Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. @MisterSwig Consider Galt's speech with regards to honesty. Elsewhere Miss Rand exhorts her readers to do their own due diligence while providing the core tenets for each branch of her philosophy. Ayn Rand named Peikoff her intellectual heir. Is Objectivism a licensed trademark, or to lay claim to being an Objectivist a form of trademark infringement? The fact that you are personally able to evaluate Tew's philosophic position for yourself and conclude he is something other than what he claims to be, should be evidence enough that others can, too, discover this for themselves, albeit you may serve as a catalyst to hasten the process for some of those that come across your elucidations on the matter.
  3. Yesterday
  4. Eiuol

    Rucka Rucka Ali

    How would you interpret the parts about Obama as a Muslim? Most of the joke is making fun of the whole "Obama is a Muslim" absurdity. The only true parts are the asides, the rest is about fear of black people and fear of Muslims. More directly, the original is a list of lies and exaggerations, and the parody is a list of lies and exaggerations (mostly from Obama's critics that are outright fabrications).
  5. Tew has over a hundred Patreon followers providing him with a modest income every month. Whether you accept it or not, he's establishing himself as a professional philosopher. In the end, it doesn't matter that he dropped out of college. A degree doesn't make you something, other than a degree-holder. As for his philosophical work, it seems that his articles are behind a pay-wall. But he has much philosophical content on YouTube for free.
  6. Warning: This post describes a song with vulgar words, including racial slang. To make my points, I need to quote a couple of the words below. In his series on Objectivism and humor, Charles Tew also references Rucka's parody song "Prince Ali Obama." He claims that it "doesn't say anything," and that it's "silly comedy for infants." This example might also be a source for Tew's accusation that Rucka tells "irreverent" jokes about 9/11, which I'll discuss at the end. The parody is based on a musical number in the Disney film Aladdin. Let's first review that scene. https://youtu.be/LlU_CYhym0o Now, let's watch Rucka's parody. https://youtu.be/I4Pa-OJ7yjQ I have not seen Aladdin in a long while, so I had to familiarize myself with the plot at Wikipedia. The story is about love and lies and magic. A street urchin named Aladdin finds a magic lamp with a genie. He wishes to be changed into a prince (Ali Ababwa), so that he can trick princess Jasmine into marrying him. The "Prince Ali" song shows Aladdin elephant-riding into town with an entourage and treasures, all to fool Jasmine. Meanwhile, the identity-switching genie gossips and lies to the townsfolk about Aladdin/Prince Ali. Rucka uses Aladdin to comment on our politics and media. He released the parody in October 2017. Obama (street urchin/prince) had been out of the White House for some time. Trump led the charge against "fake news" media (gossiping genie). And, of course, the idea of switching "gender" identities at will (magic) had become a political issue. Note that Rucka first establishes the theme of deceit by showing Trump calling everything on TV "fake and gay." He then depicts Obama tractor-riding back to the White House, which refers not only to Ababwa's elephant-riding, but also to a picture of the president on a tractor during the Iowa caucus campaign. (I think riding tractors in Iowa is a ritual for politicians.) Next, Rucka launches into a genie-esque litany of Obama's fabled deeds. But instead of sticking to royalty-based lies (like in Aladdin), Rucka also gives us tall tales of Obama's street cred, such as him standing in welfare lines, smoking blunts, and "mowing down fucking honkeys" with his machine gun-mounted tractor. It's quite an imaginative mix of fact and fiction, taken to Rucka's signature parodical extreme. It isn't until the climax of the song that Rucka reaches his apex of abstraction and metaphor. Speaking as Obama, he says, "I'm airplanes crashing in 2001," which I take as a statement on Obama's legacy, not irreverence for life. Basically, it's the idea that Obama was a disaster for America. And in the next line he transitions into "fear" itself, proving that our former president is not limited to self-identifying as people and objects, but he can also be pure emotion. So we've gone from Aladdin pretending to be a prince, to Obama pretending to be a horrendous airplane crash. Rucka's statement on self-deception and fraud seems pretty clear to me. I'm surprised that Tew mistook the video for meaningless, infantile humor. I suppose most parody these days will seem pointlessly puerile if you ignore the original work (and/or real events) upon which it's based.
