Question:

Does 1 + 1 = 2?

by | earlier

I was thinking, if sub-atomic particles and perhaps the universe can come into existance from nothing than it logically follows that:

0=1 (perhaps more likely 0 <> 0)

Thus logically it follows that this can happen:

0+0=2

But if 1+1=2 then how can 0+0=2?

And then 1 is not necessarily 1 at a subatomic level... I guess its between:

.99999999999999999999999999999999999 (going to infinity) and 1.00000000000000 (going to infinity) and our whole universe was created in the virtual crack between these two numbers.

Am I right? Does arthmetic based on obsevation (eg 1+1=2)

break down at the sub-atomic level because 0 is observably not equal 0?

Tags:

Report

Answer The Question I've Same Question Too

Follow Question

9 ANSWERS

Sort By: Date | Rating

This is the assumption that literally nothing existed prior to, say, the Big Bang. With an enormous density unparalleled by anything else, all matter in the universe could have come from an infinitely small space, but that isn't "0" per se.

As for your question, though, 0 could equal 0.00000000...0001. Therefore, 0+0+0+...+0 approaches 1. In that case, 1 is nothing more than a ton of zeroes summed, so 1+1 = 2 is a similar case to 0+0+0+...+0=1.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
In math we consider that all "1 digits" are equal.  If you consider a "group" (or "set" or whatever you desire) that has one "1 digit" in it and want to combine that group with another group with one "1 digit" in it, you get one group with a 1 digit and a 1 digit in it.  We name that a group with "two" 1 digits in it.

However, there is no such thing as "equality" of different pieces of matter in reality ... only a "reflexive" equality would be considered (a thing is equal to itself).  Two "things" are "equal" only if they are the same thing.

So if you combine two sets each having one orange in them, the result is said to be a set with two oranges in it ... but this is not the same result as combining sets of abstract concepts like numbers, because the individual members of the set of two THINGS are NOT, and cannot be, "equal" ... they are distinguishable.

So, if one starts mixing results from math with results from reality, you can pretty much come up with any nonsense you like.  Mathematics only describes the real world in a limited fashion.  The difference is the quantum world, and the world of quantum behavior says exactly that one cannot know the real world with mathematical precision ... but that one can know it with calculable mathematical imprecision.

Mathematics does not "break down" ... it simply does not describe the real world in the first place.  Mathematics is an abstraction.  We hope that we are not.
Report (0) (0) |   earlier
You have to understand that quantum mechanics do not apply to our everyday basic mathematical problems. The universe didn't come into existance from nothing....it's beyond our comprehension. The burst of energy was itself considered mass, because einstein said e = mc^2....meaning that energy also has mass. So if you look at it from that point of view, then 1+1 = 2. Another explanation is the presence of dark matter. The anti-matter = matter.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
No, I'm NOT a religious nut. But, it is a good place to start this. Perhaps the Bible (Genesis 1:1) is right, there was a "Beginning" when time started (See Stephen Hawking's "A short history of time"). There was no "Before" the Big Bang, time-space just "started" from nothing. How's that for a mind bending thought?
Report (0) (0) | earlier
ideally 1+1=1
Report (0) (0) | earlier
You might be mixing logic with mathematics. "Nothing" can also be the absence of any interaction. The universe itself is a necessity to picture your idea of nothing.

1= the universe, and 0= not the universe .

But since we only defined the universe and not what was before that, "not the universe" could be any number except 1
Report (0) (0) | earlier
Eleven.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
No, it is a convention that 1=1=2

IF YOU CHANGE THE RULES
Report (0) (0) | earlier
Spontaneous quantum creation of particles in no way implies that mathematically 0=1. Not even a tiny little bit. Even your phrase "coming into existence from nothing" implies *change*, not *equality.*

So since your proposition is false, the entire argument is invalid. Next.
Report (0) (0) | earlier