It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1+1 is sometimes 3

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by glastonaut

Originally posted by jaamaan


a third note or beat is also heard. this third note is not inherent in either note but only as a synergetic consequence of their unity, constructed in the brain.



Hi, this bit of info is incorrect, the 'third note' is present naturally and not as a consequence of brain reconstruction.

It says nothing about the addition of positive integers in arithmetic unfortunately, so it can't be used to prove 1+1=3


But I argue the brain constructs all of the notes.. so it is all natural.. and not as a consequence of brain reconstruction because it is all brain CONSTRUCTION.. it doesn't reconstruct what it has constructed in the manner you are thinking.. That would be like refurbishing and doing a restoration on a brand new building.
So science is even incorrect. Thats the problem.. observer bias.




posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
But I argue the brain constructs all of the notes.. so it is all natural.. and not as a consequence of brain reconstruction because it is all brain CONSTRUCTION.. it doesn't reconstruct what it has constructed in the manner you are thinking.. That would be like refurbishing and doing a restoration on a brand new building.
So science is even incorrect. Thats the problem.. observer bias.


These signals can be measured on an oscilloscope. I'm not sure where you are going with the argument that the third note is a construct of the brain when it can be clearly viewed using scientific apparatus.

You are taking either a 'Kantian' categorical imperative and saying everything is imagined, or you aren't understanding the physics properly.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by glastonaut

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
But I argue the brain constructs all of the notes.. so it is all natural.. and not as a consequence of brain reconstruction because it is all brain CONSTRUCTION.. it doesn't reconstruct what it has constructed in the manner you are thinking.. That would be like refurbishing and doing a restoration on a brand new building.
So science is even incorrect. Thats the problem.. observer bias.


These signals can be measured on an oscilloscope. I'm not sure where you are going with the argument that the third note is a construct of the brain when it can be clearly viewed using scientific apparatus.

You are taking either a 'Kantian' categorical imperative and saying everything is imagined, or you aren't understanding the physics properly.


physics is dead.... it doesn't apply to the planck scale.

so perhaps you aren't understanding physics properly..

Without you too look at those oscilloscopes they don't even exist... Everything is a construct of thought... which can clearly be demonstrated by the fact that the machines to gauge these responses were created by humans from the recesses of their thought.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   


You are taking either a 'Kantian' categorical imperative and saying everything is imagined, or you aren't understanding the physics properly.


I guess Max Planck did not understand physics either.



“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Planck



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   


Without you too look at those oscilloscopes they don't even exist... Everything is a construct of thought... which can clearly be demonstrated by the fact that the machines to gauge these responses were created by humans from the recesses of their thought.



That is so true ...but the ego of most people will never let them understand this.



"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein




“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.” Max Planck



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein


so mostly 1+1=2

but still sometimes 3

why ?

can anyone explain this better?



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr



You are taking either a 'Kantian' categorical imperative and saying everything is imagined, or you aren't understanding the physics properly.


I guess Max Planck did not understand physics either.



“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” Max Planck


I'm sorry but your comment is a very ignorant statement..
your saying that one of the most intelligent men to have existed didn't understand something he himself revolutionized.. the understanding that on the smallest scale things DO NOT follow the guidelines/concepts/theories/laws of regular physics..
which is the reason for quantum physics... The NEW science.. We aren't made of billiard balls ......



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaamaan
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein


so mostly 1+1=2

but still sometimes 3

why ?

can anyone explain this better?


because viewing it from a purely external observation point you will only have what appears.. what you can 'work' with..
but when you move the observer to the place in the brain that creates the experience of 'seeing' than you notice theres a third note.. (the difference between the two of them)



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
It's a problem of contexts. You're taking mathematical addition out of context.

If I see two clouds merge into one cloud, that doesnt' really imply that 1 + 1 = 1, even though we had two clouds, and then "added" them together by colliding them. "Merging" or "colliding" isn't synonymous with "adding", and that's where a similar problem could arise.

Playing two tones simultaneously may result in hearing more than two audible tones, but I don't think this is related to the mathematical function of addition.

Similarly, because each musical note causes tones in a series of frequencies to occur, known as the "harmonic series", you could say 1 = >1 even before additional tones are heard from throwing in a chord, but you would be trying to fit that information into an inappropriate context.



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   


I'm sorry but your comment is a very ignorant statement..


I guess I did not do a good job of conveying sarcasim in my post.

