Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jake

Regulars
  • Posts

    349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Jake

  1. The logic in this sentence is the equivalent of stating, "All sheep are white. This sheep is black." Killing is not wrong in all contexts. Killing is only wrong if it is an initiation of force, or if it is an unnecessarily strong retaliation against the initiation of force. Wrongful killing is called murder. Murder is wrong. Killing in self defense is not murder (because it is not wrong).
  2. That's one of my favorite parts of The Fountainhead, because it's such a clear identification of a mentality I've seen far too often.
  3. Looks like I might have to drop some dough on the Kindle DX now. I've wanted it for a while for PDF tech pubs, but didn't see any books I wanted... until now.
  4. Wolf Blitzer interviewed the Scottish Justice responsible. I saw his name was 'MacAskill', but I didn't hear the interview.
  5. I don't see how that breaks Forum Rules, unless you claim it's an Objectivist position or maybe if the idea explicitly contradicts Objectivism.
  6. As a concept, 'time' is a human invention, but so is 'length' - neither is arbitrary. Every known fact of physics implies a relationship. The way we know something is red is that it emits photons which strike the cones in our eyes, which send electrical signals to our brain, etc. While you can't point to the specific atom or photon and call either 'red', the 'redness' of the object (in our perception) is more epistemologically fundamental than knowledge of wavelengths, because it is perceived. For example, I don't believe 'space' as such exists alone without matter; it is just the set of all distance relationships between particles. A particle doesn't literally move through space. It's distance relationship with every other particle changes, but space is a convenient way to describe it at some scales. I would agree that some people reify concepts as having some implicit, metaphysical fundamentality disconnected from the perceptual-conceptual chain. Here's something I just though of while contemplating your post... Humans experience time on the perceptual level (i.e. without need of the concept), and not just as a direction (before/after). I am not a physchologist or neurologist, but I think we experience rhythm without having to conceive of time. It's difficult for me to determine if I sense rhythm without concepts, because I have automatized so much at my age. However, my 10-month old will sway or bounce to music or rhythmic beating, but not to random tappings. This would mean time is more fundamental a measurement than energy or power, because it is directly available through perception. Any bio/neuro/psych types on the forum who can corrobate?
  7. No. I've never heard the phrase "argument from non-reality" used as a standard term to describe a certain logical fallacy, but if I understand your meaning: - The first quote demonstrates that one's facing life or death is a necessity if one is to value. She doesn't say "There is an indestructible robot...", she says "If there were, then it could not value." - The second quote seems like a response to some other idea, and I don't have OPAR with me to see what that idea was. Regardless, it is a demonstration using an imaginary, but not impossible, scenario. I think it shows that certain facts are self-evident, not because they are metaphysically more fundamental, but because they are at our level of perception.
  8. SI is a system of units. The base units are defined, and all other units are derived from the base units. The base units must be independent of each other. To use a good word from Rand, the base units must be incommensurate. You can't measure length in seconds or time in meters. If the meter [m] and the second are base units, then meters-per-second [m/s] cannot be a base unit, nor can feet [ft] be a base unit (feet and meters are commensurate). The base units do not have to be what they are. For example, you can build a system of units using Planck's constant [h], the Gravitational constant [G], and the speed of light in a vacuum [c]. These three units are independent of each other, and can be combined to give you units of length, area, volume, force, energy, power, etc. SI does this with kilograms [kg], meters [m], and seconds . In Mathematics/Physics, neither approach is right or wrong in all contexts, but one approach may be more useful for a given problem. I believe the SI base units are what they are, because they are the most directly perceivable independent units of measure. In some cases, I think the base units are such because they were the first unit discovered. I think that electric charge [C] is a more appropriate base unit than electric current [A], since current is a measure of charge per unit time [A=C/s], but I suspect current was discovered and/or defined first (I haven't studied the history). On a side note, did you notice (from your Wiki link) that SI defines the meter in terms of the second, and the second in terms of an atomic state change: If your question is more along the lines of "can we measure time without change". I would say no, but that doesn't make time any less fundamental. How does one measure "change" as such? The Earth makes 365.2422 full rotations every time it makes 1 full revolution around the Sun, but rotations and revolutions as such are incommensurate. The concept of "time" allows us to relate the two.