  7. Good that I said that was an experiment, meaning something on the real world not a thought experiment. And my point was gravity if falsifiability therefore a sound scientific concept.This is completely independent of my point about contradictions. Is information travels faster and slower than light a contradiction? Because that is the whole point of the "spoke action at a distance" paradox
  8. When there is a contradiction, there is a problem with "my thoughts". Why? Because contradictions exist, but as concepts, as thoughts, as imagination. They do not exist outside of consciousness. They are artifacts of a mind only (sort of a mental entity). So when someone says they don't exist, it is in that context. When something floats, it implies there is no gravity. It could. Or it could mean your thoughts are incorrect. You have to ask what holds the water down? Why doesn't the object float above the water? If there was no gravity, the water should float upward and the object should float above that too at some point. The implication is that "something holds it all down". If contradictions exist, the the water is the object which is the air which is the floor which is the sky which is you and me and gravity. If a contradictions exist, if they are out there, outside of the mind the the world that you see is and isn't, Anything is heavy and is not heavy, Nothing can be distinguished, everything is the same and different. There is no point in asking "why" anymore, the answer would be meaningless. In any face to face discussion, to claim that contradictions exist outside of the mind, ends up meaning "end of conversation".
  9. After listening to one of Alex Epstein's Human Flourishing Project podcasts, I found myself intrigued by the title of a blog post he mentioned and I subsequently read, "Why Books Don't Work." This is a very thought-provoking and clearly-written essay of about 4,600 words, and considers the problem, common even among the educated, of people realizing how little information they actually retain from reading books. More important the author, Andy Matuschak, also offers some thoughts on what to do about it. Image by ASTERISK, via Unsplash, license.To illustrate his problem and begin offering his solution, Matuschak starts with the commonplace problems of people leaving books and lectures (a simpler case) with much less than they realize in the moment. This problem, he holds, is due to the fact that any such medium is based (at least implicitly) on a similar theory, or "cognitive model" of how learning takes place. The theories occur on several levels and at varying degrees of faithful implementation. But we can learn about learning by considering these theories seriously and by looking at what people do to compensate for their deficiencies. There are lessons for us, then coming from what the raw media seem to assume, through what educators who use the media (and attempt to make up for their deficiencies) believe, all the way to what successful end-users are doing. The end-users can teach us the most, the author holds, because they are actively engaging in the material, paying attention to how they absorb information, and self-monitoring themselves. These end-user activities Matuschak calls metacognition, or "thinking about thinking." Effective authors, he contends, are such because they do things to lighten their reader's metacognitive load. But if you think Matuschak is hoping to "build a better book," he isn't necessarily urging that (or ruling it out). He's willing to consider completely novel media, such as we see in his Quantum Country: My collaborator Michael Nielsen and I made an initial attempt with Quantum Country, a "book" on quantum computation. But reading this "book" doesn't look like reading any other book. The explanatory text is tightly woven with brief interactive review sessions, meant to exploit the ideas we just introduced. Reading Quantum Country means reading a few minutes of text, then quickly testing your memory about everything you've just read, then reading for a few more minutes, or perhaps scrolling back to reread certain details, and so on. Reading Quantum Country also means repeating those quick memory tests in expanding intervals over the following days, weeks, and months. If you read the first chapter, then engage with the memory tests in your inbox over the following days, we expect your working memory will be substantially less taxed when reading the second chapter. What's more, the interleaved review sessions lighten the metacognitive burden normally foisted onto the reader: they help readers see where they're absorbing the material and where they're not. [format edits]There is more, but many university students will recognize the repeated review of smaller "chunks" at intervals, the quizzing, and the monitoring. As revolutionary as this sounds, I admit finding myself being nagged by the memory of a dismissive term some of the nuns from my Catholic education used regarding some of the newer teaching methods, almost certainly "progressive," they deemed inferior: spoonfeeding. I am not dismissing this author's approach, but I see a need for caution in applying it, particularly in the creation of novel media. (I will note that I have not attempted Quantum Country, but I don't think my cautions suffer as a result.) For example, the author notes that lecturing has been "ditched" "in US K-12 education." That development is not necessarily an improvement. There can be good or bad reasons for uniting a lesson plan around a "theme, for example, and doing so at the expense of teaching deeply in a given discipline is definitely the wrong approach. That said, I am not necessarily defending how the nuns taught me. Perhaps those who did well could under almost any circumstances. What I strongly suspect, given the poor general state of education in the United States, is that in addition to the cognitive models in books leaving something to be desired, people are generally worse at metacognition now. In other words, I think "fixing" books or devising new media can only help so much. It's not a waste of time: They can make it easier for the well-prepared and perhaps make up for some of the deficiencies of our educational system. But we should temper our enthusiasm. -- CAVLink to Original
