3+3=God?

Author: TheDredPriateRoberts

Posts

Total: 85
Topic's author
#31
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
ah ok I understand what you mean now.

point?  well I don't recall what reminded me of this site as I hadn't been on in a long while, so I thought I'd post something.  I thought it was an interesting train of thought.  It helped me understand how and why some people think or believe like they do, to a certain extent.  It didn't actually change how I think, not much anyway.  I've always been skeptical and as of now, I always will be.  But I think these things are interesting and fun to talk about and ponder.
Math is the great constant and universal, it's always been and there's nothing new, just undiscovered.
I had thought about putting this under philosophy, perhaps I should have.
Topic's author
#32
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
"Pile" is plural, so you are adding many thing to other many things.  Sand is made of up many "grains of sand"  One grain of sand plus one grain of sand, equals 2 grains :)
#33
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Correct.  

Buttttttttttttttttttttt
It's fun. 

I also collect stamps.
Topic's author
#34
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
stamps! livin on the edge!
I did have to think about the sand thing a minute, that's a pretty good riddle really, which imo is what most of these things are, or how I view them.
#35
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,897
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@Deb-8-a-bull
@Double_R
I had thought about putting this under philosophy, perhaps I should have.

Religion is about a set of  beliefs, and those related practices everyday.

Philosophy is about finding/discovering truth.

Math can relate to both religion and philosophy.

All of occupied space Universe/God has complementary set of Meta-space math{s}.

3 is  basis of the minimal 2D enclosed area as triangle. Those who think we live in simulated Universe, are really disscussing a 2D Universe.

Jacobe Bekenstiens comments, that, ...' we appear to be 2D creatures, having an illusion of 3D '...stems from his black hole mathematics, much of which Hawking validated.  All of that led to another branch of holographic scenarios regarding Universe/God.

Here is another simple way to envision the subdivided triangle with many vertexes, each moving out of the triangular plane, and puffing outward to form a spherical surface;

There is kid toy, that, is a ring with a liquid,  filling the seemingly 2D rings area.  The ring, with its handle, is waved through the air,  and one or more bubbles { sphericals } are created. 2D area to 3D volume is kids play.

Some adults make attempts at deeper analysis of the what is the mechanics, and  truth, underlying  the magical-8-ball, that,  we identify as Universe/God.

The whole-sha-bang.






Topic's author
#36
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
I think the Higgs Boson was a mathematical theory before it was found.  It's interesting how many "impossible" theories became reality.
#37
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,897
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I think the Higgs Boson was a mathematical theory before it was found.  It's interesting how many "impossible" theories became reality

2D + 2D = 3D via synergy principles but now we add in interference principles.  Start with just two fingers, from each of your hands, -- < >--  as representation of 2D that, niethr of which is even a enclosed, 2D area, in of themselves

So turn turn one set of fingers 90 degrees, and slide them all the way in to the crotch of your other two fingers. Now disregard your thumbs and other fingers. 

Now, you can connect the original to ends each < > to make a triangle of each and that is the 6 lines of two triangles. But each triangle is inside the other crotch to crotch. Ok?

Now if you connect the those same two end point finger back two the other the ends of the opposite opposite triangle, we have 10 lines-of-relationship  i.e. ten lines-of-relationship from  5 vertexes.  This is from interference of two triangles each inside the other.

n^2 - n, divided by 2 equals the number of relationships.  See LINK  N in the above is 5 vertexes with four lines from each vertex.

So now we have gone beyond simple synergy --four triangles--  by adding in an more complex interference principle.  Now we have 6 triangles?

Six triangles is a nucleated hexagon aka subdivided, 2D hexagon of six triangles.  So we have gone from two triangles, to six triangles via synergy and the interference principle.  So remember, that, we turned our two V set of fingers at 90 degrees to each other.

..." The principle of the interference phenomenon is based on the wave nature of the light "....

..." There are two physical phenomena as the principles of the holography: interference and diffraction of light waves."...

