Prometheus98876
-
Posts
1340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by Prometheus98876
-
-
Grames : I do not see much ambiguity there, none that I have not more than cleared up by now. I was talking about physical objects, which have boundaries, dimensions etc. Given location is an identification of a spatial relationship to some other object(s), it also has such relationships with other objects ( many such in fact ) and therefore a location. I see no ambiguity here.
Regardless of whether or not you choose to model a particle with a probability density function, it still has a definite location. It is just that it might be difficult to identify the spatial relationships in question, so one might use math instead.
AlexL : No you are simply mistaken. To exist as an object ( by definition as a tangible, physical entity ) is to have a precise, definite location. The concept location is the identification of a spatial relationship , in relation to other objects. These relationships are of a definite nature, they are not "fuzzy" or indeterminate. So in what sense can I logically discuss a "hazy" localization?
-
Specific / exact are I would think interchangeable in that context. Use specific though if you prefer.
"Here you are stepping outside the realm of philosophy, which is also Ayn Rand's opinion, as expressed in my quotations from ITOE2, Appendix, section "Philosophy of Science", which is, BTW, a very illuminating reading."
No I am not. Because when I say "exact" I mean "specific" apparently. Let me make this more clear : I am saying it has a SPECIFIC location, SOMEWHERE. But I am not claiming that philosophy has anything to say on where exactly that is. So no, I am not stepping outside it, you just think I am for some reason ( possibly I am not being clear enough , but I do not think this is the reason ).
Also keep in minde that the context is physical objects, not say ideas or other non physical, non tangible entities.
And no, Ayn Rand does not disagree on me when it comes to the concept of location. AT least not to my knowledge.
"I never said you did."
Sure sounds like you are to me. If you are not, then I do not see what your point is.
Yes, I know I do not have to answer within five minutes. It just happens that I am often able to say what I want to say in relatively short time period. Especially when I already know the subject matter ( whether I get what you are trying to say is less clear, apparently ).
Edit : ie. : When I say it is implied that thye have an "exact" / "precise' location, what that means in this context is that they have a definite, precise, knowable location somewhere, though I never said or implied philosophy of t he Law of Identity implies anything about *where* that is. Only that it *does* have a precise , definite etc location in *some* place.
Really, you seem to be the only person that has read that and missed that point, as far as I know. I do not know why that might be...
-
The Objectivist philosophy itself and the Law of Identity in particular, does not require or imply that objects, and in particular submicroscopic objects, must have a "precise" location. In your blog entry http://metaphysicsop...y-principle/you correctly write: "To exist is to exist somewhere."What this "somewhere" exactly means, for different kind of entities and levels, is a scientific question.
Therefore, if this "somewhere" is "precise", that is specified by the three real functions {x(t), y(t), z(t)}, or is specified by a real field rho(x,y,z,t) (as for solid or fluid bodies), or the square of the module of a complex function psi(x,y,z,t) (as in QM), cannot be decided by philosophy.
Indeed, Ayn Rand wrote:
She also wrote (p.291-292):
Having identity means that entities are what they are and act according to their identity. You step outside the Objectivist philosophy if you prescribe what characteristics entities should have and if they should be compatible, etc.
In summary, your statements about what you call "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle" are incorrect, as a number of others, including the assertion that Heisenberg's is a principle.
Sasha
Of course the Law of Identity implies that. To be, is to be something, with an exact nature, an exact size, exact boundaries etc. Which implies that it is possible to assign an exact location obviously ( though it does not say anything about where that location is ). Which was my point, even though I said it implies it has an exact location. I did not consider it necessary to bother elaborating, as anyone that has a good grasp of the concept "location" should have been able to grasp my point.
Location is a spatial concept. It says "something exists, and in fact it exists in a given geometric relationship to some other object(s) that we wish to consider.". To exist and to have a definite size and boundary means that is alway possible to relate it to other objects in such a fashion. So yeah, I would say it *does* imply "that entities have a location", whether that entity is a subatomic particle or a black hole. At least as long as we are discussing matter anyway.
