StrictlyLogical

aleph_1 you should know by now no one outside of the police, military, judiciary of a proper minimalist Objectivist government should receive any money from the government for any reason other than perhaps if required (for example hired services) in further of its proper role. Funding of any third party is "abhorrent".

aleph_1 1. Are you making your moral judgment in respect of "baby" body parts on the premise that a "baby" includes any human being having lived separately and exterior to its mother for any amount of time or do you include non-human being, i.e. tissues which never being both separate from and exterior to its biological host, such as a fetus or a zygote etc. 2. Are you using the term "profiteering" in a sense to differentiate it from "profit" if so in what sense are you making a distinction? 3. Do you believe that selling a valid contract is immoral, or only that selling invalid contracts is immoral? 4. Do you believe that voluntary sale of tissues by an adult constitutes initiation of force on the part of the buyer? Would it be illegal in an Objectivist society or simply something which is shunned as contextually it more often than not could be a self-sacrifice on the part of the seller and an irrational choice. 5. Is the real problem a market being created for "tissues" which cannot be analyzed to distinguish whether they were from a living human being or from a pre-human fetus/zygote, actual baby humans being very helpless, and adults (parents, doctors, acquaintances, or strangers) being fallible possibly immoral and capable of murder for money? 6. What would be the solution in an Objectivist society, both in terms of ethics (rational self interest) and politics, protection of individual rights and NO initiation of force or fraud (by anyone including the government)?

I do not know that it would be immoral to rely upon a physiological tool.... it likely represents a deficiency in character on one's journey to moral perfection. Imagine a man who rationally knows that some action is proper, but he does not, for whatever reason, take the action. If he, for example, loves the smell of chocolate, he could set up a physiological reward system... allowing himself a sniff when he takes the action, and denying himself his regular sniffs when he defaults on the action. Now is such a thing somewhat preposterous? yes. Is it immoral? no... Is it something he should do on his way to perfecting his character? perhaps. I, however, would tend to believe most intelligent rational people would gain more from working directly on the problem of taking action for the right reasons rather than relying on physiological ... treats.

There likely would be a separation of power between government "as such" and organizations which raise money (government being voluntarily funded) for it. "Representation" may not be what the results of any vote is.... what is there to "represent"? Perhaps only that particular persons in the Police, Military, or Judiciary would likely need to be chosen (in rotation, in geographies etc.) and from among qualified candidates who pass an objective test, perhaps a vote could choose one to hold each important position... Other than that ... no one would be "represented" in order to change government's sole role of protecting individual rights.

Perhaps one should define what is meant by "voting" and in what context. Certainly in a purely Objectivist society/politics, government's ONLY role would be to protect individual rights and voting, whatever its purpose, would not be capable of changing the role of government nor its limited powers. If the poster is curious about a "mixed" politics, where government violates some of the rights of some of the people in certain ways at certain times because some majority of people voted for it to do so... then you have a non-Objectivist system ... and quite frankly an entirely different kind of question.

Philosophically not quite there regarding what makes good art but certainly excellent critique of modern art.

I'm not sure why measurement error has become so active in the discussion about QM but I believe there is a conceptual parallel between: Perception cannot be incorrect and is always valid since it is Objective.... when I consider an entity in reality with my perceptual apparatus which has a form and identity I perceive it due to the entity in reality acting upon my perceptual apparatus in the form of X, e.g. red color. Interpretation of percepts is of course subject to error since humans are infallible: capable of error. Measurements being an absolute when one conceives of them as objective, when I measure the attribute of reality with the measurement apparatus having a specific form which utilizes a particular means/standard tied to its identity, I get a "reading" of X due to the interaction between the apparatus and reality. As with perception, the real errors with QM lie in its interpretation, not the measurements we observe nor the mathematics which exactly match them... i.e. only when we try to determine what they mean do we start making the mistakes.

Agreed. The existence at the QM level (and at various other levels) is what makes how we perceive things at the macroscopic level etc. ... possible.

