Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rockefeller

Regulars
  • Posts

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rockefeller

  1. Now that the donations have been collected, let me suggest a party name: Individualist Party. I prefer it to "Capitalist Party" because it captures our political ideas and not just economics. I think both 'Individualist' and 'Capitalist' remain unaltered in Norwegian. (Can someone confirm this?)
  2. Thanks for the responses. I decided not to take the vaccine mainly because the risk seems to be too low. Besides, I don't come into contact with too many people. (No, I am not a loner.)
  3. I think this is where the problem lies (as Grames pointed out too): How does the finding that one P is Q confirm the hypothesis that all P are Q?
  4. A limited supply of the vaccine has just arrived at my university health center. It is being provided to students on a first-come first-served basis (with added restrictions based on age). Does anyone know where to find reliable information on H1N1 risk, and safety of the vaccine? Being an Indian residing in Florida, I was wondering whether my immunity-level would be different than the Americans? I went through http://theflucase.com/ (listed by the above poster) and found it to be useful but not fully convincing.
  5. Validity of a conspiracy theory depends on whether or not it is based on conclusive evidence. A "train of thought" becomes rationalism as soon as it departs the station of reality.
  6. I think you are right - my definition (which is to determine the extent of repetition contextually) is rejected by Mathematicians rather overwhelmingly.. However, I am not convinced about the rationale behind including recurring decimals (defined by indefinite repetition) in the decimal number system. Because notice that in order to perform arithmetic operations (addition, multiplication) with decimal numbers, one necessarily needs finite number of digits. To put it philosophically, doesn't the popular usage imply using a concept of method (infinity) to refer to measurements which actually exist in reality (rational real numbers)? Right, I see your point now. OK that makes sense. So the floating-point representation of 0.999-repeating would be 1.0E-1 and not 9.999<some_more_digits>E-1.
  7. Objectivist Conspiracy Theories! (pun and ridicule intended)
  8. You are right, I was not familiar with the notation 0.(9). But you are wrong in assuming that that is the reason I am "arguing". Eiuol's post as well as his question had nothing to do with 0.(9) and everything to do with 0.999 repeating (which is a valid notation, as I'll explain below in this post). Wrong. Numbers are concepts formed from groups of existents. A given number refers to a group of existents having "something" in common. This "something" is the criterion (i.e. range of a characteristic) by which existents are being grouped. What is retained in forming concept of a number is the relationship between group members, and what is omitted is their all other measurements. 0.99-repeating (or more popularly 0.999...) is a proper and legitimate notation. It has a specific meaning, which is that 9 is to be repeated "large" number of times. Exactly how large is "large" depends on the context in which the notation is being used. That is why I said in my previous post that this notation combines concept of method and concept of numbers. Let me repeat: 0.99-repeating is not a decimal notation unless one specifies how many times 9 is written. Not absurd because numbers are concepts as I just explained. Further, the analogy was about relationship between concepts and symbols. A given concept (number) may be described in one language (notation) but not in another. Got that? Jesus Christ indeed! Decimals and fractions are representations of not-quite the "same thing" because some numbers can be expressed as decimals, others can't. I feel happy because, on a not-so-separate note, my analogies were not proofs but means of providing clarity. But more importantly I feel happy because I enjoy all (well... most) of your thought-provoking posts. Edit: Grammar
  9. Conceptually, 0.99 repeating is not the same as 1, because it combines a concept of method (repetition) with the concept of decimal numbers (which have existential referents). However, as soon as you specify how many times 9 is being repeated, it becomes a decimal number. Only when it is expressed as a decimal number, you can strictly compare it with 1.0 (a decimal number). Now, you can easily see 0.99 (repeating 9 say 50 times) refers to less number of referents than 1.0. Attempting to compare 0.99-repeating and 1.0 is analogous to comparing density and volume (two non-commensurable characteristics). Also, there is a difference in case of fractions 1/3 and 1/1 - which are symbols for concepts "one part in three" and (say) "three parts in three". In order to express the concept 1/3 as a decimal number, you need an approximation; but in order to express the concept of unity, you don't need an approximation - the denotation 1.0 (a decimal number) accurately refers to desired number of referents. It's analogous to the fact that the English word "Book" can accurately be expressed by the Hindi word "Kitaab", but the English word "Train" can only be approximately expressed in Hindi as "Gaadi" (which actually means anything with more than 2 wheels).
