1 + 1 = 3

[ColorfulElfBoy]

An idea I've had is that 1 + 1 = 2, doesn't make sense to me, ultimately. I understand that if you have one, then add another you have two.

But the process of adding is not free or passive, it's an action, it requires energy. And with that logic if you have 1, then put in the energy to add another 1, there is a force there that adds ANOTHER 1.

So logically, (one) (plus) (one), equals three.. There are three things going on there, the two basic items and the force that brings them together...


I don't really have anywhere else to post such a concept. Whats your opinion?

I think the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts is quite pertinent here.
I feel 1 + 1 = 2 is a mechanical ideal that is spiritual-less and depressing, and 1 + 1 = 3 is spiritual-full, and empowering.

It can also be seen in an artistic way as aka, love.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Mmmm deviant mathematics and logic. I love it.

What you happen to highlight seems to also be highlighted in the work of the French Egyptologist and Symbolist, R.A. Schaller deLubicz.

I follow your logic in that there are three entities in the relation of adding one and one. However the adding is a function (no less an entity) versus being a numerical object, and so in that sense isn't involved in the equation to contribute to the numerical object. The three entities aren't of the same kind in the same sense.

That doesn't diminish your idea, just adds a parameter for consideration, for you're not wrong in that in adding 1 and 1 involves three distinct entities.

I kind of like to analogously bring in physics. When one applies heat to a system (whether through conduction, convection, or pressure), measurements will be more about how the heat has affected the atomic matter within the system. The heat does not exist as the same kind in the same sense as the atoms that react to it. It's still a factor though.

Good post.

One love

 

[ColorfulElfBoy]

Do you have any video recommendations?
I looked him up but was a bit hard to follow

 

[ColorfulElfBoy]

I follow your logic in that there are three entities in the relation of adding one and one. However the adding is a function (no less an entity) versus being a numerical object, and so in that sense isn't involved in the equation to contribute to the numerical object. The three entities aren't of the same kind in the same sense.

I would say physically, and even mentally, the function being a non contributor is not reality.
Even in the mental space where addition can seem energyless or "free", it's not. The simple act of just thinking of one expends energy.

Perhaps I misunderstand the term function in mathematics, if so I'd enjoy an education.
As far as I'm aware it means essentially a concept of non interaction, so you put 1 and 1 in and 2 comes out. It's passive. But that to me seems like getting something for nothing. I don't believe it applies to reality. It's a useful concept, but ignores all the energy expenditure that allowed that to even happen.

I might be being totally ignorent in my ideas, tho I think it links to this concept I read on reddit.
(I'm having a hard time finding it.. is there a way to see all my posts?)

Ok here it is:

The Abyss. Imagine being a spec of light. A pixel. A pixel that defied nothingness and became something. You have your memory of humanity, but you are stuck. There is no death. Only an eternity. And you no longer have ignorance. And from that pixel you have to reinvent everything. Everything that you are attached to, that is holding you back from complete death. That includes inventing life, reconstructing memories, inventing fractal patterns, inventing dimensions, inventing words, inventing science, invent time,inventing...everything. From scratch.

When you read the bible, it isn't "Fear of the lord" as in you must fear the lord God. It means the one FEAR of the lord, aka God's one and only true fear. That one must recreate existence all over again. Love is not there to save you this time.

its just eternal paradoxical nothing. but you are aware you are stuck in nothing. unconscious darkness? that's the dream. welcome to conscious darkness. the abyss, the void, beyond god everything collapses into the eternal dao.

edit:

Source: 3 tabs over 16hrs. Jamming to Psytrance in my underwear at an extended stay hotel with arms open in front of aircondition.

From this post

https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychonaut/comments/79z1mm/mckenna_should_really_describe_his_bad_trip

The reason I find that pertinent is that gods one true fear is having to do it all again with no love/ no energy.