And no, I never said an objects location is to be determined by philosophy, only that philosophy said *it has a location*. Ie, I said that philosophy says it is somewhere, but I did not say philosophy says where it is. You completely misinterpreted what I actually said.
-
I don't put science above philosophy, I find them of equal importance. Or thereabouts. You need both. If you are going to go through a bunch of effort to learn a philosophy that reveres reality, you should probably spend some time studying reality.
Then I think that you have missed the point Brian, myself and others here have been trying to make. If I had to rank philosophy and the other sciences in order of "importance", I would think I would put philosophy first. In that one can do a lot of rational thinking and have a rational code of ethics etc without knowing a lot about any other science but philosophy ( yes, you do need to know *some* stuff from the other sciences ).
Not to mention that without philosophy, you would never be able to get anywhere in the other sciences anyway.
But yeah, you do need both philosophy and the other sciences to some extent. Which is why Rand was not ignorant of the scientific facts ( I am excluding philosophy here ) which were important to her , even if they were apparently largely basic facts.
But yes, I would agree with the statement that Rand, Peikoff etc grasp some aspects of those sciences better than some alleged experts. Does not require them being masters of those sciences, just to be able to properly use philosophical detection to detect philosophical errors and their implications. Though knowing a little science can sometimes help too
-
Well, that is a different approach. Maybe it is just me and maybe it is the late hour at which I am trying to read this : But what exactly is the intended moral of that interesting little story?
-
Well, supposing that you accept the "definitions" of e, cos, sin and "i" presumed by my proof ( I think I already gave a link if one wants to see the reasoning for why it is valid, at least for sin and cos) : Then the rest must hold, regardless of the value of "x".
See the definitions for sin and cos which I gave at the start? Good.
See where it says e^z? In this case we set z = ix, i times x. In this context, z can take ANY complex value, that is the point. i * x is complex number ( not a real value anyway). e^(anything) by definition takes the following form :
The only difference is that we were using z not x before. However the same identity holds if x is actually a complex value. There is nothing special that says it only holds for *real* values. So just replace x with z and the same holds. The same holds if you then replace z with i*x. I do not seem what is so hard to accept. If you accept this, the proof clearly follows from there.
-
Dante : And basically what I also said
emorris1000 : Well, I cannot track down any good reason to have that problem at this point. I mean, maybe there might have been some benefit for her knowing a little more. However that is sheer speculation and I guess we will never really know now. Even if it was true, I would not go as far as saying she knew *too little*, only that more might *possibly* have been better.
For what it is worth : I recall hearing that at some point relatively close to her death she was starting to learn more about algebra and neuroscience ( why I am not exactly sure on, but I would wager it had some relation to some philosophical problems she was wrestling with). I have no idea how far she got into looking into either though.
-
It is a strong argument for why *science* is important, yes. It is an argument for why the scientific method / way of thinking is important in order to gain knowledge.
However it is not an argument for why in depth knowledge of *all* science is important to *everyone*. Nor is it a strong argument for why Ayn Rand , Peikoff and others necessarily need to know a great deal about the hard sciences in particular. Philosophy is the science those two need to know. The "hard " sciences? Not so much. However, it has already been shown to you why this is the case.
There is no "ethical minimum" which exists at the same level for everyone. The closest to this is the minimum knowledge of a given scientific field which one may need to know in order to think / act properly ( ie philosophy ) or to achieve some other goal ( such as building a bridge, in which case they need physics and engineering etc ). Which hard science they need to know and how much is entirely dependent on what they are trying to do and what succeeding at such requires.
Otherwise it is completely unimportant how much science they know and it is certainly completely outside the realm of morality / ethics. Which deals with how man is to live / achieve values.
Who decides this minimum amount anyway? And how? According to what *you* think is appropriate? What if that has little bearing on how everyone else lives / achieves *their* values?
