Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Jose

Ayn Rand's Popcorn-tradiction.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

* * * * * Split from How Best to Attack Ayn Rand's System * * * * *

It is even easier to prove And wrong ... in just three steps:

1 Made them agree that a system do not support having contradictions

2 Point to any contradiction in science. Like the one about entitlement and information traveling faster than light 

3 Grab popcorn and enjoy watching them strogle

Edited by dream_weaver
Add split notification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jose said:

It is even easier to prove And wrong ... in just three steps:

1 Made them agree that a system do not support having contradictions

2 Point to any contradiction in science. Like the one about entitlement and information traveling faster than light 

3 Grab popcorn and enjoy watching them strogle

0. Appear coherent  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

0. Appear coherent  :D 

I love when people are as insightful in their comments. If there is something that you do not understand I am more than happy to explain, but if you base your comments in insults they are not helpful to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jose said:

It is even easier to prove And [Rand] wrong ... in just three [two] steps:

1 Made [Make] them agree that a system do [does] not support having contradictions

2 Point to any contradiction in science. Like the one about entitlement and information traveling faster than light [being both a wave and a particle.]

3 Grab popcorn and enjoy watching them strogle

[Edits by Swig]

Sorry, I had to edit your post in order to make sense of it. There is still a problem. You haven't proven whether Rand or science is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Jose meant to say "entanglement and information..."

 

Jose's reasoning is as follows 

1 Rand held that there are no contradictions in reality.

 2 modern science proves contradictions are possible

hence it is proved by contradiction, that Rand was wrong.

 

Observe that Jose depends on the premise "no contradictions exist in reality" in order to form a proof by contradiction.  any proof relying upon this technique presupposes no contradictions... that is how a contradiction proves one of the premises are false.

So Jose's proof is relying on a premise he is at once refuting.  As such he has to abandon "proof" Rand was wrong... and in fact abandon any kind of proof whatsoever. After all, if contradictions are possible Rand can also be right, in the same respect and at the same time... and no conclusion can be made with any certitude, and certainly not any relying upon a proof by contradiction.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2019 at 5:54 PM, Jose said:

I love when people are as insightful in their comments. If there is something that you do not understand I am more than happy to explain, but if you base your comments in insults they are not helpful to say the least.

I've got my popcorn ready to see what crap you come up with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Jose's reasoning is as follows 

1 Rand held that there are no contradictions in reality.

 2 modern science proves contradictions are possible

hence it is proved by contradiction, that Rand was wrong.

A technical point: he did not say that science proves the possibility of contradictions. He said that there are contradictions in science, which I take as merely his interpretation of the science. Does that affect your position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not that. I said that the systems can have contradictions and still be valid.

Also I did not use contradiction on my proof. Using symbolic logic:

(all) AB ..........(1)

Where A is valid system B is does not have contradiction.

So if is prove that exist one valid system that allow contradiction (1) is false. In other words if

(exist) A~B is true then (1) is false. (exist) A~B is science and the contradiction is the spooky action at distance.

So my prof does use contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jose said:

(exist) A~B is true then (1) is false.

The only reason proof by counterexample is valid is that it is a contradiction for a claim to both be universally true and have counterexamples.

Quote

the contradiction is the spooky action at distance.

If the law of non-contradiction is false, the scientists cannot know that spooky action at a distance exists. The experiments proving spooky action at a distance and the non-existence of spooky action at a distance could just be a true contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, William O said:

The only reason proof by counterexample is valid is that it is a contradiction for a claim to both be universally true and have counterexamples.

If the law of non-contradiction is false, the scientists cannot know that spooky action at a distance exists. The experiments proving spooky action at a distance and the non-existence of spooky action at a distance could just be a true contradiction.

My prof is not by contradiction, you need to review your logic. From Wikipedia "In logic and mathematics proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that assuming the proposition to be false leads to a contradiction." which is not what my prof does ... it shows the existence of just one example that it is not possible to exist for the statement.

What you said on your second paragraph is what I wanted to said about fallibility ... it is not a valid position say "The opposite exist therefore the original position is right" It is like setting up an experiment if the result is A then the theory stands and if it is B the theory does not stand. What you said is like saying because is B then the theory stands. Also to blow your mind there are some experiments proving the spooky action at distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Contradictions ARE possible

AND

Rand IS right that "contradictions are impossible"

 

 

So A and ~A are possible where A is saying that A and ~A con possible to coexist? I can see your logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jose said:

So A and ~A are possible where A is saying that A and ~A con possible to coexist? I can see your logic.

Could you explain the logic you are seeing for those of us that may not see what you're seeing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes no problem. One of the objectivist principles is that there can not be contradictions, and find a Contradiction just prove objectivist right. Can you explain what you mean that contradiction are possible and impossible?

My previous post should say "can not" instead of con.

2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Contradictions ARE possible

AND

Rand IS right that "contradictions are impossible"

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

@Jose
What, precisely, is the wording of this principle to which you refer, and perhaps a source to aide in adding some context that might help in clarification?

Sure ...

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/what-is-objectivism/ look for the paragraph that starts with "Given the many values on which human life and happiness depend"

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/contradictions.html

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ayn_rand_163204

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jose said:

Yes no problem. One of the objectivist principles is that there can not be contradictions, and find a Contradiction just prove objectivist right. Can you explain what you mean that contradiction are possible and impossible?

My previous post should say "can not" instead of con.

 

I did not say contradictions are possible and not possible I said

Contradictions are possible 

AND

RAND IS RIGHT that “contradictions are impossible”

 

THAT is what I said.  What is wrong with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

It appears that some premises may be in need of your scrupulous checking.

That is exactly my point. It my be a premise missing, it might be a contradiction or the problem might be bad formulated. We actually do not know, we need a philosophy  that can deal with the uncertainly of the real world, and Objectivism fails to do that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I did not say contradictions are possible and not possible I said

Contradictions are possible 

AND

RAND IS RIGHT that “contradictions are impossible”

 

THAT is what I said.  What is wrong with it?

What is the difference from one and the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jose said:

(exist) A~B is true then (1) is false. (exist) A~B is science and the contradiction is the spooky action at distance.

How is action at a distance a contradiction? If it's not a real contradiction, then your argument is invalid. You still need to prove the existence of a contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

How is action at a distance a contradiction? If it's not a real contradiction, then your argument is invalid. You still need to prove the existence of a contradiction.

The contradiction is not the distance but the speed, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, based on general relativity. But it this case information propagates instantly from one corner of the universe to another ... I did not elaborate on the scenario, because its a very well know one. It was proposed by Albert Einstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jose said:

 

The contradiction is not the distance but the speed, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, based on general relativity. But it this case information propagates instantly from one corner of the universe to another ... I did not elaborate on the scenario, because its a very well know one. It was proposed by Albert Einstein

Entanglement does not transfer information in violation of relativity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grames said:

Entanglement does not transfer information in violation of relativity.

Einsten did not agree. I am I way worst at phisycs than he. And I can safely assume that you either claim to know more phisycs than he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...