Tho my extra posts here are just complicating the original concept. I know you guys are willing to entertain out there ideas tho

 

[Loveall]

In the real world, when putting stuff together, yes there would be entropy/energy going into adding or putting things together.

I don't see the answer as 3, I would say, 1+1=2+δ, where δ is whatever is needed to put things together. Anything from neural energy, to CPU power, to gravity potential energy.

I think it is very useful to operate under the mathematical idea of δ -> 0. The math developed under this ideal assumption is very useful and informative of the world around us.

 

[ColorfulElfBoy]

I've never heard of "δ". I'll have a look into it

 

[Voidmatrix]

Do you have any video recommendations?
I looked him up but was a bit hard to follow

That's a good question. I haven't ever looked for videos before so would have to hunt around.

And I understand that. Between the translations and the general esoteric nature of the content, it can take a little time to start grasping. Relative to your op, I think A Study of Numbers would be a good start. When I'm home later I'll recommend a few more for ya

One love

 

[Voidmatrix]

Just noticed your other response.

The function doesn't exist in the same state and sense as the numbers it functions through. That's the main difference. The adding if a function to the numbers, but not a number itself, hence its status being held as "passive." There can be a connotation with that being less important, but that's not the case. Because it has a different state and sense, it's just different, not more or less important, and just as necessary.

One love.

Ps. Loveall, well said.

 

[ColorfulElfBoy]

Well if we take two bits of matter for example, they will come together through gravity.
So that could be described as no real force.. But I am not educated enough to make detailed comments on that.

I'm quite hesitant atm the accept math as being analogous to reality. There is a serious disconnect there for me currently, tho I fully respect it's utillity in creating technology and allowing various predictions.
I feel it is missing something tho..

But then having a feeling is not exactly a reflection of truth. I do have faith in the subconscious mind that creates them tho. Just as I can type these words with no conscious control over the mechanics that brings it all together.

And thank you, I'll definitely check out anything you can show me.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Well if we take two bits of matter for example, they will come together through gravity.
So that could be described as no real force.. But I am not educated enough to make detailed comments on that.

I'm quite hesitant atm the accept math as being analogous to reality. There is a serious disconnect there for me currently, tho I fully respect it's utillity in creating technology and allowing various predictions.
I feel it is missing something tho..

But then having a feeling is not exactly a reflection of truth. I do have faith in the subconscious mind that creates them tho. Just as I can type these words with no conscious control over the mechanics that brings it all together.

And thank you, I'll definitely check out anything you can show me.

Idk if it could be described as no real force, but just not pertinent to the interest of things being added, in this case the two bits of matter.

I tend to agree, and that's why we have deviant math systems to account for this. Hop down the rabbit hole of pure math and you'll get a glimpse. There are different kinds of geometry for example, operating off of different axioms, and thus have different applications that the popular euclidean geometry. The goal is for math to be isomorphic to reality, but may not ever reach that in totality.

It's funny because a great many of mathematical discoveries are brought about through intuition

One love

 

[ColorfulElfBoy]

So let's have the concept of one. Aka one big ball of light/energy/everything.
Now that idea has no time in my view. It's a timeless existence of everything.
Yet you add time, and that creates this attraction that we've yet to explain.
To me, intuitively time is just everything coming back to that one. And that effect is this seemingly magical force called gravity that we all know.

So with that concept gravity could be thought of as this experience of flowing through time. And at the end of time we're all one. We're just not there yet.


I'm editing this with a link, here: My first dmt trip: i went to hell - Introduction Essay - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

I think there is a connection here. As I posted in that topic I think I experienced the same thing as "dvc777v", this is the first time I've seen someone else say they've seen it. And if you read that reddit post I quoted and linked to, you'll see the connection, a conscious experience of the eternal dao. A consistent experience of nothing, aka hell.

 

[ShamanisticVibes]

It is interesting that you bring this up, as there is a bit of controversy floating around academia, currently on exactly this subject.