Light radiation is two sine-waves at 90 degrees to each other.

The 4-fold VE, infolds to form two Euclidean sine-waves, at 90 degees to each other, and the VE { nucleated cuubo-octahedron }  is defined by four subdivided hexagons. http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/figs/f5511.html

and four triangular circuits







#38
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
A sand castle.
#39
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Don't forget that 3 is also 11 in our binary World.
#40
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
A theory requires a theorist.

And if something is "impossible", then it is therefore not possible.
#41
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Thoughts on Saccadic suppression ? 
#42
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
numbers are only necessarily rigorous when they can be individually appreciated as units of 1.
We can rigorously define fractions and decimals. Show me how 3+3=6 without changing the definition of any of the terms.
#43
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sum1hugme
Did you mean how it is not.

For sure... 3 individual units of 1 plus 3 individual units of 1 = 6 individual units of 1.

As for fractions....You have already demonstrated that half a piece of timber is also 1 unit


Though if we want to rigorously define the fraction, then half a piece of timber is .5 of a unit.

So 2.5 = 3 individual units...Add that to another 2.5 = 3 individual units.

And the total is 5 = 6.
#44
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Saw an interesting video.  Is this "3" the number three?  No it's not, it's a representation of the number three as is III etc, so what and where is the number 3?  Which of our senses can we identify the number three with?
Well put. This demonstrates the hypocrisy of materialists and atheists who premise their beliefs and arguments on materialism.

#45
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,897
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
For sure... 3 individual units of 1 plus 3 individual units of 1 = 6 individual units of 1.

Or 3 units of 6 = 18.

There exist 18 kinds of quark and 18 kinds of anti-quark in Universe.

A hadron{ heavy } --ex proton or neutron-- is composed of 3 quarks { fermionic matter }. I believe a quark is composed of 6 interfering tori, i.e. two tori -- OO OO OO--- for each quark.

The strong nuclear force is the very unstable{ short lived } mesons { bosons } ---aka intermediating force particles--- and they are two quarks { matter } ergo OO OO.

So three is fundamental to existence of protons neutrons and leptons come in three types, bu the mesons are two quark ergo one quark, I believe, is two tori interfering OO.. or as OO.  Again 18 kinds of this twoness is 18 quarks and 18 anti-quarks total 36.

35 / 3 = 12

12 / 3 = 4

4 / 3 = 1.33 33 33 33 33 33 33 3

1 /  3 = 0.33 33 33 33 33 33 333

.33333333 / 3 = 0.11 11 1

The prime number 31 stays prime out to some 6 or 7 places

31
331 = prime
3331 = prime
33331 = prime
333331 = prime
3333331 = prime?

We have 31 bilateral spinal nerves

The 5-fold icosa{20}hedron has 31 left-skew bisecting great circles, and 31 right-skew, bisecting great circles.





#46
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
What do atheists believe?

And in real terms, what is a materialist?


I would suggest that we all premise our arguments upon our intellect.....Variously acquired stored and modified data.

How do you think that you are different.


And relative to the issue of 3....I have easily demonstrated that data manipulation can make  2.5 = 3.

What is the premise for this deduction?

Is this an atheistic or materialistic response?

Am I being hypocritical?


Perhaps I am being externally manipulated by Satan.
#47
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Mostly beyond me.

Though.

3 units of 6 =18
1 is a unit and 6 is a group of 6 units

18 is a group of 18 units....Or 3 groups of  groups of 6 units, or vice versa.....or 2 groups of groups of 9 units, or vice versa


What defines a unit, therefore defines a fraction thereof, though a fraction becomes a unit.

So a group of 18 units can be divided into a group of 36 units, and subdivided into a group of 72 units etc.


Such is stuff and how we can variously appreciate it.


#48
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Don't forget the each wife had seven sacks. 

and you need to also take into consideration thaf Each one of those  sacks  contained  seven cats. 
So thats 7+7+1
But cats aint people so we don't need to add them up.