Confusing the map for the territory is very common. The intellectual sandbox many play in is often one of word games, math games, pushing little symbols around and seeing what happens. These symbols and arenas of activity become reified, they take on a platonic realism in one's mind due to the sheer amount of time one thinks of them as externalities whose referents and the reality thereof are often simply not considered day-to-day. It is an understandable error, one which I can relate to but one which is not acceptable. All one needs to do, and I think you cover this well in your last paragraph, is to ensure there is no confusion concepts and abstractions whose ultimate referents are entities or attributes of entities in reality, with the entities and attributes themselves.

Someone who understands what morality IS could infer from your remarks what you mean. But someone who has not yet discovered the standard of morality may completely misunderstand where you are coming from.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt you've thought this through. Please explain according to what standard it is "immoral" and rationally why/how the facts when taken in view of that standard lead you to conclude that it is "immoral".

The "hypothetical" has premises (some implied) which when integrated as a whole are not internally realistic or non-contradictory, which is often the case when hypotheticals are contrived: 1. The software program being sold for money is "expensive". 2. An alternative is being offered for free under GNU. 3. By implication, neither of these was produced via piracy of direct duplication of the other. 4. Somehow each of these two products are simultaneously able to exist in the market, one being given away for free the other being expensive 5. These two products are claimed to be identical. 5 is impossible (strictly speaking) if 3 is true. 1, 2, and 4, together is not a possible realistic situation even if 3 were false and 5 were true. When confronted with clear inconsistencies and impossibilities one must, in order to make the hypothetical make ANY sense, make some adjustments which minimally affect the number and nature of claims so that a consistent realistic non-contradictory whole story can be maintained. Clearly 5 is the one we must ignore for consistency as it is the least realistic and inconsistent when integrating the whole. Louie, you cant let a hypothetical lead you around by the nose; step back and think about it. if it is silly but you still want to address it, it is perfectly valid to remove the silliness.

1. My product is NOT identical to the GPL-licensed software. If my competition includes freeware, I have made sure that mine is better, otherwise in the market I would fail. 2. According to Objectivism the standard of morality is my "life", but it is to be looked at rationally - i.e. a morality of rational self-interest. This necessarily means taking into account all consequences over the long term. a) It is not in my rational self-interest to "deal" with mentally disabled persons who do not have the capacity to trade as independent rational men, and whose incapacity are no fault of their own. My interest is better served speaking with a trustee or guardian: outlining why my product is better than the "free" product offered by the competition, and why my product will be a benefit to the mentally disabled person. 3. Feelings are not a guide to action. Especially if they stem from an improper epistemology or incorrect morality, such as altruism. They are guides to your implicitly and possibly subconsciously held premises... and to the degree you can trust them, and only to that degree, emotions can prove a useful first impression. 4. If a fully rational adult chooses to buy my program (which I know is better because I had to make it better), I have no "duty" to inquire whether or not they have considered my competition's product, nor is it moral to do so, unless I believe in the long run it will benefit me. (for example if I have a line of product which do not have free counterparts and which I believe I would have a better chance of selling if I tell the fellow not to buy my program for which there is a similar free product on the market)..

Please explain. Recall sometimes "extrapolation" or analysis of logical implications from certain premises can be to various degrees incorrect, due perhaps to relying upon other additional premises unstated or subconscious etc. In this particular instance we need to look at the principles and their implications not who said what in the past. I ask you to indulge in this kind of exercise Plasmatic.

Boydstun is perfectly correct. Those who exaggerate the implications of QM to mean contradictions exists in reality are just as wrong (and they are) as Objectivists who jump to the same conclusion in order to "doubt" QM's formulations (the science not the flakey interpretations of that science). I have seen nothing from the math, imply anything that contradicts the law of identity. The issue that arises, and many have difficulty with, is just "what" has identity and what is the "nature" of that identity.

Boydstun, I'm curious. I think you may be most qualified to answer : What would an Objectivist's integration and understanding of the applicability of mathematical abstractions such as group theory and symmetry to reality and identity, look like? I'd like a taste of what the explanation would be of A. this is what is in reality, B. these are the abstractions and why they are coherent with reality. I have a background in physics and my colleagues at the time seemed perplexed and often confused reality with abstraction...