  10. ARI is just a think tank, I wouldn't call it part of a movement. In any case, even if it tries to make itself into part of a movement, that's misguided. It doesn't do anything in particular to change things. The most it really is, is an organization that keeps track of Rand's estate and promotes interest in her as a thinker. But the people you're talking about are so loosely connected that we can't call that a movement. If you want to call that a movement, okay, it just lacks anything like political purpose, or social purpose. All we have is some people say something like "hey guys, let's talk about these interesting ideas, maybe I can persuade you to change your mind about some things". The only problem with calling this a movement is that I think it makes one more complacent thinking that their discussion will change something, even though they certainly won't change a thing this way in the culture at large. Since you ultimately care about changing the world, why bother with Tew? Discourse is purely academic, and while it has value for us to determine which values matter, it has no value in terms of bringing about change. So don't worry about a guy who has big problems psychologically. Perhaps the more academic people are in a better position to change things - but it seems safe to say that the people who care about ideas won't (and clearly don't based on his viewership) look to Tew as a beacon of rationality. Christianity isn't a good example. It's extremely broad, and only some variations of it can really be said to change the world. Not to mention that the part of Christianity that did gain power and clout (the Roman Catholic Church) involved a lot of war and extensive political manipulation. We could call that a movement, because there were specific political ends. It wasn't a loose organization of people who share a pretty general ideology and people who discuss philosophy.
  11. I mean organizations, like ARI, and various groups, like campus clubs and online forums, all devoted to spreading Objectivism throughout the culture. The people in these groups can be considered part of the general movement to change the world's ideological systems. Christianity has been going strong for two thousand years. I don't see why Objectivism should be stopped so soon, if you believe it to be superior to Christianity. Not sure what the problem is with the idea of an ideological movement. I considered it pretty obvious, no?
  12. Last week
  13. 😊 I must confess that my recollection is not as good as it might seem. My last post was copied from something I wrote a few years ago and then edited a little.
  14. I don't think there is a such thing as the Objectivist movement. Or at least, if there is, I don't think any movement so narrowly defined can last. People organized around a set of ideas in either a social or political way makes sense. Supposing you you mean similar minded people, Tew doesn't seem anything but superficially similar. He is filled with anger and minimal benevolence. Maybe he desires to be more positive and feel better about life, but he certainly isn't that way now. What you have is a person who is psychologically unwell. Arguing against him won't help that. Arguing against him won't help the people who will find appeal in his extreme pessimism. There is something deeper going on than what you can change the argumentation or persuasion. How would you change his emotional reaction? Definitely not this way. If you care, for example, about social and political values that are common among people who like Rand, and feel that you can improve things - better to do something more direct. Address drinking and alcoholism, address Tew as an individual with his own experiences. Engaging him or criticizing him at high levels of abstraction avoids and ignores the real problems. I'm just addressing you in most of this Swig. Tew is a pretty tragic case, and I find it pretty masochistic to bother with him. Unfortunately, with people like him, usually the worst happens before they change for the better. It would be better for you to be productive on your own with your own projects, rather than "rescuing" a movement that doesn't exist and a person trapped in his own despair.
  15. This may be a broader topic than what you guys are talking about, but I think this is all predicated on that there is such a thing as "the Objectivist movement" and that it has a clear and district meaning and purpose. What even is "the Objectivist movement" and what task or problem is it solving that requires its existence? Why does it have a health and what would this be that I can even know it? Can anyone point to any example of this movement, who is in it, what has it accomplished? Does it even need one? What is the difference between a philosopher working on Rand being in a movement versus not being in one? How would this work differ as "operating with a movement" versus not? What would just any old group of people doing whatever they do look like as "operating in The Objectivist movement" as versus doing the same exact things just as regular people doing whatever they're doing? Do we need to be in "the Objectivist movement" to discuss any set of topics or talk philosophy at all? Rand 1968 "A Statement of Policy" denies both the existence or need for any organized Objectivist movement (and of course raises many more confusing questions for what she even means.) Is there even enough content in her Objectivism to be a coherent ideology for a "movement" and does it even have a criteria of membership in said movement, or a program of action, or even a coherent and realistic single end for action? It's clear to me that the answer is no it does not. I realize this is a larger topic but that leads us to the following: Implicit in all of that is that (1) Tew even is an actual philosopher, and that he's saying anything substantial or has done any important and original philosophic work one can point to. And (2) that his YouTube videos are even significant, important, or relevant to this "movement" you speak of, whether in terms of substantial content or number of views and popularity. And it's also clear the answer to 1 and 2 is both no. Rather it seems to be, the whole idea that there even is "the Objectivist movement" is widely pathological, and leads to things like everyone condemning and "sanctioning" one another qua "representative of our movement" or "hurting our cause" (whatever that is) whereas normal folk just look and go, "What? Y'all are weird." Implicit in this is the assumption that the space is zero-sum, that engagement with Rand can only be done in that space, and that everyone must give moral sanction to everyone else or "they're out."
