ruveyn1
-
Posts
351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by ruveyn1
-
-
Not a -stolen- concept but an idealization. There can only be a countable number of real numbers that can be computed to any desired degree of accuracy. However, that leaves the real number field full of holes unless we assume some property that guarantees local compactness. Most mathematicians prefer a number field that has no holes rather than one in which a Cauchy Sequence does not converge to a member of the field. Being able to take limits makes calculation a lot easier.
That is the good news.
The bad news might be that physical reality is not locally compact and may be full of holes at the lowest end of resolution.
ruveyn1
-
Galt was giving them a chance with his speech. He gave the answer and said, basically, "accept or perish." He always left the choice up to them. What else is there? You wanted him to say "accept my morality, perish, or come and live off of me"?
Not at all. Cutting a reasonable amount of slack for another person is not the same as becoming his doormat.
ruveyn1
-
Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif School
Now, I recognize that it was the ideas of the Enlightenment, and not Christianity that made America great. But, this goes too far. Personally, I think it's horrific to take the Declearation of Independence out of the classroom because of its reference to God.
I have a feeling it's not the references to God that the nihilists are after, but what's in bold.
Our "creator" is nature. So read the DOI as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are by nature equal, that they are endowed by nature with certain inalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ..... etc. etc....
Most of the Founders were Deists, not Theists. The author of the DOI was in effect a closet atheist. In those days it was not wise to be an explicit atheist in public. In the European nations such a position could end with imprisonment or even capital execution.....,
ruveyn1
-
Therein lies the apparent gulf between individualism and specie-ism.
I am not responsible for the future of mankind.
Don't fret, Ruveyn - the human race will survive!
(btw, I've done 'my bit'. Only one. Now, you must do yours, and I suggest 3 or 4
children to compensate for me. See how silly it gets?
)Been there. Done that. I got the t-shirt. I have 4 children and 5 grandchildren.
ruveyn1
-
I'm just referring to the Objectivist acceptance of the notion as described in such quotes as in the Lexicon:
There is a use of [the concept] “infinity” which is valid, as Aristotle observed, and that is the mathematical use. It is valid only when used to indicate a potentiality, never an actuality. Take the number series as an example. You can say it is infinite in the sense that, no matter how many numbers you count, there is always another number. You can always keep on counting; there’s no end. In that sense it is infinite—as a potential. But notice that, actually, however many numbers you count, wherever you stop, you only reached that point, you only got so far. . . . That’s Aristotle’s point that the actual is always finite. Infinity exists only in the form of the ability of certain series to be extended indefinitely; but however much they are extended, in actual fact, wherever you stop it is finite.
How many points in the interior of a unit circle?
ruveyn1
-
^ ^ ^
drowning men will grab onto any rope end they can, no matter who owns the rope.
Doesn't Ayn Rand make a distinction between emergency situations and normal situations?
If a fire suddenly broke (life or death situation) out you would grab the nearest extinguisher whether you owned it or not.
ruveyn1
-
Ok I realize this is a forum for Objectivist topics and this really isn't related so feel free to junk this topic if the mods don't think it's pertinent. But I just think an Objectivist audience might be able to offer better more first-handed answers.
So my environment science class very quickly glossed offer this idea of biomagnification. It is the process by which toxins "magnify" as they accumulate going further up the food chain. This is a very common and basic subject I gather, but the content in class and even in the book gives very little info about how it's supposed to work.
My question is this: why is it only the harmful things like mercury "biomagnify" in the food chain? Why is it that components that could enhance a living things health don't get "magnified" as well?
Most likely because they are metabolized and broken down quickly. They are partly assimilated and partly excreted. Substances like Mercury are not metabolized and they are not excreted efficiently either.
ruveyn
-
I don't believe that LEM has much to do with the original question. Does anyone have any input on the concept of physical constants and how they should be treated or thought of?
properly measured physical quantities are how we get at the underlying facts of nature. Anything in natured should be able to be measured, provided we are smart enough to do it and develop the technology to do it. During the Victorian era, a big leap was made in Britain in developing high resolution measuring instruments. Mass producing them.
ruveyn1
-
I was wondering about the morality of this act. He was essentially stealing, which is wrong, but he was also attempting to save his life by looking for a job and couldn't afford the means to travel, which is noble. He came clean about it when asked. What is his moral status?