As many thing do, this day and age, the subject has been highly polarizing and it has even been politicized that, in theory, "Mathematics are racist". I do not really want to disappear too far down that rabbit hole, as these things can tend to be pretty polarizing. But in seeing your interest in the subject, I invite you to look more into it at your own leisure. The state of Oregon has even proposed (possibly utilized?) something by the name of "Mathemat-X" as a program to perpetuate these very possibilities.

Great post, definitely gets the old gears a' turnin'. Honestly, this is the best platform I can think of to have this discussion over, considering this may be one of the few places left on the internet to share unpopular or widely unknown opinions with relative safety.

A quick google search of Mathemat-X or 2+2=5 will give you a little more information on which I am referring.

 

[Voidmatrix]

Beginning with your postulate about oneness, look up Greek philosopher Parmenedes.

We are now treading into an ontological territory with nuances relative to semantics.

If "all" is "one" then either there is no all (perhaps only an appearance of such), or we have created a paradox (not assuming a paradox is invalid which is common in standard logic). If we say there is only one, how to we define what that one is when there's no relativity for itself to be defined in?

In timelessness, would you still say there are successions of moments?

Some physicists postulate that entropy is the true indicator of time in our universe and shows why time seemingly only moves "forward."

Another question, is, how much of the perception of this current topic comes down to the limits at which we sense. Are we not currently equipped to assess this properly?

Check out Godel, and in particular his incompleteness theorems. A little monkey wrench for ya.

Pertaining to 2+2=5, there is a proof that shows this, but in only one way, and is the only way that I know of to force this outcome. Depending on the mathematical paradigm you subscribe to, it's valid or invalid, though it's processing is sound.

I'm hoping to get a chance to read that post sometime soon, as it's caught my attention. I'm just busy lol. However, I don't know if the complete absence of everything would necessarily be hell, but seem hellish based on our present conditioning.

Academia happens to work within a given paradigm until new,valid, and sound information comes along to influence a paradigm change (Godel is an example of that in mathematics and Karl Popper in physics and cosmology).

And I do feel I understand you, and am trying to explore this with you .

One love

 

[ColorfulElfBoy]

It is interesting that you bring this up, as there is a bit of controversy floating around academia, currently on exactly this subject.

As many thing do, this day and age, the subject has been highly polarizing and it has even been politicized that, in theory, "Mathematics are racist". I do not really want to disappear too far down that rabbit hole, as these things can tend to be pretty polarizing. But in seeing your interest in the subject, I invite you to look more into it at your own leisure. The state of Oregon has even proposed (possibly utilized?) something by the name of "Mathemat-X" as a program to perpetuate these very possibilities.

Great post, definitely gets the old gears a' turnin'. Honestly, this is the best platform I can think of to have this discussion over, considering this may be one of the few places left on the internet to share unpopular or widely unknown opinions with relative safety.

A quick google search of Mathemat-X or 2+2=5 will give you a little more information on which I am referring.

Fair ammount of intresting stuff there I'll seach it.

 

[ColorfulElfBoy]

If "all" is "one" then either there is no all (perhaps only an appearance of such), or we have created a paradox (not assuming a paradox is invalid which is common in standard logic). If we say there is only one, how to we define what that one is when there's no relativity for itself to be defined in?

In timelessness, would you still say there are successions of moments?

Well, for example imagine no time. Everything will reach and be it's ultimate expression. Perhaps that being a single entity.

Time could be a focus of consciousness, and that foucus shifting throughout itself creates the felt movement/moment of our reality. Even though it's all already there, or calculated/end of time has already happened and is always here. You can break through the illusion in various ways to see the ultimate, Like some do with pure consciousness or god, and some with pure nothingness or hell.
Idk..

I've read we are all god experiencing ourselves. One consciousness exploring every possibility. I am you, you are me. Me = We. But we are separate due to our focus. And time is a flow of awareness. Whats driving that awareness, idk, tbh I'm reaching the edge of my current concepts of life, and I won't try to pretend I'm not. I'm very confused in life. It is great to have a place to express such ideas tho.