So the coined term I am looking for is "metaphysical possibility". Thank you all!

It is not critique immune. On the contrary, in the absence of ANY evidence whatever tending to show that some positive assertion about reality is true (which for here, there is none), holding the assertion as possible, probable, or true is completely futile. You speak of "disproof". There is not such requirement. The onus of proof is on the one who claims the positive. Far from immune to criticism, a positive assertion lacking any firm evidence becomes the target of criticism because it is an arbitrary statement of no cognitive value whatsoever. If I say to you there is a little invisible undetectable blue devil in another dimension making you think you are who you are but you are really a poached egg... well that statement is ridiculous, it's fantastic, it's unbelievable, ... on what basis would I have to even claim such a thing? None whatever. What do you need to do in order to disclaim and ignore such an arbitrary statement that I have made? Simply point out, there is NO evidence which supports my position, NO reason in reality for my saying it or claiming it to be true, and no reason for you to give it any weight. Why should one not try to disprove an arbitrary assertion for which there is no evidence? Because if the arbitrary statement is a falsehood, it is a statement about a non-existent, until there is evidence of its existence there can be no appeal to reality to prove its non-existence. There are no facts of reality that are a consequence of the non-existence of the blue devil... non-existents can have no consequences, and to search for such evidence would be misguided and unnecessary. You need not "undermine" such an assertion , nor "disprove" it. You need only observe, that if you choose to be rational, any assertion which is truly arbitrary, i.e. lacking any evidence in reality tending to show its truth, you must completely ignore and dismiss it as cognitively invalid.

What in reality is the cognitive usefulness of the "ideological Turing test" as you explain it other than merely to parrot, the "words" used to express the position of the opposition: note that some positions are wrong, incoherent, illogical, based on false premises etc. What purpose does it serve for the "partisan" as you put it, to pretend to hold wrong positions, or pretend to possess concepts which are incoherent, pretend to "think" in a manner which is illogical, or pretend to hold false premises? Certainly during a discourse one can "repeat" what another has said, even outline their premises and logic (with all its flaws) in order to ensure you have the whole story before you proceed to decimate it (when wrong) or applaud it (when correct), but in the larger scheme who cares whether a "partisan" would or could "pretend" (and there is no doubt about it, this test is about pretending, not merely understanding) to support the other side ? Simply put, pretending achieves nothing, and it's not bad that people are not willing or interested to do so. Pretend to Support the following (Anselm's ontological argument) and you will note how ridiculous and irrelevant such an exercise is (I'm not actually asking you to do this as I believe it is a waste of time, I merely want to illustrate such is a waste of time): It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). God exists as an idea in the mind. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.) Therefore, God exists.

For some reason this thread always shows up in my listing as having 0 replies.... anyone know why?

I do not think it is so much a way to "promote" the philosophy, since Life is the standard of morality in a real sense productivity (properly defined) IS (in) the philosophy.

Can you specifically address the above two types of situations to which the term "probability" is used.

