Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

YGoldenberg

Regulars
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About YGoldenberg

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    YGoldenberg
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    BGU
  • Occupation
    Programmer
  1. Simply log each user`s IP address. these usually map 1:1 to countries.
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation If the term is not well-defined, follow the link and see the pictures Question: Is is moral to Masturbate AND to fantasize having real sex? (Just to make sure, I`m talking in a personal context. leave the government out.) 1. Wouldn`t that count as evading reality? (For, in reality - I`m single) 2. If the only reason for masturbating is pleasure, would that not count as hedonism? can a man "living QUA man" masturbate? 3. Sex is depicted by Rand as a "celebration of one`s existence". Is is moral to celebrate by myself? 4. Is it moral to watch ("unspeakbly disguisting"/AR) pornography, for assistance in masturbation?
  3. Does OE accept proofs of the negative type? For instance: Zero is defined as the number (marked "0") which satisfies: (Ax: (0*x = 0)) AND (Ax: (0+x = x)). Claim: In any given set with well-defined and useful (+,*) operators, If zero exists - it`s unique. ("useful" means commutative and associative) Proof: Assume that two different numbers "0" != "O" qualify as zeroes. We know that 0*O=0, since O is a zero, Also we know that 0*O=0 since 0 is a zero and * is commutative. Hence, 0*O=0=O -> 0=O -> *BOOM* How about this one: Claim: There`s an infinite number of integers. Proof: Assume that the claim is false, that there`s only a finite number of integers. Define N as the largest integer. Since the method of generating integers is unbounded, there exists an integer larger than N -> *BOOM* The problem here is: In what sense do these integers "exist"? Surely these don`t "exist" in the same way as apples or socialists... Do thoughts exist?
  4. Iv`e been comtemplating this question for a long time. Suppose we are to estimate a nation's material prosperity (and not "living standards" which depend on one's preferences), It`s clear that GDP is inadequate since it sums both private production and public "production". I suggest that we compare real average income. First we shall find the "average shopping cart" of two nations - this reflects what people usually buy in a year, averaged on both nations together (with proper weights). It`s a good approximation for people's preferences. Example: the avg US shopping cart consists of: 1 HDTV set, 200 gallons of fuel, 100kg of food etc... Now, to make "real average income" out of our "avg. shopping cart", calculate how many hours must a man work, earning the average wages, to buy that shopping cart. Iv`e calculated the difference in material prosperity between Israel and the U.S, based on MY personal shopping cart. That shopping cart consists mostly of Electronics, cars, books and very little food. Also, Iv`e used MY income against the average income of a young top-notch US programmer (which is $90,000, U americans are so greedy ) The result was overwhelming: my US collegue is 15 to 20 times richer.
  5. I have no cookie problems and am currently logged-on to another web-forum service running exactly the same software. I can`t even post on the question forum, e.g. ask questions.
  6. Does Russell`s paradox suffer the same fallacy? That would be an elegant way to end a 200-yr mathematical debate - no self references! I wonder, since computer languages cannot self-reference, why should human languages do that?
×
×
  • Create New...