  10. Apart from the obvious criterion that you must love that person, you need to be convinced that he/she is your final choice. To be able to judge that, I think that an important requirement is that you must be able to confidently project your partner's behavior into every foreseeable future scenario. I can think of two possible ways to figure that out: 1. If your partner explicitly discusses his/her convictions, try to figure out their logical manifestation in various foreseeable circumstances. 2. If your partner is not too clear or explicit about his/her ideas (and given that you are OK with that), you have to figure out his/her premises by mere observation. In this case, time is the key. You must have spent enough time with that person in a wide variety of situations. Although many concrete values of you and your partner may differ, your values must be consistent with what each of you is looking for in a marriage relationship. Above all, your partner must agree with you in essential issues that require mutual decisions. Most people in love are already aware of each other's position on such issues, but they can be easily overlooked. Here are some examples of such issues: 1. Children: Do you both want children or not? If your partner practices, say religion or vegetarianism, and you do not (but you are OK with it), how would your children be raised? 2. Time for each other: What are your and your partner's long term career plans? What does this imply about the time you'd be able to spend together? 3. Conflict Resolution:: In case of a conflict or a misunderstanding, what is your partner's approach to resolution? Is it to drop the issue until bedtime, or is it to leave all work aside and discuss the matter in detail? 4. Property: Another seemingly minor, but important issue is: how does your partner handle property? After all, you will be "sharing" property. If there is any essential issue on which you disagree with your partner, I think it is important not to rely on hope (that your partner's views will change after marriage). Once you are married, you'll regret if they do not change.
  11. If he professes to be a moderate Socialist, he probably got into insider trading not because he supports it, but maybe because he doesn't think of it in principles. His only concern might have been whether he can get away with it. I tried searching the internet for any statements he made in support of insider trading - I found none. On a broader note, observe that Socialism is inherently inconsistent with metaphysical nature of man and existence. Therefore, it's not really a surprise that its proponents are notorious for not acting on principles.
  12. The question "Why should man choose reason?" already upholds the validity of reason. Note that the question demands a reason (a "why"). By the same token, if a person reading your paper accepts the validity of your theme ("Why ... reason?"), then the reader has already committed to reason - all you need to do is point this out. I first came across this kind of argument in this video (at 23:18) by Leonard Peikoff. [i have never taken a Philosophy class. So my response may be lacking in rigor or precision.]
  13. Sometimes, as in case of Iran, where that border has not only just gotten blurry but completely vanished. But in Florida? Could you please elaborate? The moral and financial backbone of those network is the regime that is in place. A few bombs dropped with self-righteousness and determination should be enough, in my opinion.
  14. There is a related thread you might want to check out. A quick browse, Google domain-search, or 'Search' button on this forum can sometimes be handy.
  15. I'm sorry, this is the correct video. The one linked above is Dr. Brook speaking on Health Care before Peter Schiff arrives at the studio.
  16. Peter Schiff appeared on Freedom Watch and had a little debate with Dr. Brook on foreign policy (at the end of the video). I won't paraphrase or summarize their conversation because I am too busy . But I'll just mention that Peter Schiff quoted Thomas Paine: "Government is a necessary evil", to which Dr. Brook responded by saying ... (well, please just watch the video!).
  17. Are you saying that Americans should forget the "direct attacks" that happened before the crisis? And that military should respond only to "direct attacks" in the future? How does it matter whether a "direct attack" takes place before or after the crisis? Then keep your responses with Objectivist point of views only, not about "isolationist" suicide. As I mentioned earlier, you can start a debate thread about this issue if you want.
  18. Do you consider Iran's continuous support of terrorist activities against Americans a "direct attack"? Or wait, here is a simple one: Do you think 9/11 was a "direct attack"? Remember, several 9/11 attackers received active training in Iran. Maybe you wouldn't consider anything a "direct attack" until Iran drops a nuke it is openly trying to get. And could you please explain the difference (if any) between isolationism and "non-interventionism"? (Perhaps, our latest troll rtaylortitle can answer too if he wants.) Make it a separate debate thread if you want.
  19. There are websites which enable you to study markets in eRepublik, but the feature is not built-in in the game. Likewise, players can make contracts too, but again, their enforcement seems to be unofficial.
  20. I think the game design indeed encourages wars. Notice that, in order to maximize productivity, most employers want their employees to have 90+ wellness. How do the employees maintain high wellness? Not by consuming food (which is too costly), but by means of a government owned hospital which they can visit for free after fighting in a battle. The point to note is that you must fight in a battle in order to visit a hospital. Further, hospitals are necessarily state owned.
  21. Both Early Progress and Modern Progress have now been digitalized by Google books (click hyperlinks). They can even be downloaded for free in PDF format.
  22. Gone are the days of raises and benefits. I made a horrible mistake. I got to a point where I earned 7.50 NOK as a skill 1.75 worker, and then inadvertently clicked resign. Now I am stuck with a 4.00 NOK job at skill 2.2 for another 48 hours.
  23. Det fungerer. Jeg spurte om lønnsforhøyelse (på norsk), og fikk det!
×
×
  • Create New...