All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
37:25
TWO AND TWO MAKE FOUR - THE DEBATE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Stefana.
Amazing.
Most amazing time of my life.
I had an unbelievable month.
Thank you for asking.
And you, Stefana.
Things are well.
Things are well.
Thank you.
All right.
So you wanted to educate me on two and two don't make four.
You have to just mention the context, right?
Context is important in anywhere outside of the savanna, let's say.
All the big things, all the small things.
I'm sorry, would you can you wait a minute?
I will close the window.
There should be some lace.
All right.
All right.
So we should.
So I'll mention the context.
So I had a call, I think it was on Friday, where somebody was on the line and I was saying, do two and two make four?
And he said he was not certain of that.
He was 99.99% certain of that.
And I said that was wrong, that two and two make four.
And if you can't be certain that two and two make four, you can't be certain of anything.
And if you can't be certain of anything, you have no right to really engage in discussions about truth claims.
So that was my basic argument.
And you wanted to set me straight on that.
Yes, just for the starters, yes, two and two make four.
But, however, there are two important points.
There are contexts in which if you only go by the numbers, then two and two will apparently not make four.
You need additional context to actually understand them to be as four.
For example, if you are in the IT domain and you are working with numbers of different bases, then you can get a number like 10 or 20 even if you are and you actually need to ask which number base is being used.
Otherwise, you will not be able to learn and accept that two and two make four.
You will not be able to read that just from the number, from the information.
Okay, do you think that that makes sense to anyone?
I mean, what you're saying.
Like you have to, I mean, it doesn't.
I mean, this is a general philosophy show, right?
So we deal with a general audience, which means that you have to use general terms that people understand.
So if you're saying in computers that two and two don't make four, or that there's some other thing, I mean, I understand sort of binary notation and all of that.
But are you saying that in the realm of computers, two and two don't make four?
Well, now we are getting to the interesting part because my work, the philosophy is general.
And by general, I mean really general.
It touches pattern recognition, both in humans and in computers.
So what I am saying, that there is a hierarchy of layers of concreteness and abstraction.
It applies both to AI and to humans.
And by holding, by keeping this consistency in this hierarchy of abstraction, you enhance your pattern recognition.
And this internal, bro, what do you enhance your pattern recognition using AI?
What does that have to do with two and two make four?
Well, I know you don't like to introduce new concepts.
No, no, don't, don't be rude.
Don't be rude.
Let's not start off our conversation with you being rude.
Because I'm very happy to introduce new concepts.
In fact, most of what I do is, I mean, I've got a new concept of love.
I've got a new concept of free will.
I've got a new concept of secular morality, new arguments for all of that.
So let's not start with insults.
I'm just asking you to explain what you mean when you say that two and two sometimes don't equal four and explain it to me like I don't know what you're talking about.
Because so far it's just a bunch of words that don't mean anything to me.
Maybe that's because I lack technical knowledge, but just explain it to me because this is going out to a general audience.
Just explain it to me like I'm five years old.
Yes, very well.
Your example with two and two equals four assumes the context of base 10 decimal numbering system.
So if you leave that context out, then sometimes two and two don't make four.
You have to provide that decimal context.
Okay, but the problem is, if you say there's any other context in which two and two make four, if there's any context where that's not true, then you violated the law of identity.
Because as you know, in the decimal system, when you say that two and two make four, you're saying that four equals four, right?
You're saying that an object equals itself.
And this is a foundational law of logic, right?
The law of identity.
A is A. And, you know, you could say it's kind of a tautology, but that's fine.
So when you say that two and two make four, what I'm saying is that four equals four, which is a foundational law of identity.
Now, if you say, well, there's contexts in which an object does not equal itself, four does not equal four, then that's a foundational logical error or contradiction.
And that's what I need to understand.
How is it possible to violate the law of identity in the arguments that you're making?
I am saying it is not possible to violate the law of identity.
However, it is possible to obtain an unreadable information, a meaningless, meaningless bunch of numbers that way.
There are contexts.
You, when you say four equals four, you are assuming the decimal numbering system.
You don't have to.
Okay, so tell me, tell me, sorry, I'm sorry, because you'll have to step me through this.
Tell me what is the alternative to four equals four.