The minimum amount *everyone* "needs" is enough to live and if t hey want to achieve values : Whatever scientific facts achieving them requires. At what level this is and what facts are included is largely very different for everybody and dependent on what they value to a huge extent.
Look: IT IS CONTEXTUAL. The context is what a given person needs in order to achieve what they want to achieve. Though some things need to be known by everyone that wishes to live / do anything useful. What is enough for me might be too little for someone else, or more than is rationally useful for some other person.
Are we to condemn cleaners for not knowing much physics , chem or bio? Am I to morally condemn painters for not knowing more than the most basic physics? Even though neither of them have any need to know much more than they do to succeed at life and happily achieve rational values?
-
No, no , no, a million times "no". Science is not there to give us an APPROXIMATION of reality. That is the Kantian influence in *modern* science talking. This influence asserts that it is impossible to know reality as it is and that we can only identify approximations of reality instead. Or to put it as it is often put in relation to physics : "We cannot know reality as it is, but we can identify mathematical rules which allow us to construct a system which describes a system of appearances, but not things as they necessarily are"
The point of science is not to "approximate" reality or to allow us to merely predict results. It is the systematic study of reality by applying the rules of logic and induction to the results of experiments / observation, so as to identify the nature of reality in relation to a given field of study. It is not about using dubious methods/thinking in order to sort of figure it out, or to make predictions that might work, even though we dont know why they work .
Also, one can revere knowledge without having to learn the details of some scientific disciplines in great depth. One need not know a lot of physics to know a lot about many aspects of philosophy. One need not understand evolution in depth in order to be a master philosopher. It is perfectly acceptable for one to know only as much about a "hard" science ( physics, chem , bio etc) as they need in order to answer the questions involved in a given field of inquiry, be that philosophy or any other.
Sure, many fields of study are related to some extent, but one is not morally obliged to learn much about all these sciences. The most you could say is that one should try to learn as much about them as it is required in order to answer questions which are important in relation to some value you might seek to obtain.
The video on the following page covers this in greater depth :
-
I suppose I could do that
But I think that would take a little more time than I am willing to spend on it *here* 
I am just going to assert that those are axioms of my argument and leave the derivation of those as an exercise for the reader Here you can find a partial proof , not quite seven pages ( would be somewhat closer if it was more complete perhaps), but it gives the general idea for anyone that is curious : http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/53746.html
-
Well, one can use philosophy in order to identify fundamental errors contained with a body of science. For instance, one can identify that certain interpretations of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle are invalid , because they assert that electrons have no precise value for their momentum and are not in a precise location ( I am not talking about the ones that claim it is impossible to *know* either precisely, but the interpretations that claim that of these do not have precise "values"). You do not need *any* further knowledge of physics than the basic claims of these interpretations in order to reject them, on the grounds that they are clearly invalid as they implicitly assert that the Law of Identify does not fully apply to electrons ( etc).
If a scientific theory contradicts basic philosophical premises like this, ones that you know to be true ( either because they are axioms or because you can prove them to be true), then it is entirely *VALID* to use philosophy to attack that theory and to show it to be false. One may not need to know *anything* else but philosophy and enough about the theory in question to do this.
This is in *some* cases however, and this sort of approach clearly will not work in other cases. Sometimes you *do* need to understand a fair bit of the "hard" science involved in order to understand the arguments, let alone to prove that they are correct or incorrect. This is why Ayn Rand for instance avoided discussion on the theory of evolution, something she did not know much about and was not comfortable discussing. It is also why I imagine why other Oist scholars ( such as for the sake of an example : Alex Epstein to my knowledge ) do not try to prove that aspects of Relativity are perhaps problematic in places.
-
It would have been much more fitting if you had put it like this : "i easily pick 42!"
-
Yeah, why would it be unethical? While it is sometimes strongly to ones advantage to know at least a little about some branches of "science" ( I will assume you mean the "physical" sciences such as math, physics, chemistry and so forth), it is sometimes not that important.
