Allen Atsea

Arrghhh. . . I responded hastily before. I snapped that last comment out as I was rushing to get the hell out of my job. I obv. wasn't working at the time but still . . . I needed fresh air and sunshine!!! OK, looking at time in a semi-classical framework (i.e. in special relativity) --> doesn't the existence of different frames of reference in which the flow of time is different, show that the flow of time cannot be pinned down, objectively? Which frame of reference is the objective one? But there are precise differences between Earthly frames of reference where distance and time are concerned. How can you Honestly dismiss them just because they are small in size? This is like saying that whenever I add 2 and 2 I get 4. And whenever you add 2 and 2 you get 6. I can always know how you perceive the addition of integers in your frame of reference by always adding 2 to the perceived outcome of my own arithmetic. Do we share an objective concept of mathematics in this case? Do we share an objective concept of integers? Yes, but the price for our universal perception of the laws of physics is that our perceptions of other "observables" (in quotes, because as I mentioned in my last post, time isn't considered an observable in QM -- but we can use distance/energy as observables in this case) vary from frame of reference to seperate frame of reference.

Time is not the instrument we measure with; it is what we measure. The instrument would be a clock. The microscope is to the cell what the clock is to time. I agree with almost everything you said, Cap, having some background in physics as you obviously do as well. I agree with it all (and salute your inclusion of the Lorentz transformation into the discussion )except your above statement is a little off I think, but discussion re the measurement of time is admittedly a sticky wicket. I'd just add that time has no operator in quantum mechanics. In QM, time is not an observable, it is a parameter. A clock measures movement -- it is the movement of the hands on the clock that are what you observe -- not time itself. So, does a clock really measure time? Or is time a operator-less parameter while the position of the clock's hands are what we really measure?

Fair enough, Felipe.

I agree that the axioms are induced. As I cede my existence as being necessary to at least participate in this discussion, I haven't denied existence by saying it takes a perceptual leap of faith, in the absence of logic, to accept the Objectivist axioms. I would also like to point out that I was not denying the axioms, only questioning how they were produced. Aside from the primary axiom, Existence exist, take the corollary axiom, To exist is to have identity. The latter is another induced axiom derived through perception. We experience consciousness as being something unique to and distinct from other things, things which are not a part of our consciousness, i.e. things external to our minds. But that is not to say that our brains do not draw possibly artificial distinctions through existence, consciousness as we know it, could not function without doing this, whether the seperate identities we attribute to objects are artificial or not. Because consciousness relies on this does not make it true necessarily. We can rely on our perception of reality only to determine whether this is true or not, and we cannot use logic, as this is the unprovable foundation of logic. So, suppose hypothetically that as existence surely exists, our perception of it leads us from recognizing that it is truly a gestalt, and that everything we perceive as being a piece or a constituent part of existence is an effect of the brain's need to classify and group things, a survival mechanism if you will, to ultimately distinguish between things that bring us life and things that bring us death, when the truth is, existence has no real parts, it is irreducible and therefore not completely knowable in any terms that extend beyond itself as a whole, i.e. existence is existence, and existence is only existence. Back to my original point re: faith vis-a-vis Objectivism, it therefore requires a leap of faith to believe that an understanding of reality is possible in terms of analyzing its constituent pieces, knowledge of which may or may not constitute actually knowing reality. To rely on the fact that perception does distinguish elements of reality from other elements of reality as an unquestionable fact about the nature of reality, is to overlook an equally valid assumption: that our experience of discrete identities may be more a fact about the nature of perception.

1.) To critique a point about Objectivism is to deny my own existence ? -- if only you could hear how that sounded on the outside looking in. 2.) The Problem of First Principles is an argument not a principle. 3.) I didn't create it, Aristotle did. 4.) The Objectivist axioms are not rationally justified -- a possible path to rationally justifying them would be to imply them from a propositional corollary, as I think you are suggesting. (However, this has difficulties too.) But Rand doesn't even approach this as a possibility towards maintaining the rationality of the system: "One knows that the axioms are true not by inference of any kind, but by sense perception." Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 8 Therefore saying that they are implied by later propositions is not the method of validation Rand employed though I applaud you for feeling intellectually obligated to do so. 5.) My point is that the principle axioms of Objectivism are by definition, explicitly illogical -- logic was not used to claim them as being self-evident. Are they deduced? No. Are they adopted because implied by corollary propositions? No. Did they evolve from Ayn Rand's sense perception in some undescribed fashion? Yes. Are they therefore removed from logic? Yes. 6.) You are using logical implication to try to prove me wrong. However, Rand herself says that this is not whence her principles sprang. 7.) The principle axioms of Objectivism were derived in an illogical manner. QED

This is fundamentally axiomatic to you but you cannot logically justify your faith in its truth. If you could, you'd need to adopt new principle axioms from which Objectivism's principle axioms would logically follow. Aristotle evolved the idea of "self-evident" principle axioms and Rand ran with his idea in developing her system without any improvement upon it. The fact is, in order to accept Objectivism one must accept its "self-evident" principles, principles which by their very nature, must be illogically adopted in an act of faith (belief without logical justification).

