If 2+2=5, then bertrand russel is the pope

  • Thread starter Entropia
  • Start date
In summary, Inconsistent logical systems are not useful in getting at "the truth", as shown by Bertrand Russell's "proof" that if 2+2=5, then the Pope and Russell are one. Epistemology plays a crucial role in establishing the coherence and validity of scientific hypotheses and axioms. However, there is no necessary connection between logic and ontological reality, and some scientists doubt the possibility of ever finding a complete "theory of everything" due to this limitation. Despite this, it is remarkable that we have been able to understand so much about the world through the use of logic and conceptualizations.
  • #1
Entropia
1,474
1
Inconsistant logical systems are not useful in getting at "the truth". The following is a cute "proof" by Bertrand Russel:

If 2+2=5...
that means 4=5...
so, let's subtract 2 from each side...
that gives us...
2=3...
transposing, we have 3=2...
now, let's subtract 1 from each side...
2=1...
Now, since the Pope and Russel are two different people, and 2=1...
Therefore, the Pope and Russel are one.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's not necessary to be that complicated.
In general, If p is a false statement then
p=> q
is true for any statement q:

The direct statement: "if (2+2= 5) then Bertrand Russel is the pope" is a true statement.
 
  • #3
There is an anecdote about this demonstration (I do not know if this really happened).It is said that during a public lecture Russell was making the remark that from a contradictory set of axioms practically everything can be deduced.At this a man from the public interrupted the lecture and challenged him to prove that from 4=5 results that he is the Pope.Which he brilliantly did...

In another sequence of ideas [my comments are general,possible you know very well,I do not intend to sell flowers to the gardener] the necessity to avoid internal incoherences is what make epistemology so important:its task in mathematics and applied sciences is to establish whether the scientific hypotheses (or the axioms of mathematics) are coherent therefore acceptable logically:all sets of premises (including axioms) must have internal consistence.Indeed in order to be experimentally adequate all scientific hypotheses must pass first the logical test.

Is logic a feature of reality?Well,there is no necessary connection between ontological reality and logic (since logic is a feature of human reasoning).From the fact that we understood so many facts about nature using conceptualizations based on logic does not follow that this will always be the case;in fact there are enough many scientists who are skeptical about the prospects of finding a 'theory of everything' exactly due to this problem.
Anyway,as Einstein once remarked,it is a real miracle that we have been able to understand so many things so far...
 
Last edited:

1. What is the significance of the statement "2+2=5"?

The statement "2+2=5" is a logical contradiction and goes against the fundamental principles of mathematics. It is not considered a valid equation and does not hold any mathematical significance.

2. Why is Bertrand Russell mentioned in this statement?

Bertrand Russell was a British philosopher and mathematician who made significant contributions to the field of logic and mathematics. He is often associated with the concept of logical paradoxes, which may explain why his name is used in this statement.

3. Is there any truth to the statement "If 2+2=5, then Bertrand Russell is the Pope"?

No, there is no truth to this statement. It is a nonsensical statement that does not hold any logical validity. The statement is a play on the idea of logical paradoxes and does not have any factual basis.

4. Can the statement "If 2+2=5, then Bertrand Russell is the Pope" be proven or disproven?

No, the statement cannot be proven or disproven because it is a logical contradiction. The statement itself is illogical and cannot be evaluated using traditional scientific methods.

5. Why is this statement often used in philosophical discussions?

This statement is often used in philosophical discussions to illustrate the concept of logical paradoxes and the limitations of logic and mathematics. It also highlights the importance of critically evaluating statements and not accepting them at face value.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
217
  • General Math
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
877
Replies
5
Views
700
Replies
4
Views
871
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
766
Replies
55
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top