  16. Well, I just toasted my brain writing all morning, so I'll have to consider the advanced math stuff later. Thanks for doing that. Regarding the Jesus argument, would it matter which assumptions you make about Jesus? For example, if we assume that he existed in some form, but not that he was miraculous, then it's nearly certain that he died and deteriorated, never to return anywhere in any form. But, since there is no current evidence of his death, we might accept the tiny chance that something weird happened within the realm of natural laws. For example, advanced aliens visited Earth, snatched up Jesus, stuck him in cryofreeze, and now plan to drop him in Jackson County next winter. The level of probability seems to depend on your initial assumptions. There also seems to be a contextual issue here. Okay, I'm out. Can't think anymore.
  17. Two, Three, Four and All That: The Sequel 2:30 to 4:30 on the very first track is where I recollected the paraphrased offering I provided earlier. Your recollection is better than mine on the details.
  18. A few years ago I purchased and listened to Pat Corvini's two sets of lectures on number:1. Two, Three, Four and All That; and 2. Two, Three, Four and All That: The SequelThe main topic is her view of numbers. A lesser topic is criticism of Cantor's claims about infinite sets, and his method, with she calls postulational and contructive. Corvini does not say so, but the postulational/contructive philosophical view is epitomized by the famous mathematician David Hilbert's opinion that the most reliable way to treat mathematics is to regard it not as factual knowledge, but as a purely formal discipline that is abstract, symbolic, and without reference to meaning.Her method focuses on "the what" of numbers, whereas Cantor's methods focuses on "the how" of numbers. She sharply distinguishes between counting -- which use only the positive integers -- and measuring -- whose domain is the real numbers (integers + rationals + irrationals). Cantor's method of one-to-one correspondence blurs the distinction.She talks about Cantor in the 1st and 3rd lectures of The Sequel. The last 1/3rd or so of Sequel #2 and the first half or so of Sequel #3 elaborate her view of measurement. Then she returns to Cantor and the postulational/constructive view of the rational and irrrational numbers. In her view there are two sorts of infinities -- counting (conceptualized by the positive integers) and measuring (conceptualized by real numbers and attained by subdividing). The postulational/constructive method blurs the distinction and treats open-ended construction like a concrete.I much agree with what she says, but believe there are even stronger criticisms of Cantor's nonsense. At one point in Sequel #1, Corvini talks in terms of 2-to-1 correspondence, but not any wider range of multiple-to-1 correspondences. Nor does she utilize part-whole logic to criticize Cantor's nonsense.