He was a good person caught in the midst of bad times. He was trying to find work so he could stay alive. He apparently had no malicious intent nor did he damage life and property. In tough times, it makes sense to cut some slack. If some one did that today and he was not a habitual trespasser, just about any court will let him go with a warning and a suspended sentence.
ruveyn1
-
Divide the oceans into specialized use plots and sell them. Fishing companies would find it in their best interests to preserve the value of their investments.
How would one divide the High Seas into private plots? The Seas have to be open to navigation. Since the Seas are not the creation of any human, they are not to be claimed for exclusive use and occupation by anyone. This is not true of river or coastal areas which are dredged and cleared. Their usefulness is maintained by capital investment and labor (dredging is not as easy occupation). And there is the matter of enforcement. How does one divide the Seas into plots that can be enclosed by a barrier or even guarded?
ruveyn1
-
Ah, I got a little confused when you said artifact, earlier I read that as suggesting sets were invalid concepts with regards to math.
Virtually all of mathematics, ancient and modern rests on set theory, either explicitly or implicitly.
It took a long time to recognize how basic and necessary the concept of set is.
ruveyn1
-
One thing is clear, they were out to teach them a real lesson alright. Choose to perish or learn. I guess they thought that their minds would be more open to them then, rather than before striking, or as I see it as, let's not even try to appealing to minds, let's just collapse it all upon their heads instead.
Is that just? You never know for sure. Perhaps one lesson is sufficient to wake someone up. Do you wished to be doomed by a single mistake on your part if correction is possible? If not, then you should not be too anxious to doom others.
Personally, I prefer to cut someone some slack if there is a reasonable chance of getting his attention.
ruveyn1
-
This quote is interesting when Akston speaks to Dagny, and helps support what I said:
"I am writing a book on this subject, defining a moral philosophy that I learned from my own pupil... Yes, it could save the world... No, it will not be published outside."
I respond: That was Akston's opinion of his work. He could not have known for sure that it would have saved the world. Could = It is possible. Would = I is for sure.
ruveyn.
-
Newton and Leibniz developed calculus based on the notion of infinitesimals. And infinitesimal is a "number" or "quantity" that is smaller than any real number but is not zero. Bishop Berkley had a field day deriding that notion. He referred to infinitesimals as "the ghosts of departed quantities" The Bishop was a rather good mathematician himself and he wrote a book which sliced and diced the concept of the infinitesimal. There is only one problem. The notion of the infinitesimal gave the right answers even though the concept was not well found by either Newton or Leibniz. In the early and middle 19 th century (around 1840) Cauchy remedied the situation by providing a rigorous definition of limit. With limit one can define continuity of a function and can also define the derivative of a function (its slope at a point) This turns out to be operationally identical to Leibniz dy/dx, the "quotient" of two infinitesimals. Cauchy finally provided a mathematically sound basis for calculus.
Now here is the strange thing. Abraham Robinson dealt with the puzzle --- if infinitesimals are nonsense, why did they give the right answers? In 1960 Abraham Robinson finally gave a kosher definition for infinitesimals in his book "Non-Standard Analysis". This involved extending the real number system using a trick of set theory and formal logic to include infinitesimals. Every genuine real number is surrounded (so to speak) by a swarm of extended real numbers that are infinitesimally close. If you have the chops to deal with the mathematical logic and set theory by all means read the book. It is a hard read, but it is mathematically sound and finally put a foundation under Newton and Leibniz approach.
ruveyn1
-
The mathematical point (an abstraction) is pure place, pure location. It does not have any kind of extension. In the original greek Euclid's "definition" of a point translates as "a point is that which has no parts". Σημεῖόν ἐστιν, οὗ μέρος οὐθέν
See: http://farside.ph.ut...id/Elements.pdf
The interesting thing is that this "definition" is never used in a proof. Not once in the 13 books of Euclid. It is the postulates that make assertions about points that essentially define the points.
