Is Everything Opinion And Perspective?

A united state of mathematics is the connection of objective, subjective, and denial as a human reaction.

"Things" of legal grievance are truth, whole truth and nothing but truth......

Let me try to explain. Whereas 1 + 1 = 2 under a axiom we can write in whole truth to direct learning ( letter i) I + I = I, I =  the value of any number not any one specific value this does mean 1 + 1 approximates in total 3 values, so the contradiction of fix equeation then plays the same roll in basic addition it plays in algabra 1 + 1 = 3, The assumption of truth describes #2 unwritten and the equal sign  ( = ) is acting as a plus sign ( equal = +). 

SWHpkins the point Minecarft tried to make though never quite found the right words to describe the grievance is can algebra be applied to basic functions like addition even though there are not letters used in the addition form of writing calculations?

Let me try to explain. Whereas 1 + 1 = 2 under a axiom we can write in whole truth to direct learning ( letter i) I + I = I, I =  the value of any number not any one specific value this does mean 1 + 1 approximates in total 3 values, so the contradiction of fix equeation then plays the same roll in basic addition it plays in algabra 1 + 1 = 3, The assumption of truth describes #2 unwritten and the equal sign  ( = ) is acting as a plus sign ( equal = +). 

I have seen multiple proofs of 1+1=3 and all of them suffer from mathematical fallacies; so no, 1+1=3 is incorrect no matter if you're using fundamental math or algebra.  Try me with any actual proof you can find.  

SWHpkins the point Minecarft tried to make though never quite found the right words to describe the grievance is can algebra be applied to basic functions like addition even though there are not letters used in the addition form of writing calculations?

Actually, basic functions serve the root for all forms of real-world numerical mathematics, so if there is a disagreement between the fundamentals and algebra, then either the problem is with algebra and not the fundamentals, or the application of the mathematics is in thought rather than real-world, in which case we're dealing more with logic than numbers, and should avoid trying to apply numbers where it is a fallacy to do so.  Every proof of 1+1=3 uses letters and theorems to form an equation and then tries to apply numbers when, if numbers were applied previously in the proof, the proof would become invalid.  If you actually study math, you will see that numbers are the root of all math.  Every equation must be verified by numbers, so if the numbers don't verify the equation, then the equation is wrong.

More on topic, that has nothing to do with anything that Minecarft said in the debate that I was responding to and nothing to do with whether reality or truth exists.

What is the truth then? How can we determine the truth can exist if everything that we know is simply subjective opinions?

You don't seem to get it.  The truth is the truth.  I'm not saying that I know the truth, I'm just saying that there is one.  The question is, does my opinion align with the truth and reality.

You cannot make an opinion of reality that opinions have no affect on reality and its laws. That is a contradiction.

How is that a contradiction?  It is a greater contradiction to accuse me of a contradiction when you supposedly believe that "Can I not hold contradictory opinions and beliefs if there is no such thing as objectivity regarding logic?" is a valid statement.  

And what makes something true?

Being true.

Why are values either true or false, why can't a statement be true and false simultaneously?

Because that contradicts the meaning of true and false.

If objectivity is created, rather than always being so, then objectivity is not truth.
If you are to define objectivity as partially based on perspective, then what if one's perspective differs from another? If a person states that there are two apples on a table, and another person approaches it and says there are three apples on the table, then whose perspective is truly objective? Are they both objective? 

First, I didn't say that all objectivity is created, only certain objective codes.  As I said, perspective has nothing to do with created objective codes, such as language; that's because it was created and therefore does not exist outside of itself.  For example, the word "apple" was created; if it wasn't, then the word wouldn't exist and there could be no perspective on it.  No one could have any perspective or opinion on the word "apple" before someone created it.  The fact that two people are debating about apples clearly indicates that they've already accepted the objective existence of the word and are merely debating on their perspective of the objects to which they believe the word relates.  Once again, perspective is not objective; I never said it was.

Irrelevant. We are not discussing the existence of definitions pertaining to certain objects or values. Rather, we are discussing the existence of true objectivity itself. And whether or not our current system of logic and empirical observation to determine "truth" is adequate.

But we should be if you are asking questions regarding definitions.  For example, you asked what a contradiction is; you also asked why something can't be true or false, to which I replied that it's because it contradicts the meaning of the words.  Your asking questions pertaining to language, which as I already said, is a created objective code.  Also, I'm not debating that mine or anyone else's opinions are true, I'm merely saying that they can be. 

You previously stated objectivity is partially based on perspective, and thus truth is based on perspective... Therefore, don't our opinions shape reality by your claims?

As I already explained, no, objectivity is not based on perspective.  Also, reality is not affected by created objectivity.  For example, the created word "apple" does not, affect reality.  Don't mix up the words "objective", "truth", and "reality".  Just because it's objective doesn't mean that it's a part of reality.  However, if something is part of reality, then it is objective.

My argument does not rely on a common consensus of opinion to form what is considered to be the truth

Neither does mine.

How can you say that truth can exist? My argument relies on the fact that there is no real way to prove the existence of "truth." 

Because by definition, truth does exist.

There is no way to prove that objective reality exists with absolute certainty. However, there are a few things that we can do to support the idea. First, we can look at the evidence of our senses. Our senses tell us that there is a world outside of our minds, and they tell us that this world is consistent and orderly. This is evidence that there is a world that exists independently of our thoughts and beliefs.

Second, we can look at the evidence of science. Science has shown us that there are laws of nature that govern the universe. These laws are consistent and orderly, and they seem to exist independently of our thoughts and beliefs. This is evidence that there is a world that exists independently of our thoughts and beliefs.

Ultimately, the question of whether or not an objective reality exists is a matter of faith. We cannot prove it with absolute certainty, but we can support the idea with evidence from our senses and from science.

I have seen multiple proofs of 1+1=3 and all of them suffer from mathematical fallacies; so no, 1+1=3 is incorrect no matter if you're using fundamental math or algebra.  Try me with any actual proof you can find.  

By definition truth is not whole truth, nor nothing but truth.

Seriously, the best connection to established justice is to use a test which describes the chopping off human fingers and time how long a person might bleed afterwards?