical systems. However, the mathematical tools are essentially the same. Whether one is studying neural firing, the stock marcket, or the climate, one still relies on differential equations, stochastic models, phase portraits, etc. Unfortunately, modern science and mathematics were dominated for several hundred years by deterministic thinking, and only recently have researchers across fields began to shift away from 19th century formalism and determinism. And despite the incredible developments since Newton and Liebniz, we are still stuck with treating curves like lines.
But that's neither here nor there. 2+2 still does not equal 5, metaphors aside. The issue of whether, to what extent, and how systems can organize themselves is a seperate issue.





But no system in the physical world that we know of is unbounded (also, upper bound has a technical use in physics and similar fields which rely on calculus, so I'm not sure how your use relates to concepts like least uppper bound or lower bounds). Particles are constrained by phsyics, as is everything in the universe.

I think information generation is unbounded, I don't see an upper limit to entropy, or time, or space - how big you can get, or how small you can go. 2+2 is meaningless imo unless you clearly define what you are adding together. (I'm an engineer more than a scientist - for me it has have real-world application, the numbers have to stand for something) so 2 birds, or 2 electrons - the point being if you combine two different entities with one another, their interactions with each other produce more than what the individual parts are on their own - 1 bird + 1 bird is more than 2 birds:
1b + 1b = 2b + singing + nest building + eggs + fighting + ...
you also get all the behaviors that go along with two birds getting together...

1 electron + 1 electron is more than just two electrons - you discover all the reactionary laws of physics when you combine the two.

1x + 1x = 2x + interaction products.

neural networks sound fun! (I work with dead stuff - materials/metallurgy/particulates science DEM/MD stuff)

 

[idea]

...it isn't possible for you to have the lone electron unless you also have these other things. Maybe having a lone physical element (in the original sense of the word; a fundamental existing thing which can't be broken down into constituent parts) isn't physically possible ...

What we see are interactions, not the thing itself. Makes you wonder what actually exists under all the interactions... observer effect / we'll never know.

 

[Meow Mix]

What we see are interactions, not the thing itself. Makes you wonder what actually exists under all the interactions... observer effect / we'll never know.

Your guess is as good as mine, and I'm a cosmology student!

 

[idav]

What we see are interactions, not the thing itself. Makes you wonder what actually exists under all the interactions... observer effect / we'll never know.

Our brains aren't fast enough to process it even if we can see it. Maybe a super computer can see it, like one at CERN or something.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Our brains aren't fast enough to process it even if we can see it. Maybe a super computer can see it, like one at CERN or something.

One of the topics which runs through the latter part of this thread is particles. The problem of observation there isn't one of speed. Observation requires light or photons, but some particles (like electrons) are so small that "light" will change their course. In other words, you can't simply observe the path of an electron no matter how fast your computer is, because in order to see it you have to interact with it on some level, even if this is just using light. This interaction, however, will change what you are observing. As all matter is composed of particles which are sensitive to observation, faster computers won't solve the problem.

That said, personally I don't think that the effects of observation at the quantum level prevent us from seperating what exists and what doesn't, or defining what it means to exist. I think the larger argument here stems from the type of epistomological issues posed by Kant and Hume (among others). The difficulty of understanding any thing as that thing is in and of itself requires the use of perceptual faculties and therefore a removal from "reality" (whatever that is). In the end, though, if I'm walking along and I see a telephone poll in my path, I'm just going to move aside, and leave the issue of pondering its nature and existence for another time.

 

[Daviso452]

It actually is possible.
2 * 0 + 2 * 0 = 5 * 0
2 * infinity + 2 * infinity = 5 * infinity

But then it's not 2 it's 2 * infinity.

 

[Photonic]

The fields can be the elements, since AFAIK Relativity works perfectly fine if you apply it to just the EM field. (for instance)

Wave

Just throwin' it in the mix for you guys. Have fun!

 

[Meow Mix]

One of the topics which runs through the latter part of this thread is particles. The problem of observation there isn't one of speed. Observation requires light or photons, but some particles (like electrons) are so small that "light" will change their course. In other words, you can't simply observe the path of an electron no matter how fast your computer is, because in order to see it you have to interact with it on some level, even if this is just using light. This interaction, however, will change what you are observing. As all matter is composed of particles which are sensitive to observation, faster computers won't solve the problem.

That said, personally I don't think that the effects of observation at the quantum level prevent us from seperating what exists and what doesn't, or defining what it means to exist. I think the larger argument here stems from the type of epistomological issues posed by Kant and Hume (among others). The difficulty of understanding any thing as that thing is in and of itself requires the use of perceptual faculties and therefore a removal from "reality" (whatever that is). In the end, though, if I'm walking along and I see a telephone poll in my path, I'm just going to move aside, and leave the issue of pondering its nature and existence for another time.

One of my biggest pet peeves is quantum quackery and physicists (and laypersons) who don't understand the distinction between scientific interpretation and reality. Particles aren't really points (that's absurd), nor are they literally a superposition of particles and waves at the same time (also absurd), etc.

Much of the field I'm going into involves the fundamental problem of attempting to describe a system we're a part of. As you noted, it's not only a pervasive problem in quantum physics but also on large scale physics: we must use tricks like topos/category/sheaf theories, noncommutative geometry, fuzzy sets, etc. Cosmology is therefore only about 1/3 physics -- it's also 1/3 pure mathematics and 1/3 metaphysics. Many, many, many people -- some physicists included -- forget, undermine, or misunderstand the most important part (the metaphysics).

Wave

Just throwin' it in the mix for you guys. Have fun!

Speaking of wavicles

What about it would you like to discuss?

 

[Reverend Rick]

2+2=5 when you carry the one.