Ditto for Euclid's "definition" of a line: A line is a length without breadth. Γρaμμὴ δὲ μῆκος ἀπλaτές
But the only thing we "know" about lines is stated in the postulates.
Postulate 1. To draw a straight line from any point to any point.
Postulate 2. To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
Postulate 5. That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.
and so on.
ruveyn1
-
The mathematical point (an abstraction) is pure place, pure location. It does not have any kind of extension. In the original greek Euclid's "definition" of a point translates as "a point is that which has no parts". Σημεῖόν ἐστιν, οὗ μέρος οὐθέν
See: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/euclid/Elements.pdf
The interesting thing is that this "definition" is never used in a proof. Not once in the 13 books of Euclid. It is the postulates that make assertions about points that essentially define the points.
Ditto for Euclid's "definition" of a line: A line is a length without breadth. Γρaμμὴ δὲ μῆκος ἀπλaτές
But the only thing we "know" about lines is stated in the postulates.
Postulate 1. To draw a straight line from any point to any point.
Postulate 2. To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line.
Postulate 5. That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles. and so on. ruveyn1
-
If this doesn't mobilize Americans who still have a sense of justice, nothing ever will.
6 five round clips equals one thirty round clip.
What is the problem? Maybe I don't have a sense of justice.
ruveyn1
-
No, it doesn't. That's the whole point of capitalism. It's strictly a political system that allows people to freely choose their moral code. The only requirement Capitalism has is that you don't initiate force against others.
No fraud allowed either. Also contracts freely entered into must be honored, unless a force major intervenes (like a war, earthquake or tsunami).
ruveyn1
-
The state already sets reading requirements. The argument should be abolishing the public school system, not arguing about which books the state should be allowed to require.
I agree. Abolishing the compulsory tax loot funded school system resolves the problems.
That is not about to happen any time soon, however.
ruveyn1
-
Consider the vast amounts of money spent in our current economy that either decrease or at best hold constant the skills and competency of purchasing parties. Convenience for convenience's sake (i.e. not for efficiency's sake) is a mind killer. It seems more rational to me to work hard to increase the skills and competencies of those who could potentially be useful to me in the future while at the same time increasing my own skills and competencies than to work hard for expanded rights over physical property or pure luxury services with no value to them other than the immediate gratification they bring.
If you get around in a car how do you fill up your gas tank? Do you barter at every service station you stop at?
Your mode of operation is most appropriate to a primitive economy with few goods and services traded.
ruveyn1
-
Is this University a private school. If it is private, then the procedures for expulsion are whatever the owners or board of directors decides it is. A student enrolling in such school implicitly accepts the conditions under which can continue attendance. If this is a private school than the students civil rights were not violated. At most, the student can allege a breach of contract. If the school is taxpayer supported, that is an entirely different matter.
ruveyn1
-
Again, people ignoring the actual arguments in this debate. Sure, as we have explained over and over, not having a proper legal process isn't "kosher." But the entire point market anarchism seeks to challenge is whether a monopoly is necessary in order to have a proper legal process. And a valid argument against that as Don Athos has pointed out, has yet to be forthcoming in this thread.
You are wishing for a "guardian law" broad enough to permit the formation of private guards whose practices and organization meets some legal standards. Such a private "guard" would have to be accountable to some authority in case wrong doing is alleged. Who or what is that authority?
ruveyn1
-
Why would anybody worry about the human race dying out? There are so many breeders going around! Some malls I won’t even go to ‘cause there are so many breeders roaming around with their screaming kids.
On of those "breeders" my one day produce a doctor who extends your life when you reach old age. There is an old saying "Do not pee in the water in which you stand. You may have to drink it some day"
ruveyn1
-
Why didn't Roark go off and build a new society, realizing (like Dagny, Galt, and Rearden finally did) that the decaying world he lived in needed to die before it could be reborn?
Roark did not have the human material to work with. In AS there were enough Heroic Producers or Heroic spirited folks to at least start a partially self sufficient community. This was not the case in TF
ruveyn1
The bum who stowed away aboard Dagny's train
in Ethics
Posted
All in favor of throwing the bum off the moving train say Aye.
All in favor of putting him off at the next stop say Neigh!
Now vote.
ruveyn1