The most you could say is that it is not really moral to evade learning as much science as you need to achieve some value that might require a certain amount of knowledge about science in order to be achievable in a given context.
Also : Yes Ayn Rand had relatively little knowledge of these "sciences" and Peikoff seems to have a little more ( at least in relation to physics, he had to learn some in order to do his lectures on induction in physics ) but not a staggering amount as far as I am aware.
However , it does not matter that much and it should not surprise you. Rand was a philosopher, she did not really need to know a lot of science ,as philosophy was her interest and it did not require a lot of scientific knowledge ( not the sort you are alluding to anyway). Peikoff I think knows more, but that is only because his philosophic interests relate a little more directly to physics and the problems he wanted to solve were easier if he knew a certain amount about physics.
-
I dont know, at least where I went ( technical college ) most decent students had no problem with the fact that e was in fact just easy notation for approximately 2.718. Maybe I just had better lecturers / classmates...
Yeah, that is a pretty cool and eloquent proof. Though I still prefer the way I mentioned. For one it does not require that you either assume the first step or figure it out yourself. But heh, that is not unreasonable.
For my one you just have to take for granted the definitions of e ( for complex zs) and the power series definitions of sine and cosine
. Or better yet understand a little Then again, very few people are aware of the power series definition of sine and cosine. Heck, even some "mathematicians" are not aware of it or have to be reminded sometimes.I guess I just like my one better because it makes the "deep" connection between e, i and trig functions a little more explicit....
-
Weston, lets use Wikipedia to help prove it shall we?
sine and cosine can be defined as follows :
For complex z :
And ( of course ) :
So :
cos(pi) = -1
sin(pi) = 0
so
i(sin(pi) ) = 0
so...
e*(i*pi) = cos(pi) + i(sin(pi)) = -1
-
Irrational ah? Well you know what Ayn Rand would have to say about those irrational numbers, right?
Bad puns aside..
"e" ( 2.718 etc) is pretty good, and one of the ones I find the most interesting / useful a lot of the time. Unless I am mistaken you forgot to mention one thing that makes it pretty useful : That it makes solving/working with a lot of very useful Differential Equations A LOT easier than using some other method.
Your explanation of differentiation in that context was a little circular . If you were trying to reduce it fully : then you did not really manage it. Though I think anyone here has a good grasp of the concept of differentiation should not really have needed the explanation anyway and should get the idea.
e^(i *x) = cos(x + i*sinx, which you allude to is known as Eulers Formula ( or Eulers Identity sometimes ) and is in fact very simple to prove in only a few steps ( three or four steps using the Power Series Expansion definitions for sine and cosine).
e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 is a "special case" of the formula derived when you set x = pi.
As for the actual nature and usefulness of "i" : It is simply a mathematical *tool* which is required to solve certain mathematical problems ( quite a large number of them really, but that is besides the point) properly. Obviously it does not correspond to an "actual quantity". It is merely one of many mathematical concepts which have been created in order to allow us to use real-world input values in order to derive equations which give us answers which allow us to find values for properties ( and so forth) of things in reality.
-
I know what I might like if I was somebody that did not already read the forum now and again : More cross-posts from blogs etc that deal with a broader range of topics or perhaps ones that deal with specialist ones I am more interested in. Though given that in my case those would largely constitute stuff from philosophy of physics/math and the like, that might not be very likely to happen for me...
-
I do not know who this Jonathan is, but I am pretty sure that he is not being rude and that he is at least attempting to be constructive. Though it would perhaps be better if he was more specific.
For the record, it is possible to think the rules are bad while not having a problem with the moderation. One can think the rules suck but that they are enforced in a manner which is "fair" in relation to the rules. Though it would seem that this is not the case here.
While I am on it : I actually have had very few disagreements with moderation on the forum. I think I might have had a few instances were I thought the moderators were perhaps being a little over-zealous or something, however I think they were largely very minor instances.
