Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

StrictlyLogical

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    125

Everything posted by StrictlyLogical

  1. I’m no art expert, but often media and technique as well as the result are taken into account when labelling artistic works. In traditional real world media, two dimensional representations like drawings are created with things like charcoal or pencil or colored pencil whereas paintings are traditionally created using oil paint or acrylics etc Other works are similarly labelled by technique or medium (and sometimes end product) A “drawing” is the product of a sum of an artists colored strokes of a pencil and a “painting” similarly a sum of an artists colored strokes with a brush. Sculpture can be built up from clay to create a mould and cast in which bronze may be poured which can be distinguished from a “carving” which by definition starts from some block of medium being carved or chipped away whether or not that material is the final work or used for a cast. In the modern digital mediums similarly there are multiple techniques. Digital photographic works can be manipulated or augmented digitally using photoshop 3d modelling with software like Blender or 3dsMax can create a 3d model entirely from scratch and can output 2d images, 3d printed objects, or be incorporated into games or movies. Some real media simulation software directly take artist input from a stylus to simulate pencil or paint strokes on a digital canvas for the creation of “digital drawings” or “digital paintings”... a sum of colored strokes input by an artist’s stylus. So many considerations are involved. Here a 3d modelling program is used to virtually sculpt and compose a scene. Lighting is chosen and placed, materials and textures applied to virtual surfaces. Camera position and FOV are carefully chosen. Global effects like haze are applied and a scene is rendered using ray tracing for example. As a final stage global adjustment of the image is often performed with image manipulation software... such as saturation gamma color cast etc. Some manual touch up can also be performed. This is an incredibly technical and laborious process to create what often can be (as the case is here) a real piece of Art. Myriad possibilities include Digital Sculpture Digital Rendering Digital Art Digital Illustration Virtual Sculpture Virtual Art Virtual Illustration 3D Rendering
  2. Just curious. As someone familiar with Objective concepts, from the myriad of choices, why do you call your visual art works "Paintings"?
  3. StrictlyLogical