Since you're repeating yourself, I guess I'll repeat myself: I agree that the chain of propositions that proof of the Problem of First Principles depends upon ultimately leads to an unverifiable axiom. However, because an axiom is adopted without deference to rational explanation does not disprove it. It merely indicates that it is not capable of being explained. A logical train of thought cannot be infinitely long, can it? At some point, logical inquiry must be arbitrarily ended in order to prove anything. So, you are making an incorrect assumption regarding logic and offering no proof that the proof of the PoFP I demonstrated is false or self-refuting. I recommend reading Aristotle if you still think this is a self-refuting argument.

Tom, logic is divorced from the process of adopting principle axioms. This is why Ayn claimed her axioms were "self-evident" instead of logically validating them. That was my point, but I'm officially outta the argument. . . now. . . as tempting as it may be to me to jump back in. . . but I won't swear that I won't be overcome by the impulse to do so. Anyway, I'm pretty sure OPAR explicitly rejects the notion God (noticed you stated god's existence as a fact of reality) in the section on the nature of the arbitrary, if you still have your book opened there: "one can demonstrate that the idea of God contradicts all the fundamentals of a rational philosophy. Thanks to such a process of integration, what was initially arbitrary attains cognitive status - in this instance, as a falsehood." Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 166.

I was being ironic when I called it a 'thingie' since you seemed to have temporarily forgotten that your philosophy was built with logic when you stated: "Proof does not always require demonstrating that a proposition is valid, based on other propositions. That is only a special case of proving something." Game? Where is this coming from? You're hung up on the fact that I assume reality does not exist because I'm at intellectual odds with an aspect of Objectivism? This even though I've stated several times that I do think reality is objective. I didn't realize Objectivists had exclusive claim to thinking reality was objective.

You have a way of doing that, that doesn't require logic? "All truths are the products of a logical identification of the facts of experience." -Leonard Peikoff, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Expanded Second Edition, p. 112. My discussion of proof relates to logic. You know, that thingie Objectivism employs. (Its axioms aside) Objectivism brings this special way of proving something to bear on the rest of its structure and claims to be devoted to it. I'm with Felipe in that I'm really not interested in arguing this anymore on this forum.

Right, I read Rand's assertion that her axioms were implicit in all propositions, even false ones. This does not change the fact that acceptance of her axioms is illogical and therefore must be done in faith (belief divorced from logical proof). Yes, I've made a faithful choice not to be a nihilist. I still understand that I have no logical basis for doing so. But it is much more fun than lying in the fetal position. I've obviously made a choice to move beyond the problem of self-evidence / first principles in living my own life. And I'm ready for in-depth study of Objectivism and other philosophical systems now -- though I'll focus on Objectivism for now. And I don't want this argument to become counterproductive to my use of the forums in my studies. Basically I'm saying that we simply may not be able to see eye to eye on this issue at this time, no matter what arguments we make. This issue, while of high importance to me, is something I'd like to work on resolving as I continue with my studies.

I already explained it earlier in the thread: I'll add that this presents a disconnect in the use of logic in developing a coherent system of thought, between using logic to prove everything else in, say Objectivism, and being unable to use it to produce its foundation. Other Rational philosophers have produced systems of thought based on unprovable self-evidents, e.g. Descartes's Cogito ergo sum. So the adoption of self-evidents it is to an extent arbitrary, or based on individual preference without logical justification.

Flaw as I am using it = insurmountable limitation in offering explaination It's logic that is flawed. See the Problem of First Principles, http://www.friesian.com/founda-1.htm Sorry it's a link from the Friesian School But keep in mind that Aristotle is the one who identified this argument.

And I also now wish I wasn't so belligerent in making my point.

Taking something as self-evident without being able to prove it or explain it is not an act of faith? Felipe, I ask you to cede that this is a flaw inherent in all logical systems of thought. This is a shortcoming of logic itself. So, Objectivism isn't any worse off than any other philosophical system in this regard. Maybe I just mean to say that a certain level of skepticism is always good.