  9. While we're on the subject of reasons "God" cannot exist, I'd like to make a tiny adjustment to SN's excellent response and say that such a notion will take you on a trip towards infinity. (Unless the irony was intended...)
  10. Other than #4, all of the above definitions refer to humans (see bolded words). #4 reminds me of discussions I've seen elsewhere on this forum in which DavidOdden and others have described the difference between "communication" and "language". I would say that "body language" is a euphism, since the bulk of the behavior described as such is unconscious. "Body communication" would be a better term.
  11. I am reading Atlas Shrugged for the second time, and wanted to share a passage that struck me as eerily similar to Obama's speech material. I know Obama's "brother's keeper" idea has been discussed on the board, but I found no posts connecting it to this unfortunately prophetic quote from AS.
  12. Your body may be your property, but the photons you are so freely allowing to emit/reflect from its surface are not your property... ...Unless you want to lay claim to dead skin cells, nail clippings, lost hair, and excrement too. No, I am not.
  13. Facepalm Picard is trumped by the even more cliché forum pic: Photoshopped Kitten
  14. Perhaps someone should design one of these, but for forum posting and/or blogging instead of driving.
  15. Assume there's a test apparatus with a light source at x=0 and a light detector at x=1. Assume two observers, the first is stationary relative to the test setup, and the second is moving along the x-axis at speed v. The first observer sees light emitted at x1=0, t1=0, and sees it detected at x2=1, t2=1/c (where c is the speed of light). Special relativity states that the second observer will measure a different location of the detector relative to the source, and a different passage of time for the event, because he is moving relative to the apparatus. The location of the detector will be: The time of the detection will be: So, observer 2 sees the light emitted at x1'=0, t1'=0, and sees it detected at x2'=x', t2'=t'. To calculate the speed of light, both observers divide the observed distance between source and detector by the observed time between emission and detection. Observer 1 finds that (x2-x1)/(t2-t1) = c. Observer 2 makes a similar calculation: (x2'-x1')/(t2'-t1'). Since x1' and t1' = 0, this reduces to x'/t'. You can see from the above equations that the term sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) cancels, leaving (x-vt)/(t-vx/c^2). Plug in x=1 and t=1/c, and this reduces to x'/t' = c. And everyone agrees on the speed of light.
  16. Is Jill from Punxsutawney, PA?
  17. I'm not sure if you typed "Amazon" and meant "Barnes & Noble". I'm very pleased with Amazon's packing methods. They use the smallest box possible, shrink wrap multiple items together, and often use a cardboard backing for paperback books, making shipping damage very unlikely. This is the first and only thing I've ordered online from Barnes & Noble - the 10 books I ordered filled maybe 50% of the box volume.
  18. I've read through OPAR and ITOE twice, and I don't remember this being covered... I understand that entities have metaphysical primacy, in that the existence of an attribute is dependent on the existence of the entity having said attribute (and likewise that a relationship's existence is dependent on the existence of two or more related entities). What I was just thinking is that attributes have metaphysical primacy over relationships, or that the existence of a relationship is dependent on the related entities having the attribute(s) giving the potential to exhibit the given relationship. For example: Two electrons in proximity will exhibit the relationship of a repulsive force. Each electron has the attribute of charge -1, which means they each have the potential of exhibiting the repulsive force relationship in the right context (in proximity to another electron). As I said, the relationship is dependent on BOTH entities. I am NOT saying that the relationship is in an entity independent of another entity. I am saying that the potential or ability to exhibit a relationship with another entity is an attribute of the entity. Does this make sense? Can anyone think of a counter-example?
  19. I don't want to hijack the thread, but this quote reminds me of my opinion on monogamy. As I see it, polygamy/polyamory is not immoral. But for many people it is probably a poor decision for managing their time and energy. That's one of my favorite Heinlein quotes.
  20. I guess I'll blame it on the trans-Pacific trip and/or the Navy mail handlers...
  21. Was anyone else who purchased these $4 copies of AS disappointed by Barnes & Noble's packing skills? Of the 10 copies I ordered, 2 are slightly bent, 2 are seriously bent, and 1 has a torn back cover. They look like they were just thrown into a box with a few air-filled bags - the books were obviously not protected against moving around in the box.
  22. Yes, the 8th character is definitely Λ lambda , not Γ gamma.
×
×
  • Create New...