Explanation that 1+1= 2
first, one of our ways to define a singular entity like one apple, one car, and one spoon.
If a definition of singular entity is 1(one), what is the definition of 1(one)?
And likewise, if definition of 1(one) is singular entity, what is the definition of singular entity?
Its too bad that you have fallen into a trap of circular definitions.
People usually try to "prove" something by defining two words same and then claim that they are same.
However, two problems:
1. Words are necessary to define a word, so all definitions logically must be circular as there are no infinite number of words in dictionary.
Since each time you use one word to define another, that one word must be defined by a third word, third word must be defined by fourth, fourth by fifth... and so on until you get circular definitions. This is why definitions in dictionary are either circular or defined by using words not defined in that dictionary.
Thus, when you attempt to define two things in same way to prove that they are same, not only is that circular reasoning or depending on law of identity to be true, but words in the definitions which you are using cannot in any way be defined without also using circular definitions which fail to demonstrate that the thing mentioned in definitions even exist. To make it simple, if you define apple as apple, there is no way to even know what apple is or to prove its existence. Since all definitions in the dictionary can only be circular or defined using undefined words, there is nothing in definition which can explain what something is or prove its existence.
So even if you could prove that your definition is true and not just assumption, which you cant, you still wouldnt actually prove anything since words used in definitions are either circular or undefined, neither is proof.
2. Second problem is a bit bigger issue. You want to define two things in exactly same way to prove that they are same. However, this is not just circular reasoning, but you also have to prove that same things are same. There is no way for you to prove this, because even when using circular logic, it is impossible to prove that A = A. There is simply no way for you to prove this premise which your entire case depends on.
2 is our way of saying there is one more entity in the scenario now there are two cars
Now you must prove that one more entity means two. If you define two as one more entity, then that is circular reasoning, but also you must prove that two = two or that 2 = one more entity. Repeating that "two" means "one more entity" to prove that "two" means "one more entity" is circular reasoning, but you also cannot prove that "two" means "one more entity".
If you went with conditional "If A, then A", that also needs to be proved.
Basically, if you say: ""two" means "one more entity" because "two" means "one more entity"", you would still have to prove that claim. No matter what circle you create with this, the only way for you to prove it is to create another circle which you must also prove, and so on to infinity.
Simply definiting "2" as "1+1" means that your actual claim of "1+1=2" is actually "2=2".
Thus, you must prove that "2=2".
, no longer singular but multiple but only by 1.
Can you prove that "multiple but only by 1" means two?
the + siqn is adding them twogether 1 apple + another apple = 2 apples
Can you prove that adding one apple and one apple equals 2 apples?
If you define 2 apples as "adding one apple and one apple", then can you prove that 2 apples are 2 apples?
How can you prove that two apples equals two apples?
I know this is complicated and everything, but who knows, maybe people learn something.
Its just contingency argument (cosmological argument) being applied to logic itself.
As for logic not always existing, or time before logic, it is taken from argument-question of who created laws of universe, but just changed to who created laws of logic.
I'm intrigued by what you've said in this debate, especially with your argument in the Fourth Round. It's really interesting to me. Do you have a recommendation on where to learn more about the concepts you're talking about? Sorry if I sound sarcastic because of the general attitude of this website, but I am genuinely curious
Prove to me that God isnt real!