HD I am sorry but your post makes no sense to me. First let's set the background. The discussion is in the realm of a universe that does not obey strict determinism. What that means is: the exact state of the universe as it will be 10 years from now is not logically necessitated (not in 1 to 1 fashion anyway) by the exact state of the universe at 1:16 pm May 29, 2015. In other words the future not only does not yet exist, it has multiple possibilities, potentialities, it is undetermined ... until it has happened. Now clearly there is a meaning one can ascribe to "possibility" which deals with the fact that the future is undetermined. There are facts which restrict all the possibilities to certain possibilities, e.g. there is no possibility of grabbing Hegel in the bag of marbles, but there is a possibility of grabbing a blue one and a possibility of grabbing a red one. Now imagine you grab one and put it back before looking at it. Clearly, identity requires that independent of your knowledge you must pick up a marble which is blue or a marble which is red. Prior to picking up a marble and placing it back without looking at it, you can objectively say, as a statement about the universe, there is a chance it will be blue and a chance it will be red. This probability is independent of your knowledge of the marble being red or blue, in fact it is just as valid assuming you will have no knowledge about it ever. Of course once you pick it up ... and also after you put it back, you of course know that metaphysically the marble was with certainty red, or with certainly blue, you just have no idea what it was nor will you likely ever know because you put it back. These are distinguishable because, (as our premises are laid out) the universe (for our hypothetical) is not deterministic. In one case things as such are not determined and are hence possible, in another you characterise the certain states of the universe in terms of alternatives, the frequency of which you may know but the actualities of which you are ignorant and possible will forever be ignorant. If the universe were deterministic (as the universe you believe in) this would be a different story, because in principle all you need is omniscience to know exactly what anyone (because under determinism there is no volition) and everything (because under determinism QM probabilistic behavior does not occur) will do forever into the future. Clearly in such a case as a deterministic universe nothing is metaphysically possible or probable, everything is determined and certain, and anything like the words "probable", "possible" etc. would only be an identification of our lack of knowledge (humans not being omniscient). Perhaps we can think of it this way There are two "types" of facts: I: The current universe does not "know" what the future holds II: Individuals a) do not know what the future holds; and do not know everything about the past or the present These are different types of things which are related to the use of the word "probability".

Refraining from getting any further into the issues here: when you speak of the example of the marble in one's hand, are you saying there is no sense in which the term "possibility" can be used? I think this is valid but it means a shifting of language. BUT the person, although not knowing which color he has, does have knowledge about the number of balls, AND this is practical knowledge in certain contexts. If he were given a wager, that he could bet 10 with a return of X dollars if the ball is blue, and that he can do this (resetting the bag each time) indefinitely over and over, he has enough knowledge to know that it makes sense if the return is more than 40 dollars, and that it does not make sense if the return is less than 40 dollars, and that it is simply over the long run a waste of time if the return is 40 dollars. This real world knowledge is often referred to as risk, sometimes likelihood, on the face of ignorance. If the term is not "probability" what term captures his incomplete knowledge?

HD You are mixing/confusing abstractions and entities. Entities are what they are, abstractions are used to deal with thinking about entities, entities do not and need not conform to abstractions, the very reverse is the case. Geometry is a specific part of mathematics. Mathematics in general is a field of abstractions which may or may not apply directly to existents, properties of existents, or relationships between existents. Certainly integer "number" can directly be a property of a group of existents such as a pile of marbles. Volume in general can also be applied when properly defined. Abstractions also can be useful to "approximately" deal with entities. Take the example of an abstract shape like a "perfect" circle. It is a curved line in a two dimensional plane. The line of the circle is infinitely thin or better put, it has no thickness whatever, only tangential curved length. This is directly applicable when thinking about the path a point on the edge of a real object traces when it rotates in free space, but is only approximately applicable when thinking about, for example, a cookie. What extended shape in matter could have no thickness whatever? Nothing. This does not mean the abstraction "circle" and its properties like radius and area, are not useful when thinking about cookies, in fact they can be very useful. What we conclude here is only that entities do not actually come in circles. It is clear that abstractions are not the same as entities. You can abstract away the 3rd dimension to get a 2d shape in your mind. You also can abstract away the variations of a real cookie to get the curved line of a circle. You can calculate the approximate area of the cookie using the area of the circle and by multiplying by the approximate thickness you can determine approximately "how much" (volume of) cookie you are eating. What you define as "perfect" is simply equivalent to the "abstraction" of something from reality, all other things abstracted away. Real "circles" are made of entities, entities are 3D, if you refer to some "perfect" circle which is 2D you are referring directly to only what ever can "be" 2D, an abstraction. Since reality is the given, I would refrain from thinking in terms of "perfect" this or that, all you are doing is thinking of the abstraction and feeling short changed that the entity is not the same. It shouldn't be, and your abstraction is still quite perfectly valid. It's simply that these two kinds of things are different and that's all. Not really a big deal.