Law of Quantity

[twoo2015]

Ayn Rand's measurment-omission solution to the problem of universals rests on the principle that everything is quantitative: every referent subsumed under every concept must be quantitative or else the referent would have no measurements to omit.

 

Aristotle included the concept 'quantity' in his list of basic axiomatic categories. 

 

Question: where does the concept 'quantity' fit in the Objectivist hierarchy of concepts?

 

My answer is the concept 'quantity' is co-extensive with 'existence' and 'identity'. I call this point the Law of Quantity, and I have written an entire essay on it, expanding Ayn Rand's "Existence is Identity; Consciousness is Identification" principle as follows:

 

Existence is Identity is Quantity;

Change is Causality is Time;

Consciousness is Identification is Quantification;

Matter is Potential is Eternal;

Form is Actual is Temporal.

 

The essay (actually the first chapter of a planned treatise on metaphysics I have in my head) with a full explanation of these integrations is available online:

 

http://1drv.ms/1HWzOfj

Edited July 28, 2015 by twoo2015

[William O]

I have a piece of constructive criticism regarding your essay. I think you should discuss Pythagoras much, much earlier. The second I saw what you were arguing my mind started screaming that your position would reduce to Pythagoreanism, and it would have been difficult for me to continue evaluating your essay if I had not taken an extra second to do a Ctrl-F for Pythagoras. Your audience in this essay is people who are pretty deep into philosophy and Objectivism, so I suspect that a number of other people you want to persuade will have this thought as well.

 

Edit: At the very least, you probably need to show early on that you are aware of the issue.

Edited July 28, 2015 by William O

[Plasmatic]

This is a topic I do a lot of thinking on so I'm reading but I think I see a problem already....(a really obvious one.) Will report back....

Is there a way to search this doc.?

Edit:

If Objectivist epistemology holds everything can be measured – if the principle is “measurements must exist in some quantity” (emphasis not added) – then it follows that Objectivist epistemology implicitly rests on the idea that all of reality quantitative.

This is a non sequitur and central to the main error so far. Will explain later.

Edit:

It would be awesome if you put the page ranges for each section so people could scroll to them.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Plasmatic

[jacassidy2]

Interesting point and makes sense at first blush if you are talking about concepts based directly on material entities.  When forming more complex concepts, particularly those of states in consciousness, the measurement may not be a matter of math, but of comparative intensity in the process of differentiation and integration - much like the concept of color for most people.

[Plasmatic]

I turns out that the search function and the ability to click the section link works when not on an iPhone.

[twoo2015]

William O. writes:

 

>> I think you should discuss Pythagoras much, much earlier.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I hadn't considered that. Let me think on that and try to find a natural way to include that earlier.

 

jacassidy2 writes

 

>> the measurement may not be a matter of math, but of comparative intensity in the process of differentiation and integration

 

​But I think that "comparative intensity" would be mathematical.

[New Buddha]

Twoo2015

 

I have to admit, I got about 12 pages into the paper and then just about quit reading until you mentioned analog recordings.  On Post #64 of Relationship between Object and Percept in Perceptions (I don't know how to provide a direct link but it is an active topic) I typed the following:

 

 

 

DJ

I have to admit that I haven't read every post, and I don't know what your background/education is, but here are some ideas that might answer some questions you are dealing with.

 

Have you ever heard of Analog Signals and/or Transducers ?

 

When sound waves interact with a microphone (a transducer) the microphone transduces the mechanical energy of the sound waves into electromagneticenergy that is stored on some medium (say, a magnetic tape).  At a later date, these electromagnetic signals are transduced back into mechanical energy (soundwaves) by means of a speaker (a transducer) and are, in turn, heard by your ears where they are further transduced into bioelectric energy.

 

This is not just an explanation of how hearing works.  It's an explanation of how all senses work.

 

With out transduction of energy from one form to another, by the senses organs, no awareness of "out there" is possible.

 

 

 

I think I will keep reading.....

Edited July 30, 2015 by New Buddha

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I turns out that the search function and the ability to click the section link works when not on an iPhone.

I was laughing so hard until I saw that my Android has the same problem.

Now I laugh no more.

[jacassidy2]

William O. writes:

 

>> I think you should discuss Pythagoras much, much earlier.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I hadn't considered that. Let me think on that and try to find a natural way to include that earlier.

 

jacassidy2 writes

 

>> the measurement may not be a matter of math, but of comparative intensity in the process of differentiation and integration

 

​But I think that "comparative intensity" would be mathematical.

Yes, you're right.  The measurement may by relational though.  This one is bigger or this one is deeper in color as opposed to this one is "x" inches or this one is 450MHz.  I think that Ms. Rand in ITOE, and Mr. Peikoff's further work, would point out that the measurement omission in concept formation may be measurement in several forms.  Maybe that was assumed in your post and I should relax and read?

Edited July 31, 2015 by jacassidy2