And again, this is just the law of identity.
So if there's another system, then in that other system, the thing has to equal itself.
So let's say you have a number called blue unicorn for whatever reason, right?
In some other alternate numbering system.
But blue unicorn has to equal blue unicorn, right?
Because that's still subject to the law of identity.
So even if you have some numbering system that is not decimal, and I'm sure that there are such things, they would still be subject to the law of identity.
I mean, and this is what I was really saying.
Was this person, and I'm not sure if you have the same, but you say that the law of Identity is inviolate, which it is, then if you're going to say that there are other numbering systems, they would still be subject to the law of identity.
And so this person on the call on Friday, which is who you wanted to defend, which is great, the person on Friday was saying, A does not equal A. I cannot be sure that the law of identity is valid.
And that is not valid.
That is not a rational conclusion.
That's not a valid conclusion.
I mean, you can reject that, but then you're just rejecting all kinds of logic.
And then I wouldn't have anything particular to say to someone like that, because epistemologically, that would be craze, right?
I mean, it would be like somebody says, hand me the salt shaker, and you hand them the salt shaker and they say, this is not the salt shaker.
It is the salt shaker, but it's not the salt shaker.
That would be an indication of mental illness, right?
So again, I'm not saying that this person or you are mentally ill, but that would be a sign of that if that were to happen in your real life.
But so, yeah, I mean, whatever alternate numbering system would still be subject to the law of identity, would it not?
Yes, yes, of course.
Yes.
May I share the opinion on that color?
I listened to that show yesterday.
Well, I mean, I'm happy to hear your opinions, but I thought we were having a debate, and opinions aren't particularly certain with regards to a debate.
And again, I'm certainly happy to hear your thoughts, but I would like to hear the alternate numbering system.
But if the alternate numbering system is subject to the law of identity, I'd still also be curious how in that alternate number system, 4 does not equal 4.
It does, it does.
But I am saying that to recognize what it does equal within the law of identity to read it properly, you need to know the context.
There are multiple alternate contexts, and you need to match the number with the right type of context in order to actually read it, in order to actually know what it means.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Can I give you a practical example?
I mean, I don't understand the theory, and it seems to me just a bunch of words.
But if you want to give me a practical example, maybe that would help illuminate what you're talking about.
But go ahead.
All right.
So imagine that you are back in your old job at Industries, or what was the name of the environmental company.
But it is like a big IT research company.
You have actual scientists from multiple fields and so on.
And you need reports from them so you can manage them.
And they like to include what they are working for.
So they send you numbers, for example, this or that number.
And what are the numbers that they're sending me?
What do they represent?
They represent their computer science work, let's say.
You are just a manager.
You are not the expert, but you need to communicate with experts.
Okay, so an example would be the amount of air emissions, right?
Let's say it's 100 units, right?
So they send me a report saying that this company has produced 100 units of air emissions.
Okay, got it.
Yes, yes, yes.
That is brilliant.
That is brilliant.
Because you have scientists from multiple backgrounds.
Some use the metric system.
Some use the imperial system.
Some are from China.
They use some kind of Chinese system.
And in order to know what that number means, you need to know the units in which that number comes.
And then you can convert it in your Excel or something.
And then you can properly understand if what they are actually reporting.
Okay.
Yep, got it.
So I need to know the units and whether it's metric or empirical.
Yeah, I mean, I've done code that converts all of that sort of stuff.
So I got it.
And then?
So, and because you want to make your work easier, then you order all those types of units from the most granular, from the smallest to the most biggest, the broad across-the-board units.
You arrange them in a hierarchy, so to speak.
So I convert them to a common format, and then I order them lowest to highest.
Okay.
Yes, exactly.
So, and when you put the number that you get in the right rung on the ladder, then you get the right result.
You know if that number is actually big or small in practice.
Yes.
And there is a similar ladder of units, and those units are base systems, like base number systems.
On the bottom, you have the binary with IT.
And on the top, you have the hexadecimal, the 16 base system.
Both are used in practice.
And in the between are there is our familiar decimal that we know and love.
So I'm trying to sort of think about this in terms of computer storage.
So with computer storage, the lowest is binary, which is just one, zero, true, false, yes, no.