  19. Let's discuss the rest of this video, starting at 5:15. https://youtu.be/DDhyhuNhs_0 Tew addresses Rucka's parody music specifically. He says: "And then Rucka gets all precious. I remember once when I said, 'oh, yeah, you were playing Kesha's song at the beginning.' He's like, 'oh, well, it's my song.' Um, no, it's not. It's her song, and you changed the words." Let's momentarily put aside the question of whose song it is and examine Tew's assertion that Rucka got "all precious" over this song. He is insinuating that Rucka expressed irrational ownership over the song, as if Rucka doesn't understand that he used Kesha's music. Now, even if music were the essential feature of a song, Tew displays no sympathy for his friend's perspective. And with the "precious" comment, he's essentially mocking Rucka's pride in the work. To rationalize his criticism, Tew must ignore a basic fact about songs in general. There is no song without the words that are sung to music. Without words, you would only have vocal utterances, but no story or message in the sense of a modern pop song--or even in the sense of King David singing a biblical psalm while accompanied by his chief musician. Tew doesn't acknowledge any of this, and so he can carry on with his rant: "Again, [Rucka] just doesn't understand. He doesn't know what he's talking about. This is another manifestation of what I talked about, him putting the cart before the horse, trying to reverse cause and effect. He tries to do something and then pretend, 'oh, that's part of my craft. I have a real craft of making this music.' I've heard him describe his music as 'conceptual.' What the hell does that mean? He's just flinging Objectivist terms out there like they mean anything." Does Tew actually believe that conceptual is an Objectivist term? It would help if Tew offered some actual evidence for these weirder claims. But he never does that. I guess if you don't know that a song is conceptual in nature, dealing with stylized sentences and meaning, then you might be baffled by Rucka's comment. But most real songwriters will get it: the music is at worst mere beat-keeping, at best it's a rhythmic and melodic integration with the song's verbal message. Songwriters have different methods of course, but the great ones usually begin with the words (or a general idea) and figure out the appropriate music for that concept. Take the famous Elton John and Bernie Taupin collaboration, for example. Basically Elton can't write song music without first receiving Taupin's lyrics, because he's not composing a piano concerto. He's making a song. I find it potentially revealing that Tew had such a strong, negative reaction to Rucka's claim of having a "conceptual craft." Why should it be so hard to grant this point to his Objectivist friend? Even if Rucka were a nihilist, couldn't he be a crafty conceptual one? I think Tew might resent concepts in general, because he has a lot of trouble consistently relating them to reality. This is probably why he spends so much time playing video games. He's admittedly not that interested in the real world (eschewing "practical politics," for example), which is odd for a self-professed Objectivist philosopher, who should be a radical for capitalism. For what is Tew a radical? Giving up and berating his followers in public? Tew says that he has a "harsh" style because he cares about Objectivism. "I'm not harsh because I don't care about spreading Objectivism. I'm harsh because I do care and I want to spread Objectivism uncompromised. I want to spread the actual philosophy, not some watered-down pseudo-Objectivism." Tew probably means that being a principled Objectivist requires not tolerating the bad stuff in your midst. You must be prepared to scourge the wicked when necessary. But this obviously doesn't match with his delayed treatment of Rucka. He says: "When somebody sees you associating your filth with Objectivism and claiming that's a product of it, that is bad. It's bad for everybody who cares about Objectivism and its practical results." Not only did Tew fail to excoriate Rucka for over a year and a half, but he is the one who initially courted Rucka on Twitter and YouTube. You only have to listen to the first three minutes of Tew's reaction video to witness how much he claimed to admire Rucka. It's in that video where he proclaims that Rucka is "the model for what most people should be." https://youtu.be/t2MYk1RLnbY Coming from Tew, who, by the way, is currently "sympathetic" to making Rucka-like songs illegal, that's high praise for a parody rapper. Perhaps Tew only recently developed hatred for songs that use other people's music and change the lyrics. But I doubt he would admit such a thing, because that might call into question his boast of having "truck-like" abstractions roaring through his skull. You know, like Ayn Rand. With such a powerful brain, it's not believable that he missed Rucka's alleged nihilism, which he now thinks is so obvious that anyone can see it and associate it with Objectivism even. So it must be the case that he just doesn't care about all that. But of course that attitude conflicts with his stated desire to disassociate Objectivism from nihilistic filth, as if anyone would make that connection without his dogmatic proclamation against Rucka's music. So he's caught in this logical trap of his own making, because Mr. Tew doesn't understand parody songs--and he doesn't understand how to be objective. Surprisingly, at the 8:50 mark, he does attempt to describe something particular and real out there in the world: Rucka's "style." Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand style either. So instead he rattles off more abstract insults. Rucka's style "lacks values." It has a "fraudulent nature." Tew insists that the Aladdin song about Obama "doesn't say anything," which is hard to believe given the already funny idea of connecting Obama and Aladdin. I haven't even watched the parody yet, but I'm assuming this is another example of Tew's inability to understand parody songs. Finally he reduces Rucka's music down to infantile silliness. "I guess the statement he's making is, 'hey, isn't this silly?' Okay, that's literally comedy for infants." Aside from the misuse of literally, note the absurd implication here: that comedy for infants represents nihilistic filth. What does silly, infantile humor have to do with nihilism? Were The Three Stooges nihilists? No, it's called slapstick and vaudeville, and they make fun of impossible, ridiculous, stupid stuff. Tew does refer to a particular "irreverence" for life that he dislikes about Rucka's songs, and this might be the closest he gets to an example of real nihilism. "Someone who makes 9/11 jokes cannot respond to Howard Roark, to the extent he makes those jokes." I don't know which jokes he's talking about, because he doesn't indicate where they can be found. I've only watched a few Rucka videos so far, and I don't recall any jokes like that. Maybe I'll find them in the Aladdin/Obama song. Anyway, without that context, I can't agree or disagree with Tew here. But for now let's assume he's right that Rucka made some nihilistic jokes. By Tew's own standard, I ask: to what extent does that make Rucka's body of work nihilistic? Rucka has many songs, each with potentially dozens of jokes. What percentage or threshold of irreverence must be met before his music can properly be deemed nihilistic filth? If Rucka has a few vicious jokes in a sea of otherwise silly (and, yes, vulgar) content, then, okay, call him out on those particular examples. But to broadly categorize his work as nihilistic filth is evasive, especially given the utter absence of clear evidence. I suppose Tew expects us to simply watch Rucka's videos and agree that he's provided an "objective assessment." And so, in good faith, I will watch more of Rucka's parodies. I, however, so far have little confidence in Tew's ability to be objective.