 

[endlessness]

I definitely get your point regarding "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". but instead of using arithmetic to explain it, the analogy I think might be simpler to understand is colors.. For example, Yellow plus blue isn't yellow-blue, it's green. It has its own character that is separate from the two colors that make it.

I think we can clearly see that in group dynamics, how different mixes of people will create very specific behavioral dynamics that cannot be accurately predicted when looking at the individuals themselves.

 

[Tomtegubbe]

I think we can clearly see that in group dynamics, how different mixes of people will create very specific behavioral dynamics that cannot be accurately predicted when looking at the individuals themselves.

I think we get an analogy from music. When to different frequencies (notes) come together, there is more than two notes, there is a harmony. This is what happens when people come together and that's why I enjoy tripping most when there are three people present. You are creating the trip together and there is always a balance element when there are three.

 

[Mind_Maze]

I like the general vibe of this concept. Mathematics are meant to represent a compression of real-world events involving quantities, movements, etc. While doing my VR experiments, I find myself thinking a lot about the limitations of our current relatively two-dimensional and narrow-scoped means of compressing information on paper, text files, even video.

Someday I see humanity creating a new method of sharing this information as technology advances, allowing us to more efficiently and accurately do so. One that will be as revolutionary as the moment we began to use written language and allow us to advance at an exponentially faster rate. One can only hope that our responsibility too will advance at such a fast pace.

 

[Voidmatrix]

I feel you. It's almost as if existence is layered in such a way that our minds need to change to see outside of the current pragmatic structure. I feel DMT allows us to bleed into those "realms" including bleeding into a realm of layered existence where all is one.

One could also say all is one in the sense all exists in existence.

Endlessness' point relative to unpredictability of certain behaviors of various amalgamations is pretty key in the Godelian idea: within a formal system, there will be truths within and about the system that are undiscoverable and unsubstantiated by the system. A complete formal system is incomplete lmao. There's monkey wrenches everywhere lol.

I'd like to piggyback off of Tomtegubbe for a moment. As they highlighted, when two notes (or any number) are played together, their unison makes a "harmony" and different kinds of harmonic structures can be observed (pending types and sizes of chords) When adding two frequencies together, it's not simple, as there are things to consider such as the relative amplitude of each, phase, etc. In binaural beats, our brains "create" a new frequency that we experience from two others, one in each ear (and different from each other). So the function of adding can have different behaviors in itself based on the context we're using it in.

Esoterism and Symbol was the other book I had been thinking of.

I think you may enjoy this even though it's a little unrelated.

Thanks for starting a great thread friend. I have had fun.

One love

 

[Exitwound]

Perhaps I misunderstand the term function in mathematics, if so I'd enjoy an education.
As far as I'm aware it means essentially a concept of non interaction, so you put 1 and 1 in and 2 comes out. It's passive. But that to me seems like getting something for nothing. I don't believe it applies to reality. It's a useful concept, but ignores all the energy expenditure that allowed that to even happen.

Math is a science of abstractions and logic. In math we first agree on a set of postulates (rules) and then build the rest of theory from there. What you take as a basic postulates, greatly changes the whole outcoming theory.

You can say that 1 + 1 = 3 in your new ColorfulElfBoy Algebra, throw in couple other postulates like commutativity (1 + 2 = 2 + 1), associativity ((1 + 2) + 3 = 1 + (2 + 3)), etc and build from there. Then see where it brings you and whether your new theory has any use for anyone (maybe it has!).

There are many different algebras used in different scientific fields, different from common (classic) school math, with some weird behaviours which unexpectedly lead to useful real-life applications.

To sum it up: anyone can theoretize whatever they want, it doesn't change that so far classic 1 + 1 = 2 is the most useful algebra for day-to-day life. It just works.

Also Kurt Goedel has been mentioned in this thread, I recommend every psychonaut to get acquainted with general idea of his most famous work, the incompleteness theorems