It is only really the chat moderation which I recall have any major issues with. However the moderators here generally heard my opinion about this by now, so I think I shall refrain from elaborating on that [ for now].
-
We are talking about global climate change here, not localized changes. What is more, we are talking about rises in global temperature averages which are caused by MAN, not some unknown alleged climate changes which may be caused by any number of other things ( including solar activity for instance). Natural things which are beyond human control.
Even if the temperature where YOU are is fluctuating more than normal and is rising on average, where is your evidence that it is AGW?
Plus, I am pretty sure regional temperatures are well known for rising or lowering for years at a time for reasons not always well understood. Lets not assume its manmade without any actual evidence.
-
What does it matter what some people allege that the majority of experts think, when the claims presented are often illogical / unsupported or easily demonstrated to be false?
A rational person does not believe the alleged scientific consensus just because it is claimed to be one or because it is one. A rational person first listens to what they say and makes some attempt to see if there is at least any alleged evidence for their claims and whether the claims can be readily shown to be false.
Any rational person with high school knowledge of correct scientific methodology that does research into the matter properly will hopefully find that the allegations are largely derived using highly suspect methodology. In order to form conclusions which even the layman can find arguments which make it clear that the claims are largely false.
Besides,in this case the reality is that it is far from a consensus.
-
Ok, thanks that is a lot more useful and actually helps motivate me to bother reading the documentation. That certainly sounds interesting the way you put it. I will have to look into it myself to see if it actually does all that stuff well. Of course, I can do this stuff fairly easy with other languages and their toolsets, so it would have to be something pretty special. I do know some LISP and of course I know C, and a combination of the two is certainly...interesting. It remains to be seen whether it is effective, but sounds as though it would fun at least for a while. Truth be told, I am starting to see how it might be just fine for some stuff at least.
Of course, it would be an easier sell if you could provide potential investors / employees with some details of programs that might have been made with it ( I guess the website probably mentions it somewhere though...) . Preferably something they might be able to download and run.
Anyway good luck with that thing. My objections / doubts aside : It is certainly an ambitious project and I wish you "luck" with it. I am not sure how one could run a business around creating Pliant apps, but that does not mean it cannot be done. Perhaps it has a very viable niche market ( factories? xD ). I for one would be interested to hear if you do get anywhere with this, if only to hear a a presumably interesting story about an underdog programming language being used so successfully.
-
I do not know enough of the language features to be able to argue well for or against Pliant, that much should be obvious at this point. I do not see you doing this, instead you are throwing me things which do not answer my question or provide a compelling reason to bother.
I do not think I said "I hardly believe it can replace C#", what I did ask was why would I think it would be any more suitable than existing languages, of which C# is fact a good example ( despite the fact that you have asserted otherwise). Same goes for Python. Maybe Pliant is more suitable than them for some things, maybe not. However you have given me no particularly compelling reason to do so.
I am not saying it is no good either - I am asking you I would think so. Instead you do not directly tell me. This is fast becoming a waste of time. I ask a question, you field a whole load of incorrect/irrelevant issues which do not really answer them.
I have been asking you to tell me what is so great about it for a while now, is it a big leap that I want you to tell me about the languages "objective features", or do I have to hit you over the head and yell at you so that you get it? Why do you think I keep asking all these questions about Pliant?
It is not that I am having trouble following the documentation. It is that I am slowly reading through it and I am not finding much that is compelling and I was hoping you could tell me what I might be missing. Apparently you will not or cannot.
What is more, as far as I and some of my friends can tell : If this thread is anything to go by you do not have a firm grasp of the realities of programming serious projects. Or at least how programming language choice factors into it. I am fairly sure this would discourage any serious programmer from wishing to become involved. As if the the fact that you seem to put unwarranted confidence in Plaint was not enough.