Or do we?

PASS.....

#49
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
What do atheists believe?
God does not exist.

And in real terms, what is a materialist?
One who proposes that reality is material.

I would suggest that we all premise our arguments upon our intellect.....Variously acquired stored and modified data.
Okay.

How do you think that you are different.
Logical consistency.

And relative to the issue of 3....I have easily demonstrated that data manipulation can make  2.5 = 3.
No you didn't. Your demonstration is essentially akin to 12 dozen = 12.

What is the premise for this deduction?
Nonsense.

Is this an atheistic or materialistic response?
Neither.

Am I being hypocritical?
The physical sciences are fundamentally premised on mathematics, which is immaterial and abstract. So a materialist, or an atheist who premise their arguments with materialist philosophy would essentially, tacitly, and in cognitive dissonance concede that reality is fundamentally based on the immaterial. That's the hypocrisy.

Perhaps I am being externally manipulated by Satan.
No, just internally.







Topic's author
#50
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
this seems to apply
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

― Ronald Reagan

#51
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
2.5 doesn't equal 3 if you define half of 1 as 0.5, which you did.

So your proof is flawed. 
#52
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,573
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias
The physical sciences are fundamentally premised on mathematics
This is not true. Mathematics is used in Physical Science to calculate the measurements of objects and their characteristics, as well as to show the relationship between different functions and properties. 
#53
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
2.5 doesn't equal 3 if you define half of 1 as 0.5, which you did.
Well put. The fact that "unit" is defined by an inequality with parameters, "0 < n ≤ 1," means that even 0.00001 + 0.00001 + 0.00001 = 3.

If the data is going to be manipulated, then it must be manipulated with logical consistency. Not just random equivalences between units of measure and integers.

#54
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@FLRW
This is not true. Mathematics is used in Physical Science to calculate the measurements of objects and their characteristics, as well as to show the relationship between different functions and properties. 
Yes, it is true. ALL PHYSICAL LAWS must necessarily be mathematically proven. The demonstration of these relationships between functions and properties, as you put it, defines physical law.


#55
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Sum1hugme
Ah...But you defined half a piece of timber as one piece of timber.

I'm simply pointing out that numbers only occur within an intellectual observer as data.

The observer can internally manipulate data how they choose.

And we chose to conclude that .5 as observable data could also be represented as 1

Of course, you can also choose to output contradictory data.

Nonetheless the possibility still remains.

Proof is unnecessary.
#56
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
If half a piece of timber equals 0.5 timber, then 1+0.5+0.5=2 pieces of timber. 

Either 1=1 or 1=0.5

If 1=1 then 3+3=6

You can change that outcome only by redefining a term, which you keep trying to do by redefining the number 1
#57
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Sum1hugme
You can change that outcome only by redefining a term, which you keep trying to do by redefining the number 1
The term one can be applied only in context and that changes.

Jim Carey = one person. 

Ten billion people give or take = one human race. 

A doctor, a lawyer, a cake decorator and a registered nurse might = one barber shop quartet.

Eight potatoes might = one pot of mash. 

So... 

1= 1

And

10,000,000,000 = 1

And

4 = 1

And 

8 = 1

Numbers themselves are meaningless without context. 
#58
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, but 1 doesn't change it's meaning as a symbol. 1+1=2 no matter what specific thing the 1 is symbolic of.

In all cases, If we define a one meter long wood piece as 1 unit of wood, then a 0.5 meter long piece will always be 1/2 of a piece, unless the definitions are changed mid-problem
#59
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Sum1hugme
I mean yeah but strictly speaking if you break anything in two you have two things. I under what you mean about the necessity of a contextual constant for math to be efficacious but that constant isn't a real thing. We made it up for our own purposes.
Topic's author
#60
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
that's not accurate imo,  you are claiming a group of things, many things put under 1 (one) label, apples and oranges