And then it goes to minus 3,267 to plus 3,267.
And then it goes, that's an integer, and then there's a single, and then there's a long, or something like that, right?
So these are numerical systems or mathematical storage systems for memory.
And it's whether you need integer numbers, it's like whole numbers, no decimals, and then you need a single or a long, or if you've got more decimals that you want to store.
So is that the kind of hierarchy that you're talking about?
Yes, yes, exactly.
Very well.
When you only store in bits, one, zero, you need a lot of bits, like grains of sand on the beach.
But if you store information in like a float format, then you only need like relatively few of those chunks of memory.
So they are also pretty human-readable.
Also, sorry, sorry to interrupt.
So I understand, of course, that numerical systems aren't binary.
I mean, they're not zeros and minus one is the way that it works in computers, of course, as I'm sure as you know.
But if the computer saw something, let's say it's true, false, right?
Generally, minus one is true, zero is false.
So if you say that the answer is true, right?
So if somebody would ask me the question, were you born in 1966?
And I would answer that as true, it would be stored as a minus one in the database or in the computer programming.
And that would be true, right?
So the law of identity says that the true statement is a true statement, right?
It's factual.
Yes.
And so it would not be any different from two and two make four foundationally.
Everything other than the binary is still in the integer numerical system that we were talking about, the integer system.
Sorry, what did you refer to it as?
Oh, the integers, the integer system.
I mean, I refer to the hierarchy of abstraction.
Just let you mention the calendar, which is very good.
I mentioned the calendar?
Yes, the year of birth.
Let's say you get a person from Russia who is not using Gregorian, but a Julian calendar or someone from China who is using another type of calendar.
He gives you a number, but if you do not know which system that number is defined under, then you cannot, that it's nonsense.
You know, you will not be able to read it.
It has identity within the system, within that calendar, but not necessarily within your calendar, because the numbering is different.
Identity is preserved, but to preserve identity in our mind, we must know which system, within which system that number has a meaning.
Okay.
But there is no system in which the law of identity is violated.
Is that right?
Yes, that's right.
Yes.
It will always be inviolable.
We can only fail to read it because we apply the wrong position in the table of those systems.
Okay, so when I'm saying to someone, does two and two make four?
And they don't want to violate the law of identity, then they have to say, yes, 100% two and two make four in the integer system, right?
We both agree on that.
I agree.
And I must add, does that person should have explicitly said that this is within decimal system, within decimal system?
It's not within the decimal system.
Now, tell me, because we just went through the whole thing, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but we just went through a whole thing where we said there's no numerical system or no system of any kind that violates the law of identity.
So given that two and two make four is four equals four, which is A is A, which is the law of identity, there is no system which violates the law of identity.
Therefore, there can be no system wherein two and two do not make four.
Now, there may be a system where two and two is not referenced.
It's, I don't know, some color-based system or something like that, but it still cannot overturn the law of identity.
And therefore, two and two will always make four in the same way that if I say something is six units away from you, you don't know if it's millimeters or inches or centimeters or kilometers or light years or parsecs or anything like that, right?
So if I say something is six units away from you, you don't know how far away that is from you, and I understand that.
However, whatever is six units away from you, if we're using the same units, will also equally be three plus three units away from you, because three plus three is just another way of saying six.
And if you say that three plus three doesn't equal six, you're violating the law of identity, which we've agreed you cannot do.
So removing information in terms of context still doesn't give any system the capacity to violate the law of identity.
Is that right?
Yes, yes, that is right.
I am just saying how to successfully communicate to avoid misinterpreting that information, to make sure that the system is also adopted along with that number.
Sorry, but there's no system.
If we agree with each other about the law of identity, then there's no system that can violate the law of identity.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
But you, in your subjective experience, you do not know if the other person uses the same system as you.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
No, it doesn't matter.
Because there's no system which allows for the violation of the law of identity.
So if I say two and two make four and somebody says, well, I don't know if you're talking about abstract numbers or meters or pounds.
It doesn't matter.
Because there's no system of measurement.
There's no system of logic in which you can violate the law of identity.
So it doesn't matter in what context or in what framework we're talking.
Two and two make four.
That's the law of identity.
And there's no system that's rational that can violate the law of identity.