    My Music

    I'm not sure what level your formal musical training is at, but you have a distinctive sound which IMHO has a dark solitary quality. The kinds of key signatures used reminds me of that old song "Dead or Alive" by Bon Jovi. I am no musical expert but your work has an interesting quality which I imagine would be suitable for a TV series like Westworld, or a western themed video game. Keep at it! Take it seriously. You have only one life.
  4. Well consciousness is identification. And a metaphysical contradiction could not be referred to in any sane way.
  5. If he pointed to one it couldn’t be a contradiction... it would be whatever shape it was, whatever size, color ... whatever properties it had it would have... we might not be very good at naming it ... and we might be using questionable choices to name it due to similarities with other things, but it would be what it is... and there would not be any contradiction. What you call something can be informative or misleading. Someone once told me that his daughter had asked him if toy elephants and real elephants were just different kinds of elephants. He told me he was genuinely stumped... he thought to himself well it’s VERY different but after all it is a toy ELEPHANT so it kinda is a just a very different kind of elephant. Talk about form obscuring substance... and letting what you call something blind you what you are really dealing with... here a toy, not an elephant, but a toy having a shape similar to that of an elephant.
  6. Yes. Good book. I didn’t say men are infallible. But to be sure there are those much more susceptible to the error than others. To clarify, I’m not saying that the irrational, mystical, or insane of the world are not a problem, they are, but that which they purportedly refer to in their irrational, mystical, or insane babblings literally poses no cognitive or metaphysical problem for us. They cannot, they are nothings which cannot actually cause anything. Unknowables don’t kill people, people kill people.
  7. Not in a sufficiently concrete way. You said something like Goats are Apples... that is when I ask you to point at one. You either point at a Goat or an Apple (or maybe a GoatApple) but you can’t find anything that is what it is and what it is not at the time and in the same respect. Things which are counter intuitive for a macroscopic observer, one who gained a sense of things from a particular context, will come up again and again in the sciences of the very big and very small. Whatever you think of wave-particle duality, no existent including the electron is ever at any one time and in the same respect, measured as X and as non X. That measurement is impossible. If you interpret your measurement as X and non X you have made an error. Most likely you have really measured Y and your assumptions about X are simply wrong.
  8. My point exactly... if we argue over God... it would mean we are arguing over nothing, not that we are not arguing. If we were smart enough to realize it, we would know there is literally nothing to argue about. No problem. (if we’re smart)
  9. There are levels of evasion. A person can say to himself “I’ve heard that a thing can be what it is but why can’t a thing be what it is not?” Note that In the second part of that utterance he is not forming a new thought he is only forming a new string of words... he is able to suspend his mind, his conceptual faculty, by shifting to validating the grammar, how “well formed” the syntax... does it sound like a meaningful phrase... without having to think about whether it has meaning and what that meaning is. This is form over substance, to avoid the substance, and is exactly the level Jose was working on. Both his hiding behind form and his avoidance of substance are clear for all (sorry... most all) to see. Now Honest Joe also would have started out suspending his mind, forming the phrase “contradictions in reality are possible” as a well formed string of words, feeling it must correspond to something because it “sounds” like something coherent... but when confronted with its actual meaning, and the impossibility of really finding a referent for it... he would have realized the error.
  10. No I am not saying that. Valid concepts are connected to reality... and refer to reality... concepts which are not valid refer to nothing in reality... ie nothing. An invalid concept meant to point at an unknowable thing has no referent... there is literally nothing about which to talk.
  11. I wish he had tried to “identify” a contradiction in reality. Whatever he would have pointed to would have been what it is and not what it is not... and anything he could identify would have identity and would automatically destroy his efforts. To the extent he could not identify a contradiction in reality he would fail at showing one exists in reality.... which means, he would have failed utterly and miserably.
  12. The great thing about something simply completely not reducible to any percepts by any means, direct or indirect, is we’d never be capable of actually properly conceiving of them. Not having been able to properly conceive of them in any way, we can’t even talk about any of them. Problem solved.
  13. Exactly! This is the starting point for a journey toward self-refutation... it is the only way to usefully engage with an intellectually honest person claiming a contradiction was observed in reality... it was futile with Dishonest Jose but it would have worked with HonestJoe. Now that Jose is gone don’t bother trying to bait him to engage. It was always a pointless exercise with him.
  14. Now that "Dishonest Jose" is gone, here is a little script with "Honest Joe"... Here, HonestJoe, although he made errors in the past, is intellectually honest and actually willing to think. SL: Suppose I say Rand is correct that in reality "contradictions are impossible" (1) AND Rand is incorrect that in reality "contradictions are impossible" (2). Is there anything wrong with that? HonestJoe: Well first, I understand what you have said, but it is nonsensical. That's what is wrong with it. You are saying one thing and then another thing which is its opposite. You cant say A and not-A. SL: Well I can say it, and I have. So what is wrong with what I did say? HonestJoe: The sentence opposes itself... therefore it doesn't mean anything. SL: The parts (1) and (2) in the sentence each refer to something in reality. If both CAN be true at the same then the sentence is NOT meaningless, it simultaneously identifies those two truths. It opposes itself... but it must in order to reflect reality... HonestJoe: Well, they CANT both be true in reality. They are exact opposites, either Rand was wrong or Rand was right about the issue.... not both. Those two parts of the sentence are not identifying two separate things about the universe they are saying the opposite about a single thing, Rand's correctness. SL: OK. Why can't a single thing be at once two opposites in reality? Why can't "Rand correctness" at once be two opposites at the same time and in the same respect? HonestJoe: But that would be nonsense... that would mean "Rand's correctness" in reality would be A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect. It's either A or not-A, not both. Both would be nonsense... Rand cannot in reality be correct and incorrect at the same time and in the same respect ... that would be a contradiction. SL: So, who says contradictions can't exist in reality? Who?....
