Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

William O

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


William O last won the day on March 24

William O had the most liked content!


About William O

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

6918 profile views
  1. To start off, I'm not arguing that change isn't objectively real. I think it is. I'm asking how Objectivist intellectuals explain the sociological fact that most physicists are confused on a particular philosophical point. From what I understand, most physicists accept the B-theory of time, which denies the objective reality of change, on the grounds that it is supposedly implied by Einstein's theory of relativity. (I don't have a source for that other than anecdotes, so if I'm wrong then by all means let me know, but this is what I've consistently heard.) I'm curious whether any Objectivist intellectual has given an explanation of the fact that most physicists accept the B-theory of time. The type of explanation I'm looking for is the same type of explanation given of a-causal interpretations of quantum mechanics by Harriman in The Logical Leap, where he points out that the physicists who accept these interpretations of quantum mechanics are logical positivists. I found that satisfying, and I'm curious whether anyone has provided a similar explanation of the widespread acceptance of the B-theory of time among physicists. Thanks in advance.
  2. This is also my answer. I'd be surprised if there were one specific book you ought to read next. Edit: For reference, the first book I read about Objectivism was OPAR, which is supposedly an awful place to start learning the philosophy. So the order you read in is really not a big deal.
  3. He will be making a "quasi-book" out of his HBL posts on philosophy of mathematics since 1998, with an overview essay. He wrote a post announcing the book on HBL a couple of weeks ago. The theme will be that Plato and Kant need to be expelled from philosophy of mathematics.
  4. It looks like Harry Binswanger has a new book on philosophy of mathematics in the works. That should be interesting.
  5. Maybe some of the non-Aristotelian "logics" that have been developed. Some of them allow true contradictions and three or four truth values. Or you could look at Euclidean geometry vs. infinitely many non-Euclidean alternatives. It's hard to see how they could all have a connection to reality. This isn't something I've thought a lot about, I'm just tossing out some possible examples.
  6. The only reason proof by counterexample is valid is that it is a contradiction for a claim to both be universally true and have counterexamples. If the law of non-contradiction is false, the scientists cannot know that spooky action at a distance exists. The experiments proving spooky action at a distance and the non-existence of spooky action at a distance could just be a true contradiction.
  7. She wasn't "unfaithful," though, since her husband was fully aware of what was going on. Her actions were perfectly consistent with the trader principle. I know what you meant, of course, but you could have been more accurate with your phrasing. This is important on a public forum which is frequented by novices who may not have a firsthand understanding of the situation. Why was it wrong to keep it a secret? It was nobody else's business. Moreover, both Peikoff and Rand surely knew it would serve as the basis of personal attacks against Rand and Objectivism once it became public.
  8. I removed a post containing an unnecessary personal attack above under the "no personal attacks" Forum Guideline. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/guidelines/
  9. I'd expect an Objectivist to be attacked for advocating Objectivism on any philosophy forum that isn't run by Objectivists. The reason for this is that most philosophy enthusiasts are influenced by academic philosophy, which rejects, or at best ignores, Objectivism. It occurs to me that this is one reason why it would be useful to have a solid explanation for the academic rejection of Objectivism that would be acceptable to a typical philosophy enthusiast. Most explanations of this rejection by layman Objectivists seem to amount to "well, academics are dumb," which isn't going to be compelling to most philosophy enthusiasts. To address the topic, Reddit has a lot of philosophy discussion subreddits (which are basically forums). r/philosophy is one example.
  10. If we're being precise, scientismists do stand for something: science.
  11. I haven't seen anyone bring up the contrast to religion in this thread. Tyson's comment that the universe doesn't care about you could reasonably be taken as a rejection of religion, which says that the universe does care about you - or, at least, is controlled by a magical omnipotent God that does.
  12. You might find this blog post useful for figuring out a purpose for your life: http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-central-purpose-in-life.html
  13. Where are you getting the idea that Binswanger is a substance dualist?
  14. @Veritas, in case you weren't aware, Dr. Binswanger responds to emails from laymen, and he has a paid online forum (HBL) that you can subscribe to for free for two weeks. So it's entirely possible to ask Dr. Binswanger himself these questions if you're so inclined. If you do this, I'd appreciate it if you posted the results here.
  15. I'm asking how modus ponens is justified. I am not (knowingly) asking about child psychology or the history of logic. It is fair to ask of any item of knowledge "how do we know X?" The reason for this is that there is no such thing as innate knowledge or divine revelation, which means that all knowledge must be traceable by some series of steps back to observation (the given). So for example, "how do we know the earth is round?" and "how do we know concepts are formed by measurement omission?" are fair questions. I'm just substituting modus ponens for X in this formula. Yes, I made a mistake in the OP. What I tried to do if you look back is to stipulate that "the Objectivist answer" means either the answer given by Rand or the answer given by an Objectivist intellectual. This was a bad idea on my part and it has contributed to considerable confusion since it directly contradicts the correct definition of Objectivism as the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Overwhelmingly, philosophers have maintained that logic and mathematics are not justified by observation and induction. That is what I meant, although naturally logic itself is much less controversial than philosophy of logic.
  • Create New...