Rant about how its like Rearden Metal or how I am saying it is no good because I haven't heard about it ( I never did that anyway) all you wish. I think you will find that there is a logical reason why almost nobody has heard of Pliant : There is little compelling reason why anyone would bother with it at this time, when there are a lot of other languages which are better supported.
Good luck, you are going to need it I think....
-
How is using Pliant going to cut your dev team by a factor of four? It would have to be QUITE the language to do that ( very few languages can boast being able to do this very often) or your existing dev team would have to be very much inefficient . Do you really think Pliant is a language that can replace ASP.NET and Javascript and Python and C#? Wow, that is a magic language. If it is capable of replacing all of these, I have to wonder why neither myself or any of my programming buddies have ever of it.
Why isnt this thing getting more attention? It is probably moot, as I seriously doubt it is a suitable replacement for all of those languages, some of which are good for things the others are not. Pliant might be able to do all that, does not mean it is more efficient to use it in order to try to do so though.
Yes, programmers learn new jobs according to the job market. But why would there be a strong job market for Pliant? The "reasons" given so far are not a compelling reason to think that this ever be the case.
You are incorrect as the popularity of Python. Python is popular because of its "lazy" syntax, ease of use , the fact that it has great libraries ( for instance, ScyPy is used by thousands of scientists) . This was all true long before Google Apps Engine was popular. Python was becoming popular before then too.
As for this : "So a person who is not looking for quick fix but wants to build a solid foundation, should learn about benefits of pliant." : Sure some people choose a given language because they want a quick fix and sometimes that is a bad idea. Those sort of people are probably going to do that with any language they think is easy, and are probably relatively poor programmers or way too lazy. Sometimes a "quick fix" is all a problem needs and it works fine. Other programmers do not actually want a merely quick fix and yet somehow manage to use all of the languages used so far to create wonderful solutions efficiently.
A friend of mine even used C# ( a language you seem to think is not good for much) to implement Scheme. It works great. So much for a quick fix.
I myself have used C# for many things and it is great and I can work very efficiently. Generally I think you will find that the choice of programming language does not always make a huge difference, as long as someone picks the one that they are the most comfortable with and which is reasonably well suited to the sort of task at hand. If Pliant does this for you, that is great. I am just not sure if I or many others would necessarily agree.
-
Let me answer you with another question. What language would you use today to create a database system like Oracle ? Or microsoft-word ?
Or game physics engine ? Or OS kernel ? The answer in each case would be C or C++. It is the most general and fast language today in which any project can be done. Objective-C and C# are only good for some projects (they target a particular layer of abstration).
Pliant competes with C++ not with C#.
Game physics engine : C++, and happily so. If it was a game in which high performance was not an issue : C#.
OS kernel : C or maybe C++. C# if I simply need a simplistic kernel for which performance is not vital.
Database system : Not sure, probably C++.
Given its poor design , about the only reason I can think of to use Objective-C is if you are making Apple products.
C# is highly suitable for a MANY applications. It is a powerful language with many features and libraries ( the .NET ones number in the tens of thousands of really good ones). It is slower than C++ and a number of other languages , however for many , many applications this does not matter. For the vast majority of applications, it is plenty fast enough and anyway, unless it is a high performance application : The choice of programming language makes almost no difference these days.
If you have a look, you will find many even slower languages are popular? Why ? Because programming language speed makes very little difference to anyone not making applications in which high speed is very crucial. Sometimes languages that seem slower can actually do some things FASTER. Python for instance is considered slow usually, however it has some highly optimized mathematical libaries that can be tweaked to run at speeds approaching C++.
This does not sufficiently answer the questions I asked however.
Lacking a knowledge of science, as an objectivist
in Ethics
Posted · Edited by Prometheus98876
I did answer the question, several times in fact. I take no blame for the fact that you fail / refuse to notice and I am not about to answer it *yet again*.
Contrary to what *you* believe : Yes they do. Which AR quote did you give actually supported your assertion otherwise? I am pretty sure she never said any such thing.