So there's no context that is needed.
I agree.
You are right about that.
I do not dispute that.
Oh, fantastic then.
Maybe now would be the good time to share what do I think actually about this caller, what was going on in his head on your call.
Well, hang on.
So we have resolved the dispute.
In that context, it doesn't matter.
Two and two make four, and anyone who disputes that is attempting to violate the law of identity.
Yes, yes.
I understand.
I disputed that.
Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to up.
So go ahead with your thoughts about the colour.
Yes, I do not dispute that truth.
And actually, I think that the caller also did not dispute that, but he was simply just ignorant about, he was both ignorant and overly careful.
This is what I think.
He did not know enough to actually dispute that.
No, it doesn't matter because there's no amount of additional knowledge that allows you to overturn the law of identity.
I thought we already went through this, but we can get through the answer.
It doesn't matter if he knew more or he knew less.
Right?
Other than if he was some sort of herbivore or monkey or something like that.
So it doesn't matter if he knew more or he knew less.
It's not like additional knowledge allows you to overcome the law of identity.
It doesn't matter how much you know, the law of identity is inviolate.
Do we agree on that?
Yes, absolutely we do.
Okay, so it's not a matter of the gradations of knowledge.
And what was the, so you had two points, I think, with regards to the caller.
Yes, I think so.
I think so.
You know, people are suffering from terrible existential anxiety when they are not absolutely sure in the law of identity.
They are sure about the identity of things they can see within the horizon, but then after horizon, it's like the flat earth and drop right into the void.
They are not sure about what they cannot physically see or reach.
They will generally agree, 99%, that 2 plus 2 equals 4 here and now.
But if you ask them if the same is true at the million light years away or a million years ago or in the middle of the black hole, they will not be sure anymore.
Well, but they would have to be, because if you're going to say a million Years ago, then you're using more numbers, right?
So you can't say, well, I'm not certain about numbers, but I'm certain that a million years ago, I might not be certain because you have to be certain then instead of two and two make four of the million years ago or the million miles away or something like that.
No, listen, look, I understand.
I think I understand, and maybe you agree.
I do understand that certainty creates anxiety for people.
Really?
Because there's a lot, sorry, there's a lot of times in history where people have said, oh, I'm certain about X or Y or Z, and that certainty ends up being overturned, right?
People were certain the world was flat.
People were certain that heavier objects fell at a faster rate.
People were certain that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it.
So people were certain of things.
And of course, a lot of science and certainly, well, I would say mostly science to some degree, mathematics, and philosophy, hopefully.
But people are certain of things.
People were certain that slavery was morally valid.
People were certain that the best system of social organization was a fairly tyrannical monarchy and so on.
So people were certain of all these things.
And it turned out that they were wrong.
They were wrong about these things.
And so I think science has given people a justified hesitation in making certain statements.
I think to the point of absurdity, like there was somebody on X the other day, I think it was yesterday, who was saying, you know, science doesn't prove anything.
And it's like, well, no, that's not true.
I know it's a continual process of refinement.
But science doesn't argue that the world is banana-shaped.
And science doesn't argue that gases don't expand when heated.
And science doesn't argue that matter or mass has the property of gravity.
These things are not.
And he's like, well, gravity can't be proven.
And I'm like, no, come on.
We wouldn't be alive if gravity wasn't a fact, because there wouldn't be any atmosphere on the planet, which we need for at least being carbon-based life forms.
And, you know, every time you walk around, you re-establish the existence of gravity because you're pressed down to the ground.
And every time you get on the scale after Thanksgiving dinner, you're reminded of how gravity can affect your weight.
So the idea that we don't know anything, the sort of radical skepticism, I mean, it's great to be skeptical, of course, right?
But you have to have a methodology by which you can be something other than skeptical.
Because otherwise, you end up in this absurd position, which happened at the call on Friday, where the next caller was like, well, Steph, you were unfair, right?
To the guy who was saying two and two make four.
I'm not sure that two and two make four.
And that, of course, is a wild thing to say, I don't know that two and two make four, but I know that you're being unfair.
Because moral judgments are more tricky than judgments that are almost tautological, like law of identity stuff, right?
So saying two and two make four, if you can't be certain of that, then you can't be certain of anything with regards to morality.
