Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/31/11 in all areas

  1. I don't see anything wrong about going green, for I think it is the next step in the evolution of energy and doing so is selfish if you live in cities and want better air quality for yourself or to save money at the pump. However, people like 10:10 who want to use governmental force to make the market turn in their favor are immoral and irrational for thinking that would work, for if it does happen it should be done through free market forces, which is something these leftists fail to understand.
    1 point
  2. WeDontNeedGod

    Empty Space

    " It does not for instance prove that time is literally dilating / contracting ( which is nonsense anyway, time is a relational concept, it makes no sense to claim it dilates/contracts). " Except that the data shows that it does. Screw the evidence though! I'll take the fact that you answer my objection to your poorly written paper with hyperbole and ad hom as evidence that it is indefensible. "apparently out of some personal prejudice. " Isnt this a bit disingenuous, especially given http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9173&st=0&p=106734&fromsearch=1&#entry106734 and http://wedontneedgod.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/a-funny-conversation/ ? Once again, the data trumps the blah blah blah.
    0 points
  3. Don’t know what whYNOT is talking about. Nothing I wrote should be construed to mean what he’s arguing against. Tanaka is mistaken not only about Dreamspirit’s post, but about Ayn Rand ever writing about Hickman in an essay. It was in her very early private journals where she wrote about him, blown way out of proportion by her detractors. Defending Ayn Rand by saying she was perfect, never made a mistake, only helps them.
    -1 points
  4. Prometheus98876

    Empty Space

    No, you and others simply are mistaken about what the data proves. Screw you and your errors.My comments are neither hyperbole , nor am I guilty of any ad homs. Pointing out that you are acting badly / irrationally and insulting you is not the same thing. If I was attempting to negate your arguments / point by insulting you, maybe that would be an ad hom. However, I have done no such thing.Your links do not prove the point that you were attempting to make. Especially as they do not provide the full context in which I have made recent comments. Even if I was guilty of what you seem to think I am, it does not justify any of your recent comments / objections both here and via other mediums. There has been no rational reason to post any of them and most of the time you have been greviously in error anyway. And what is more : What makes you think I or anyone else cares?Face it : You are wasting your own time and are hopelessy outmatched. Put away the kindling , because you will lose if you continue to try to weild it. Kindly stop wasting time and move on.
    -1 points
  5. Prometheus98876

    Empty Space

    [First of all : I would like to point out that I am not interested if you disagree with my conception of space. I am absolutely convinced that I am correct and I am not interested in debating this issue in this thread. If you do not agree, that is fine, I do not want to hear about it. Second of all : I do not care if anyone wishes to link/share this around, as long as I am attributed as the author). Space is a concept which is very rarely correctly understand by anybody, including modern physicists. However, the purpose of this essay is not to discuss the confusions of others in relation to this concept, my purpose is to introduce a valid concept of space, clearly educed to its referents in reality. It is also meant as an answer to those that damn any and all concepts of empty space as invalid. Whether or not there is any "absolute" vacuum ( even in "outer space" ) is according to modern physics debatable and there are many theories as to whether or not any such areas in space exist or not. However it is not really impossible from a metaphysical point of view ( when I say "metaphysically possible" - I mean that from a metaphysical perspective, such is not impossible ). When one considers a "region of space", they are referring to it in relation to separation between a number of entities. This is what space is : It is a conceptual relationship and the "space" itself has no physical existence as such. However, the separation, the geometrical relationship does in fact exist. The relationship can also be said to include the presence of absence of intervening objects ( or at least the presence or absence of such objects worthy of consideration in a given context). "Empty" refers to the fact that there are no such objects within that region. This is the so-called "void" of space and in some contexts the "void" may refer to a region of space which is alleged to be literally empty of anything at all. It is not metaphysically impossible for this to be so, it is not impossible for this relationship to exist ( again, whether or not any such regions exist is besides the point of this essay and is a question for physics to answer, not metaphysics). Let us analyze "space " a bit more and put this another way : Space is a separation between objects. It is a relationship of positions between objects. We say space "contains" one or more objects when there are other objects which exist within the geometrical "boundary" which the bounding objects delimit. Empty space means that there are no other objects which exist in a position which relates to the objects which are defined as bounding objects in a certain way. By which I mean that there are no other objects which exist according to the relationship of being 'between" objects bound by these objects which we are using to delimit this "space". This is why it is metaphysically possible to have a "void" in at least one sense and why it is valid to speak of a void in at such a sense: The sense that a void is said to refer to "empty " space, to the fact that no relationships of a certain type exist in relation to the objects bound a space. It is an identification of the fact that a certain relationship does not apply in a given case/context The void does not "exist qua void” ,it has no physical existence, however it is nonetheless a valid concept and it is appropriate to use it. Let me make this still more clear : Does the fact which I allege "empty space" refers to itself refer to anything in reality? Yes it does. The fact that "there are no objects within this boundary" means that there are some objects in certain locations. The objects and their positions and other objects we wish and their locations are the ultimate referents we are dealing with here. Now we relate the position of these "boundary" objects in such a way that we form the concept of a "space" between them. Then we consider any other object and we recognize the fact that these objects have location as well, however that location is not within the "space" bound by the boundary objects. We then call that space" empty space" ( or we just say its "empty") to refer to this fact. However, some people continue to deny the validity of this concept of space and insist on arguing that “reality is a full plenum, it is filled to the brim with something “ or some such argument. However one does need to invent an aether to do away with the concept of "empty space". It is entirely unjustified and rationally impossible to defend on such grounds. In fact it is to commit a gross error of its own. It is to assume that “empty space” reifies nothingness, that it is equivalent to claiming that the absence of something is something and that it can be said to be a concept with referents ( a valid concept). However this is false. It is the identification of a relationship, as explained above. It is not the same as saying that the void exists qua concrete entity, it is simply the statement that certain entities exist with a given relationship to each other. It is not the same as giving nothing metaphysical primacy or stature and it is most certainly not a contradiction. In fact it is to be guilty of yet another error. It is to take the relationship "empty space" , which is an abstraction which refers to objects and their positions and replacing it with some entity which one then refers to as "the aether" However this is in fact a logically unnecessary and ridiculous thing to do and what is more it is to reify the abstract relationship of space, which is the very error aether theory advocates tend to accuse those that believe in “empty space” of! So in short : It is metaphysically possible that regions of "outer space” ( if “outer space” is to be a valid term, it must refer generically to any region of “space” which we wish ton consider outside of the bounds of the atmosphere of Earth or whichever celestial object one may speak of “outer space” in relation to ) are empty or that they are a void. Provided one recognize that space is relational concept One need not invent an aether for this purpose. One need not treat it as something subject to curvature ( which is just another way of reifing space and a failure to recognize it as nothing more than a relational concept). There is no space in philosophy or physics to treat space as anything but what it is. It is time more people ( especially physicists) started doing so.
    -2 points
  • Create New...