Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Jose

Ayn Rand's Popcorn-tradiction.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Perhaps you will be heard from after you discover how to distinguish between the The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made.

 

49 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

I just saw this, don't know what you've already heard. Contradictions are impossible in reality, but contradictions exist in people's heads. Keep the metaphysics separate from epistemology. Does that help?

 

He's trying to attack the Law of Identity (as in "contradictions have been scientifically proven to exist") so StrictlyLogical said that yes, contradictions exist all over reality, and yes, a contradiction is metaphysically impossible; we're both right (which I found hilarious). After much evasion he finally deigned to retort that "if the Law of Identity is unfalsifiable then it's just pseudoscience, so tell me what it'd take to prove a contradiction to you". So I asked what it'd take to disprove his own existence to him.

He still hasn't answered that. Apparently he's waiting to know what SL meant by "sure, contradictions exist, and also couldn't possibly exist". I'm extremely amused with it all, but I'd prefer it if he didn't try circling back to points that have already been exploded.

 

Just thought I'd give you guys a heads-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thanks. I follow (sort of). ;) "Unfalsifiable"? I would be keen to read an Objectivist analysis of Popper's theory. Falsification looks quite trivial to me, but I probably don't understand it. 

Share this post


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

Anyway I keep asking what does "contradictions are impossible but contradictions exists" mean with no answer.

It means a contradiction.

Ayn Rand said that anyone who attacks the Law of Identity (such as by declaring the existence of contradictions) has to rely on it, themselves, in that very attack. StrictlyLogical was giving a practical demonstration of the fact that even YOU don't really believe "life is full of contradictions" - and every time you say there's something "wrong with that logic" you are confirming it, over and over again.

And by your own logic, what can you say about it? Is there something WRONG with contradicting ourselves, now?

 

I know you can grasp that. Please stop struggling not to because it is getting a bit old now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, whYNOT said:

Okay, thanks. I follow (sort of). ;) "Unfalsifiable"? I would be keen to read an Objectivist analysis of Popper's theory. Falsification looks quite trivial to me, but I probably don't understand it. 

Well, off the top of my head, its not. I don't remember where it was in John Galt's Speech but you can't prove an axiom; you just have to accept it because its opposite would be literally inconceivable. So he is right that the Law of Identity is "unfalsifiable".

 

So is his belief in his own existence.

Share this post


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

It means a contradiction.

Ayn Rand said that anyone who attacks the Law of Identity (such as by declaring the existence of contradictions) has to rely on it, themselves, in that very attack. StrictlyLogical was giving a practical demonstration of the fact that even YOU don't really believe "life is full of contradictions" - and every time you say there's something "wrong with that logic" you are confirming it, over and over again.

And by your own logic, what can you say about it? Is there something WRONG with contradicting ourselves, now?

 

I know you can grasp that. Please stop struggling not to because it is getting a bit old now.

I did not grasp it because your explanation is very bad and please explain how my explanation violate the law of identity.

Share this post


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

Well, off the top of my head, its not. I don't remember where it was in John Galt's Speech but you can't prove an axiom; you just have to accept it because its opposite would be literally inconceivable. So he is right that the Law of Identity is "unfalsifiable".

 

So is his belief in his own existence.

  "Falsifiablity" is not about proving something wrong. Is about the possibility for the profe to exist. If it is not possible to prove that something is wrong there is an article of faith and not science.

I don't know what is Popper’s position on existence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I would be keen to read an Objectivist analysis of Popper's theory. Falsification looks quite trivial to me, but I probably don't understand it. 

There are some older topics on the forum:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far I've read, absorbing material - not so trivial I admit. Thank you. I will need to return to this exchange on Karl Popper, further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2019 at 9:51 PM, Jose said:

I did not grasp it because your explanation is very bad and please explain how my explanation violate the law of identity.

 

The Law of Identity is what says that contradictions cannot exist.

 

You violated the Law of Identity when you claimed that contradictions do exist.

 

You then appealed to the Law of Identity when you claimed that this DISPROVES the Law of Identity. It's a disproof by CONTRADICTION, isn't it? If "life is full of contradictions" then that doesn't disprove the Law of Identity, just because it contradicts it. Hence: "sure, contradictions exist, and also are metaphysically impossible".

 

Do you need a diagram?

 

On 7/21/2019 at 10:00 PM, Jose said:

If it is not possible to prove that something is wrong there is an article of faith and not science.

