Does 1 x 1 = 1? Apparently, not on a Flat Earth

Zero does not exist in nature, if you multiply a thing by the very definition of multiplication there has to be more, one times one is not one, it is minimally two, maybe it’s something else.

The panel went on to discuss that zero and negative numbers do not exist in nature. I think that arithmetic, the most basic mathematics, disagrees. Following the typical sort of examples that we hear while learning arithmetic at a young age, I could ask, “If I had three apples and you took three apples away from me, how many apples would I have left?” However, Crowe777 might object, saying possession of things such as apples is not natural, so let’s stick with natural things and natural phenomena. If there are three trees in a meadow and a tornado rips all three trees out of the ground, how many trees are left in the meadow? Zero. Crowe777 might object that there are no trees, not zero trees, but that is to argue semantics and possibly philosophy. The Romans could not conceive of nothing being significant, so they had no number for nothing. This is one reason why arithmetic using Roman numerals can be tricky. It was quite an innovation when during the Middle Ages Arabic numerals made their way into Europe, along with the concept of zero being a number, though the Arabs borrowed this idea from the Indians. I would argue that not having something is the same as having zero quantity of that something.

Change is part of the natural world.

Arguing for the reality of negative numbers is more challenging. I could bring up debts and deficiencies, such as in owing money or banking, but Crowe777 likely would object that these are not natural examples but merely are impositions of man. Negative amounts of trees or apples may not seem to fit in the natural world so easily as the concept of zero does, but the basic arithmetic operation of addition and subtraction would suggest otherwise. Change is part of the natural world. For instance, as new trees sprout in a meadow, the number of trees increases. This is a positive change in the number of trees. For instance, if there are three trees in a meadow but later there are six trees, then the number of trees in the meadow has changed by +3 trees. If on the other hand, a tornado rips the three trees out of the ground, then the number of trees in the meadow has changed by −3 trees. To deny the reality of negative numbers in this case is to deny the reality of change in nature. The changes we observe around us are only possible because of our sovereign God (who upholds everything in the world), so the reality of positive and negative numbers stems from the mind of our logical God and the way he has ordered the natural world.

I will be very interested to see how other flat-earthers respond to this new revelation about 1 x 1 ≠ 1. There is a herd mentality among flat-earthers—once a prominent flat-earther makes a claim, other flat-earthers tend to uncritically repeat the claim. On the other hand, there is another panel of well-known flat-earthers who often bash the Globebusters panel. They probably will be unmerciful in their criticism of Crowe777 and the Globebusters in this matter. Time will tell which side, if either, most flat-earthers will fall on in this debate.