And then, of course, that makes the world a very dangerous place because evil people are very certain.
I mean, they don't have the complicating factors of empathy and skepticism and humility and self-doubt and all of that.
So you do have to be able to ground your morals in certainty.
And if you can't be certain that two and two make four, you can't be certain about any moral standards or values, in which case you lose the world to evildoers.
So to me, that's one of the reasons I was fighting fairly ferociously, I guess, with them and perhaps even with you, is that certainty is essential for the world to be a moral place.
Sorry, go ahead.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
But you remind me.
Sorry, I'm not a Hegelian or whatever, but you remind me of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
The initial state, this pathological certainty.
People are certain, but they are not able to explain why.
They are not able to walk you through the steps.
It's basically just an emotion.
No, no, sorry.
Sorry to interrupt.
People do explain why.
If they say, well, why does the sun go around the earth?
They just look at it, right?
I mean, we're standing here on solid ground and the sun is rotating around the sky.
Clearly, they would have arguments as to why, or they would say, with regards to, is the earth the center of the universe, they'd say, well, in the Bible, it says the earth is fixed and does not move.
And it accords with God's experiment with humanity.
So they would have reasons, if that makes sense, but they would not be valid.
Go ahead.
Okay.
So do you have like a method to walk people from this initial, like basic, naive certainty through to the healthy skeptical uncertainty and then into the philosophical certainty again?
Well, sure, yeah.
I mean, I've got a whole, I think it's 17-part introduction to philosophy series that I did in 2007, I think it was.
And basically, the idea is you start with a blank slate and you build with reason and evidence a worldview that is consistent, consistent with rationality and consistent with the observable facts of the universe and at the highest levels also with the observable facts that the free market generates wealth, which means that there must be something rational about it.
And say communism or fascism destroys wealth, which means there must be something irrational about it.
I mean, if you build a bridge and it stays up, even if you don't exactly know what you're doing, you've done something right.
And then you need to figure out the principles.
Whereas if you build a bridge with some other material, like balsa wood, and it keeps falling down, then you're doing something wrong.
So yeah, you start with, okay, I don't know anything, the Socratic thing, right?
You start, I don't know anything.
So how do I build certainty?
And this was sort of a Cartesian exercise, right?
Rennie Descartes started with this and said, okay, the only thing I know is that I think.
That's the only thing I know, and he wanted to build things up from there.
Now, he went totally sideways into the being controlled by an external demon simulation matrix nonsense.
But yeah, you start with a blank slate.
And this is what science did, right?
It started with a blank slate.
And it said, okay, look, if we're going to talk about the universe, the universe is rational and consistent.
Yes, the behavior of matter is rational and consistent.
Therefore, any theory which describes the universe or describes the behavior and properties of matter and energy must be rational and consistent.
In other words, since matter is not self-contradictory, then any theory that describes the behavior of matter cannot be self-contradictory.
So first you look for logical consistency, and then you look at measurability.
Does it accurately measure what happens in the world?
And you should then say it should be predictive, right?
So it would accurately predict the behavior of matter and energy in the future.
So that's how you would do it with science.
And that's how you do it with knowledge as a whole.
You exist, the senses are valid, and the behavior of matter and energy Is stable, predictable, rational, empirical, and universal.
And you build your knowledge up from there, and then you would arrive at moral theories, moral theories being universally preferable behavior.
They must be rational and consistent across space and time.
And therefore, any moral theory that is self-contradictory is invalid.
And therefore, you have to have moral theories that don't involve themselves in self-contradiction.
And then ideally, they also both explain the past, the present, and predict the future.
So, for instance, the initiation of the use of force is immoral.
And therefore, things like these lockdowns and mandates and so on, which were the initiation of the use of force, will have bad outcomes, and this is my prediction.
And of course, it turned out to be the case.
So, sorry, that's a very brief sprint through it, but hopefully that makes sense.
Of course, I am very familiar with your series on the philosophy and with the Descartes as well.
I will try to not to digress since you explain them so well.
But I thank you for basically doing my work for me.
You are presenting like frameworks or resolutions.
You have this camera and you can zoom in to basic principles, or you can zoom out a little into a human scale.