  20. The materials are audio lectures from ARI. Not sure which one of the top of my head. I'll get back to you on it.
  21. Can you elaborate? Is there an online source for reading more of what she said?
  22. By switching 'possibility' and 'probability' over to the science of measurement, it provides a numeric value without having to address the epistemic issue of where it lies on the continuum of certainty. The status of possibility is a recognition that some, but not much, evidence supports a hypothesis, and nothing known contradicts it. The status of probability is a recognition that a substantial amount of evidence supports a hypothesis, and while nothing known contradicts it, certainty is not yet conclusive. In probability and statistics, to measure something presumes that there is something to be measured. In essence, some areas of math use the prestige the certainty of math purports, implicitly serving as a form of camouflage obscuring a lack of a philosophic foundation. Pat Corvini used words to the effect that in math, if it is wrong, it is influentially wrong. She was speaking about set theory in particular. The principle is sound more broadly.
  23. I made the following comment on the Charles Tew thread: “In another video he talks about mathematics. I don't remember which one. He prefaced his remarks with his not being a mathematician, but what he said about math did not sit well with me. As I recall, he said mathematics is about reality. Yes and no. It is also about our concepts. Show me a matrix, differential equation, integral or complex number in reality that wasn't written by some human being, then I will reconsider.” Link. MisterSwig suggested privately that I say more about this in a separate thread. Before I do, what was it that Charles Tew said that did not sit well with me? The video is ‘Sam Harris Doesn't Understand Math‘ (link). Tew launched a tirade on Sam Harris' saying that the Probability{Jesus will come back in Jackson County, Mo.} < Probability{Jesus will come back somewhere}. Defending that claim when the interviewer challenged him, Harris said it is a mathematically precise statement. In addition to the title he gave the video, Tew made several other comments, including the following: - Harris is disastrously wrong about his Jesus claim. - He said that mathematics is about the world. It applies to reality. - He claimed Harris had a Platonic understanding of math. - Mathematicians don’t know what they are talking about, because they aren’t philosophers. Ditto for physicists. Sam Harris was a little imprecise. He should have said, simplifying, Pr{Jesus to Jackson County} <= Pr{Jesus to somewhere}. Not “less than”, but “less than or equal to.” Even holding that both probabilities are zero like Tew said, the “less than or equal to” formulation is true. Also, more generally, Pr{A} <= Pr{B} if A is a proper subset of B. That is the mathematical principle Harris appealed to, even if he didn’t say it wholly correct. In my opinion, Pew’s asserting that Harris doesn’t understand math is a gross exaggeration. Not even arithmetic and some mathematical probability? That’s all I will say about Harris. I move on to some of Tew’s claims. First, his assertion about mathematicians and physicists is pompous and insulting to many people, quite a few I know personally. Next, is mathematics about the world? Maybe Tew took that claim from the title of the book by Robert E. Knapp. Mathematics is About the World. Nevertheless, Tew's understanding of math seems to me pretty shallow. I have been aware of Knapp's book for a while but haven’t read it. Anyway, in my view mathematics is also about the ideas we use to describe the world quantitatively. Let’s start with arithmetic. Is arithmetic about the world? Mostly yes, but not entirely. Consider 5 – 2 = 3. That’s true for all things countable. But what about 3 – 5 = -2? If I begin with 5 dimes in my hand and remove 2 of them, 3 dimes remain in my hand. However, beginning with 3 dimes in my hand and removing 5 of them is impossible. On the other hand, if the temperature is 3 degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius and then falls 5 degrees, saying it’s then - 2 degrees is valid and about the world. Pure math is an abstract discipline, so mathematicians usually ignore exceptions like not being able to remove 5 dimes from my hand when there are only 3 dimes there. By the way, when negative numbers were first considered, they were regarded as fictitious or false. The algebraic equation x^2 + x – 6 = 0 has two solutions (roots), x = +2 and x = -3. Moving on, a parabola (or circle, or