  15. Do know what I mean by “Rand”? I mean Ayn Rand. Do you know what I mean by “is”? I know English is hard but it specifies existence or the state of being which is common to all things that are. Do you know what “correct” means? It means to be “right” about something a correspondence with reality. You can look it up in the dictionary if you want a full English definition. ”that” “in”’and “AND” are truly simple words. If you don’t understand them you should not try to discuss anything in English let alone philosophy. What I mean by “reality” is generally the realm of all that which exists as distinguished from fiction.. fantasy, the false or the imagined. again if you want a definition look it up in an English dictionary. You yourself raised the issue of “contradictions” being possible in reality. So that word is taken care of. “Impossible” is the opposite of “possible” and “incorrect” is the opposite of “correct”. In any case you can use a dictionary if you need to. So that about covers everything. Is there any part of what I said which you STILL do not understand?
  16. OK let's get down to business. I'll help explain it to you. First: which parts DO you understand? Once we establish THAT, we can work on the parts you DON'T understand.
  17. A two dimensional matric has elements which are indexed in two dimensions Aij where "i" is the index in one dimension and "j" is the index in the other dimension. The total number of elements is mxn for i = 1, ... m, and j = 1, ..., n A matrix of 3 or more dimensions has elements indexed in 3 or more dimensions Aijk for example. Here the "rules" for matrix operations would need to be generalized. As in http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCE2010/WCE2010_pp1824-1828.pdf
  18. That was fast. Well now I have to get back at reading it then... 5 stars is impressive! I agree. But I would qualify that an extrapolation about knowledge about the world is ultimately still about the world. "Extrapolation" cannot mean wholly disconnecting from perceptual reality.. extrapolation implies a continuity or connection with the world because it applies to our knowledge. We can only have knowledge about that which is... fantasies about that which is not do not count as knowledge, and any extrapolation of any fantasy is just more fantasy. Certainly math includes concepts which are not directly observed in reality... and yes Math includes concepts about the way we think and compute, but it must relate back to the things about which we think, the quantities and number of things in reality. Here I am not saying that every exercise in Mathematics IS about the world, no more than every scientific theory or every philosophy in history was about the world (many were NOT), but that VALID Mathematics is ultimately grounded in reality and hence is about the world. Complex numbers are useful for computation of various quantities. Matrices traditionally are useful in relation to linear algebra and solving equations, but I am not aware of the status of matrices with more than 3 dimensions. IMHO that would depend both on how well they are related to other math which is ultimately properly grounded and how useful they are to solve equations or computations. EDIT: Just reread a previous post of yours. Note, a 2 dimensional matrix can be used to solve N unknowns in N equations. A matrix with 3 or more dimensions is quite a different kind of thing.
  19. I don't object to the function as such, but its use to "define" or "build" the natural numbers and the philosophy underlying that use. Number and quantity are aspects of things in reality. We identify and conceive of them ultimately by perceiving things which are, and we do so typically at a very young age. Years after leaning what number and quantity mean, what whole numbers of things are, and knowing how to count things and repeated actions, add, subtract etc. for some reason some of us find it necessary to replace the action or exercise (real or mental) of adding 1, with a successor function, and dispense with the concept of number we already know from reality, by engaging in an exercise of "generating" the natural numbers by repeated "application" of a function. This exercise does not create the natural numbers nor does it in any way conceptually define for us what whole numbers are... it creates a parade of symbols that stand for the things we already know. It's not as bad as "building" numbers from artificial and imagined things (sets or power sets of the "null set" and sets of those sets), which mimic the action of counting, or accumulating real objects through a recursive exercise, but is performed with units of fantasy rather than of reality... all they are doing is essentially counting the repeated application of their recursions on fictional things, which symbolically simulates incremental accumulation (which algorithm implicitly relies on the mathematician's antecedent concept of number to verify all along that his model is appropriate for his purpose). But why choose to "build" numbers from fantasy... when we can ground numbers in reality, and take it from there? it is as though, a mathematician earnest to learn about and explore number and quantity, must do his very best to ignore or distance himself from reality, that the more remote and disconnected from the things which actually exhibit number and quantity, the better he will understand number and quantity. I think works like Knapp's and Binswanger's are desperately needed.
  20. I studied set theory in university. I studied group theory and quantum field theory for masters. I’ve studied chaos theory and fractal dimension in my spare time and I’ve read the Emperor’s New Mind, Metamagical Themas, Godel Escher Bach... why is it I have the deepest conviction that although most of these are interesting and useful they are no where nearly as profound and real an intellectual achievement as grasping Objectivism... many years later? I have great respect for so much of what iI learned in academia and I did quite well but I truly am of the belief, and sometimes it shocks me to think it... after a BSc, and an MSc, (and a professional degree which I will not divulge) ... after all of that... I still did not know how to truly think snd know until Rand and Peikoff. I hate to say it but when I hear of successor functions and when I browse a chapter entitled “Building the real numbers” ... from my old set theory text... I can’t help but think something is wrong... and wonder what mathematics could have become if based on Objective philosophy.
  21. From my review of the contents Knapp's book seems a tad more advanced and "academic" than what a typical layperson might be interested in. Of course all of this is pure speculation.
  22. Perhaps he has a slightly different audience in mind? More for a layperson who is philosophically inclined, rather than a technical or scientific person who is mathematically inclined?
  23. I'm curious. Prior to any induction, (and without taking x+y=y+x) as an axiom) what are x and y? i.e. what is one presuming about the nature of x and about the nature of y when one writes x+y or y+x Equivalently, at the point prior to induction, what does the mathematician intend to mean when she writes x+y or y+x.
×
×
  • Create New...