Sure. It's not science; it's what science is based on. But it's not "faith" either.

And you've proven pretty conclusively (and hilariously) that it's a belief which you share. You can't disprove it; the very concept of "proof" or "disproof" assumes it (which is what I mean about science being "based on it").

You can call it "pseudoscience" all you want, but nobody here is pretending that it is science and anything you have to say about the moral character of those who hold it applies equally to you, too.

 

You're more than welcome to try and disprove ANYTHING I just said WITHOUT using the Law of Identity, but please try and come up with some new arguments for it. Your old ones are all dead already.

invalid because science.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2019 at 10:00 PM, Jose said:

I don't know what is Popper’s position on existence.

Neither do I, but (to use your flawed terminology) I take it as an "article of faith" that I exist. Even if we're all in the matrix or something my mind must exist SOMEHOW, in SOME form. And I'm guessing that you feel the same way about your own existence, too.

 

I bring this up because it's another axiom (just like the Law of Identity). It's something we all have to assume in order to even function.

 

I exist, I think and I try my best to do so in non-contradictory ways (because contradictions are always wrong). It's interesting to me to find out how you can even claim not to, but if you're fundamentally opposed to such "articles of faith" then at the end of the day that's your problem.

 

You can never get away from them.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The Law of Identity is what says that contradictions cannot exist. 

And let me see if I understand what you mean ... If a contradiction is found is wrong, because the law of Identity has to be taken as an article of faith?

 

19 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Do you need a diagram?

Yes please.

 

20 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Sure. It's not science; it's what science is based on.

Philosophie is a science, you like it or not.

 

21 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

And you've proven pretty conclusively (and hilariously) that it's a belief which you share. You can't disprove it; the very concept of "proof" or "disproof" assumes it (which is what I mean about science being "based on it"). 

When I talked about my belief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Neither do I

Apparently he did not touch the subject https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

 

18 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I bring this up because it's another axiom (just like the Law of Identity). It's something we all have to assume in order to even function. 

Even by myself? You do not give me any details so I have to ask.

21 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

I exist, I think and I try my best to do so in non-contradictory ways (because contradictions are always wrong).

So someone that thinks that life do not have several, and is depressed (to avoid the it only exist in the person head) but do not kill himself. What do you call it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 1:09 AM, 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

It does no such thing. You can create two entangled black holes that exist at opposite "sides" of the universe but are the same space inside of the event horizon of either. Entangled particles share the same exact feature because ER = EPR. There is no contradiction involved; you just don't understand the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 12:15 AM, Jose said:

My spelling is irrelevant to the fact that the physicist agree that it is a contradiction that we need to deal with in real life

None actually, but I'm sure this has been adequately argued in other ways here, so I'll bow out because this isn't worth my time. I thought your issue would be better than this when I saw the threads length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EC said:

It does no such thing. You can create two entangled black holes that exist at opposite "sides" of the universe but are the same space inside of the event horizon of either. Entangled particles share the same exact feature because ER = EPR. There is no contradiction involved; you just don't understand the science.

This explanation said that there is no black holes involved, so if I don't understand it, there are more clueless commenters

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 11:25 PM, Jose said:

And let me see if I understand what you mean ... If a contradiction is found [it's] wrong, because the law of Identity has to be taken as an article of faith?

It's not "faith". "Faith" is CHOOSING to believe something (when you COULD choose otherwise) for which you have no good evidence. The Law of Identity is more like believing that a math equation will always have the same answer, no matter how many times you do it or under however many different circumstances, as long as you're doing it right. Just because you can't prove it experimentally doesn't necessarily make it baseless.

 

Quote

Existence exists-and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness...

Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two-existence and consciousness-are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes... A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

...

All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

 

-John Galt in Atlas Shrugged [by Ayn Rand]

 

Throughout this whole conversation you've consistently implied (and if you'd like I can quote you where) that there IS something wrong with contradicting ourselves. Not only is that the right attitude to hold (CONSISTENTLY!) it's also inescapable. There could be no such things as "proof", "disproof", "evidence", "logic" or "science" if they had to provide for the existence of contradictions.

And since it is inescapable there's no "faith" about it. The only question is whether we're honest about it or not.

 

On 7/22/2019 at 11:44 PM, Jose said:

Even by myself? You do not give me any details so I have to ask.

Absolutely.

On 7/22/2019 at 11:44 PM, Jose said:

So someone that thinks that life do not have several, and is depressed (to avoid the it only exist in the person head) but do not kill himself. What do you call it?