ellipse, or hyperbola) is based on a conic section. The algebraic equation for one can be expressed in Cartesian coordinates – invented by Descartes -- or polar coordinates. Similar for volumes such as that of a cone, cylinder, or sphere. Is such mathematics about the world? It surely is. Cartesian and polar coordinates have a direct correspondence to the real world. The axes in both can correspond to distances in the real, external world. On the other hand, there is another coordinate system which has no such direct correspondence to the real, external world. It is often called the complex plane and is pictured here. The horizontal axis is for real numbers, but the vertical axis is for imaginary (or complex) numbers. We can’t use imaginary numbers to express distances in the real world. On the other hand, imaginary numbers are used to describe the real world in physics, more specifically quantum mechanics (link). The same complex plane coordinate system is shown there again. When imaginary or complex numbers were first systematically explored by Euler, Gauss, and Hamilton more than 150 years ago, their practical use was unknown. So one could say that imaginary or complex numbers were not about the world then. Times have changed. A practical use of them was found many years later in quantum mechanics. So one could say that imaginary or complex numbers are about the world now. By the way, I earlier gave an algebraic equation that had two real solutions (roots). Here is an algebraic equation that has no real number solutions (roots): x^2 + 4x + 5 = 0. The two solutions (roots) are -2 + i and -2 – i, where i is the imaginary (complex) number equal to the square root of -1. To be continued in another post(s). I will say something about matrices, calculus, differential equations, maybe more.
  24. Before moving on with my analysis, I'll address Eiuol's question: I have a deep interest in the health of the Objectivist movement. I've been part of it for over two decades now. And I think it's important that we come to an objective evaluation of Charles Tew. He has set himself up, gaining a considerable YouTube following, as a philosopher in the name of Objectivism. And, furthermore, he has very publicly and brutally condemned a fellow Objectivist. Someone should take up Tew's challenge and determine whether he's a cultish crackpot, for the long-term benefit of this community that we all value. He needs to be identified for what he really is, and, to be objective and fair, this requires a lot of time and analysis to accomplish. I don't want someone reading this and thinking, "Oh, Swig doesn't know what he's talking about, I'm going to give Charles the benefit of the doubt." No, this needs to be done thoroughly and clearly at least once. I have the ability to do it, I care about the community, and so I'm going to finish the job. I will at minimum complete the Rucka-related videos, and then consider whether to continue.
  25. What did the first contradiction say to the second contradiction? Contradictions can't talk.
  26. Is it really worth the time to analyze Tew's views? Nothing is wrong with discussing the purpose and morality of profanity, but the video seems superficial. It's mainly his impression, without any contention to grab a hold of for us to criticize. There isn't anything there. Sometimes this is fine when you're having a quick conversation with someone, but this is a 15 minute podcast. He doesn't elaborate either, so it ends up being the very profanity that he doesn't like - spewing out words without any particular meaning behind them, dressing words with adjectives that convey anger and frustration. "Nihilistic filth" is just as profane as "motherfucking trash". There is no deep analysis of language here on how curse words become filled with the meaning they have, or all the ways curse words can be used, or getting offended by certain uses of curse words when it's actually a misunderstanding. These videos I find very funny. Even better, they give me more to think about than anything that Tew said.
  27. I'm really worry or your reading comprehension skills. I did not try to prove anything in my last post and I ask you multiple times if for you the premise "All contradictions are false" is falsifiable. And for your silence L guess is no. Which plant it very firmly on the pseudoscience arena. If you are not able to answer that simple question your grasp of realty is not based in logic. Have fun with your crystals and please please, please do not eat them, They really hurt on their way out.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...