If you would please re-read my post I was actually saying that Max Planck does indeed know what he is talking about.

That quote is one of my favorite of all time and it parallels what you have been saying that the mind creates our reality around us.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by etshrtslr]



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
1 of anything, plus 1 of anything will always be 2.

There is nothing that can be done about it. If you choose to think abstractly, and believe that because a whole is sometimes worth more than the parts financially like I saw above, that still does not deminish the fact that the whole is physically the sum of its parts period. Adding chemicals to create different reactions in the brain still do not take away the fact that there are two chemicals.

Adding chords to create a third sound..... The mathematics behind that are undoubtedly far more than 1 + 1 = 3. If this is truly the case, a chord is more than "1". It is the mathematics that achieved its frequency. The force used to create the vibration, the object vibrating, and the medium which carries the vibration are all part of the equasion. In addition, thecombination of two exact chords probably create an effect of cancelling one another out, which is part of a more complex mathematical equasion. If the chords are not exactly equal.....well then we are not even talking about 1 + 1.......



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
physics is dead.... it doesn't apply to the planck scale.


Since Physics sets the Planck scale, I haven't a clue what you mean by this. As a PhD trained Particle Physicist I'm very interested in how you come up with that statement.


Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
Without you too look at those oscilloscopes they don't even exist...


A philosophical, not scientific, observation.


Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
Everything is a construct of thought... which can clearly be demonstrated by the fact that the machines to gauge these responses were created by humans from the recesses of their thought.


Thoughts can manifest in reality as action, but also you can argue reality (the physical world) is the cause of thought. Either way the argument goes nowhere.



posted on Nov, 29 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by glastonaut

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
physics is dead.... it doesn't apply to the planck scale.


Since Physics sets the Planck scale, I haven't a clue what you mean by this. As a PhD trained Particle Physicist I'm very interested in how you come up with that statement.


Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
Without you too look at those oscilloscopes they don't even exist...


A philosophical, not scientific, observation.


Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
Everything is a construct of thought... which can clearly be demonstrated by the fact that the machines to gauge these responses were created by humans from the recesses of their thought.


Thoughts can manifest in reality as action, but also you can argue reality (the physical world) is the cause of thought. Either way the argument goes nowhere.


Since Physics sets the Planck scale, I haven't a clue what you mean by this. As a PhD trained Particle Physicist I'm very interested in how you come up with that statement.
Because the old physics BY themselves does NOT explain things accurately..
in other words... its a two year olds coat on an elephant.. just doesn't quite cover it..
so sure.. he used someone elses 'working' ideology and expanded from there.

A philosophical, not scientific, observation.
Yeh, well without a human to BEGIN with, it would never have existed.. I'm not saying just because YOU don't exist IT doesn't exist.. I'm saying because HUMANS didn't exist it would never exist.

Thoughts can manifest in reality as action, but also you can argue reality (the physical world) is the cause of thought. Either way the argument goes nowhere.

Because your looking for it to go no-where... would you look in the hole the dirt came from to find the dirt removed from it?...

Thoughts manifest in reality as a REACTION to previous ACTION... I can argue that the material plane is a result of THOUGHT because it has been THOUGHT that has been CAUSE & EFFECTING it now for millions and millions of years.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
Because the old physics BY themselves does NOT explain things accurately..


Physics predicts the third note, an oscilloscope can visualise the third note, the brain can hear the third note. I don't know about you but I'm fairly confident of its existence.

This phenomenon does not describe arithmetic addition. It describes the addition of non-integer functions. To deduce 1 + 1 = 3 from wavefunction superposition is wrong. The only way you can make it work is by assuming the '1' means something other than unity, say, 1x. Then 1x + 1y = 3, so you are free to choose whatever extra stuff (x and y) your point of view calls for.


Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
Thoughts can manifest in reality as action, but also you can argue reality (the physical world) is the cause of thought. Either way the argument goes nowhere.
Because your looking for it to go no-where... would you look in the hole the dirt came from to find the dirt removed from it?...


I'm not looking for it to go anywhere because it doesn't have any bearing on the original posters theory. And why would you look in the hole for removed dirt when it is clearly stated in the question that it isn't there? How many more irrelevant variables must we consider before establishing 1 + 1 = 2??!



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Thank you for your interesting replies.

it is stuff that makes me think

but i have to admid math is not my strongest point.

I am just interested what you can come up with regarding this subject

or anything you think belongs in this topic



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join