And on both scales, there is consistency.
And this consistency is identity.
It's virtue.
It's logic.
And if a person wants to be a good philosopher, a good thinker, then he has to be able to find this reality, to read it correctly, or find where someone deviates from reality on multiple resolutions, the most granular, and then zoom out a little, find where is UPB on that level.
There is UPB.
There is logic on all levels, on all levels of reality.
So this zoom out exercise is like going up and down a ladder.
And I found it extremely useful to think of reality as those layers, ladders.
And each layer has its UPB in a different resolution or different granularity or different complexity.
And each level must be mastered.
That is what you have been saying.
Each level has to be abelled.
I have one small thing to add to that.
Those, besides this kind of inconsistency or insanity on every level, those ranks of ladder also have to be arranged in a logical hierarchical manner from like low resolution where you see grains of sand or atoms to humans to a greater like a cosmic revolution because evil doesn't come only.
Evil, insanity and vice doesn't only come from breaking the UPB among humans, but also valuing the more concrete, more zoomed in layers above the more abstract.
Switching the order of ranks on the ladder or the layers of the pyramid, that's also where evil, insanity, and vice can come from.
Yeah, and I also want to reiterate a good summary.
And I also wanted to reiterate that it's really not that complicated.
And I'm not saying that you're trying to overcomplicate things, but it sounds pretty daunting.
You know, every step of the ladder has to be rational.
We're very good at this.
I mean, if I don't know if you're a dad, but if you've raised kids, you know just how effortlessly they conceptualize the world.
I mean, it's a wild process to see.
Like you point out that this is a chair, and like within a day, they're identifying every chair in the vicinity.
They can identify a chair on the television show.
They can identify a chair of the library.
And they can even identify something that's like a chair, but not quite a chair, like a stool or something like that.
I mean, it's wild.
So we are really, really good at creating universal abstractions from very, very limited information.
And that's really our great strength.
And most of what people need to do to solve problems of philosophy is simply to slow their role and figure out what it is that they're doing in the moment.
So if I'm correcting you, or you're, let's say, let's make it more generous.
If you're correcting me, right?
So let's say, say, the two and two make five.
Then if I say two and two make five and you say, no, it's actually four, like which would be a math teacher dealing with, say, a four or five year old and say, well, no, it's actually four and here's why and so on, right?
Count these two and twos, right?
And oh, one, two, three, four.
Oh, four, okay.
So if you're correcting someone, you're using language.
You're relying on the evidence of the senses to communicate that language.
It could be visual.
It could be, well, I guess like tracing.
You could even trace on their hands if they're deaf, dumb, and blind.
You could use sound to speak or something like that.
And so when you correct someone, you're saying, well, there's such a thing as objective truth.
If you're going to make an objective truth statement, it needs to be objectively true, which is kind of a law of identity thing, but it's a process.
And I'm going to use language.
I accept that both I exist and you exist.
And you're going to correct me based upon reference to a universal standard.
It's not a matter of will or bullying.
You are sort of hopefully somewhat gently reminding me that if I'm going to make a statement that is universal and objective and valid, it needs to be true.
And so if we look at what we're doing during the process of debating or correcting, UPP is validated, objective truth is validated.
The validity of the senses is validated.
The fact that there is an objective universe out there is validated because there would be no point correcting someone about the physics of their dreams at night because that's a subjective experience and there's no such thing as universal truth or objectivity or a shared reality in dreams.
So if people, when they debate, simply say, okay, what are all of the assumptions that I need to make in order to correct someone using language?
Then like about 95% of philosophical problems are solved with people simply accepting their actions when they correct someone.
Right, right.
I think Hans Hermann Hopper calls something similar argumentation ethics.
That's like the academic term.
Yes, I understand what you mean.
The notes in making self-detonating statements, that's a real training.
It's not just you learn information.
It requires training.
Yes.
Right.
Fantastic.
Listen, I certainly appreciate you advocating for the listener.
And I do have sympathy for people who have anxiety about certainty.
Because if you are certain of something, and I've obviously been doing this for like 40 years, if you're certain about something 100%, people get anxious.
And the reason, I think one of the reasons for that is that they've been bullied by people who were both certain and wrong.
▲
Export Selection