A very sad thing, and exactly why you must NEVER treat YOUR OWN grasp of logic as a game. Beliefs have consequences, too.

 

 

Share this post


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

This explanation said that there is no black holes involved, so if I don't understand it, there are more clueless commenters

 

They ruled out "hidden variables" over a 5% statistical variance? That's... Bold...

 

But not a contradiction.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


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

They ruled out "hidden variables" over a 5% statistical variance? That's... Bold...

 

But not a contradiction.

What is your point? The comment was in response of someone not knowing what spooky action at distance and insulting me for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

It's not "faith". "Faith" is CHOOSING to believe something (when you COULD choose otherwise) for which you have no good evidence. The Law of Identity is more like believing that a math equation will always have the same answer, no matter how many times you do it or under however many different circumstances, as long as you're doing it right. Just because you can't prove it experimentally doesn't necessarily make it baseless.

 

 

Throughout this whole conversation you've consistently implied (and if you'd like I can quote you where) that there IS something wrong with contradicting ourselves. Not only is that the right attitude to hold (CONSISTENTLY!) it's also inescapable. There could be no such things as "proof", "disproof", "evidence", "logic" or "science" if they had to provide for the existence of contradictions.

And since it is inescapable there's no "faith" about it. The only question is whether we're honest about it or not.

 

Absolutely.

A very sad thing, and exactly why you must NEVER treat YOUR OWN grasp of logic as a game. Beliefs have consequences, too.

 

 

Faith is something that cannot be probe wrong .... Which is how people treat the law of identity ... If something violets any axiom it needs to be proved wrong ... Not just that is wrong because it violate axiom a.

 

2 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

Please provide a quote implying that is bad contradicting yourself, we do it all the time like we know that last piece of desert is bad for us. Not that this is not a profe that contradiction exist on an Oblectivist sence since one state is internal.

About the sad thing is way more common than you think. Please visit Sarte's the myth of sisyphus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jose said:

What is your point? The comment was in response of someone not knowing what spooky action at distance and insulting me for it.

Right on. I did not have a point I'd be willing to make, here. Sorry about that.

 

17 minutes ago, Jose said:

About the sad thing is way more common than you think. Please visit Sarte's the myth of sisyphus

Do you mean this?

 

I've read Sartre. I wouldn't recommend him except as an example of what a bad philosophy can do to someone. If you know anyone who feels the way he did (particularly what he conveyed in Nausea) then I'm very sorry. And I WOULD recommend they read Atlas Shrugged.

 

55 minutes ago, Jose said:

Faith is something that cannot be [proven] wrong .... Which is how people treat the law of identity ... If something [violates] any axiom it needs to be proved wrong ... Not just that is wrong because it [violates] axiom a.

K. Now please tell me how to "prove" anything whatsoever without the law of non-contradiction.

 

And give me a few minutes to compile all of your quotes. There are a lot of them and I suspect they'll need some explaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2019 at 3:00 PM, Jose said:

It is even easier to prove [Ayn] wrong ... in just three steps:

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

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

3 Grab popcorn and enjoy watching them [struggle]

I honestly cannot explain it any better than SL did:

On 7/8/2019 at 8:23 AM, 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.

 

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.

 

I have nothing to add to SL, there. But you responded to him with:

On 7/9/2019 at 12:01 AM, Jose said:

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 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 [not] use contradiction.

In which you say that a theory which CONTRADICTS REALITY is false.

 

On 7/9/2019 at 1:43 PM, Jose said:

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.

 

I've actually changed my mind. I was going to go through and respond to EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE YOU SAID and basically say "true and also false", just to really drive home just how retarded your idea is. But I really cannot top SL on this one and you really are TRYING to be stupid about it, and I don't think any honest reader could still be confused at this point.

 

Live long and prosper. :thumbsup:

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Hyperlink!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

In which you say that a theory which CONTRADICTS REALITY is false. 

How do you read that my premesis where about a valid system and having a contradiction ... How reality smock in is a very convoluted step ... Please explain.

41 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

41 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

40 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

 

To learn more about proves please read this book https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Mathematical_Proof/Methods_of_Proof/Proof_by_Contrapositive

You ignored my point that if an instance (any insurance) of a preposition makes a premise to be reconsider an axiom ... the possibility that an axiom is false needs to be consider.

God, this interface is terrible

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...