Prometheus98876
-
Posts
1340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by Prometheus98876
-
-
It's not exactly that he asks for reassurance, I think he probably just has kind of an unsure outlook on life. He is a very attractive, good looking man (and I don't say that for nothing) and if I say something like you are sexy, he acts bewildered and says something like, "I never thought I was really that good looking." He is 18 years old, and wants to be an engineer, but debates for weeks about whether he should sign up for college classes and/or go get his drivers license. Aside from his good qualities, it is very frustrating and queer to have to deal with a man that can't lead. The only reason I haven't considered letting him go is because I think this may not really be him, it may be environmental (culture he was taught etc.) or that he is just young. But I am afraid that he is like this simply because we have incompatible personalities and that with another woman he wouldn't be like this. When I was really angry at him for stuff a long time ago, I was convinced that he had turned homo.
Everything is an ordeal with him. He asks me to come visit him for a week then acts like I'm inviting myself when I ask him to tell me a date because I have to plan my schedule.
I am not sure that the appearance thing is a big deal ( unless it comes up a lot and / or is presented in a really negative way). Possibly he is just unsure and does not know how to assess his own physical appearance , or at least not according to the standards he thinks he should have. I would guess it is probably something more than this/ different to this however.
As for whether or not you should let him go : Well, I am not going to pretend to know what you should do here. I would guess that were I "in your shoes" that I probably would have become too frustrated by now and let him go. The "is this really him" issue would be key I suppose, but what you have to ask yourself is "Is he acting this way because it reflects his core values etc, or does he sometimes act like this because he has conflicting beliefs/values"/. I cannot imagine what they might be in this case , nor do I know if it would be better in that context for it to be the latter. However, if it is the latter, it is perhaps more hopeful.
-
I'm not talking about the kind of dominance that is repressive or whatnot, perhaps dominant isn't a good word. What I mean is that I can only have complete satisfaction when he is confidant and takes charge, to put it in a nutshell. He is always questioning himself to me and he acts unsure. Its not that I mind that he is like that, it's just that it is exhausting and I feel like it's more healthy for the man to be the supporting, leading one. I'm just wondering if it's because he is slightly younger than me and that males are less mature than females at that age or just that we have incompatibilities in some areas that can't be dealt with. What I'm talking about here is not silly get in the kitchen stuff, its just pretty important to me to feel emotionally supported. I need a mate that reassures me and knows what to do when I'm in a bad situation, not confuse me further with "I don't know" stuff.
Ah, well that is different to what I thought that you meant and I can see why that might be a problem in such a relationship. You are attracted to self-assured and confident men that do not need constant reassurance in order to "feel validated" and such. While at the same time you want a man that you are able to look up to and that can be there for you and will take charge , especially when you are having a bad day ( bad week, month or whatever) and is able to help you feel better. Nothing wrong with that, that sounds pretty healthy to me
-
I think there's a distinction to be made between the ordinary guy's requirements from the philosophy, and the scholar's.
Broadly, we're all philosophers - and given that we will never want to stop learning , there comes a point where we have sufficient understanding to apply it to life; that is the "easy" side to Objectivism I mentioned. I maintain any intelligence can grasp it.
On a continuum towards the upper realms of philosophy appear the really first-rate minds which have studied the fundaments of all philosophy, and further are able to refine, compare and explore extremely complex concepts. If one needs an instant lesson in - well - humility, one only has to view the contributions of say, S.Boydstun for one.
So, I agree with your assessment as a warning against unrealistic 'instant expertise' - which is not contradictory ( imo ) to mine, which is that at primary and applicable levels, Objectivism is easily approachable and comprehended.. A 'philosophy for the people', in fact.
We can't all be scholars, nor want to be.
That was part of my point , i.e. that a scholar and the average person require different levels of understanding when it comes to Objectivism. The average person needs only to understand the principles well enough to be able to apply them to his daily life and can afford to not understand every aspect of Objectivism completely ( though the more he understands comprehensively the better , though there may be a point of diminishing returns in relation to other things he can do). A scholar needs to understand Objectivism on a much deeper level , he needs to a deep and inductive understanding which allows him to form connections between aspects of Objectivism which others may not need to know and so that he can form abstractions of a far more difficult nature than most people may need to be able to make.
What I meant with the last part is that everyone should aim for more than a cursory knowledge of *what* Objectivism says. They should aim to understand *why* Objectivism says what it does and to be able to gain a comprehensive ability to trace its claims down to the facts of reality which give rise to those claims so that they can truly grasp what those claims mean in reality and so that they can apply them to a broad range of situations in ones life. This is not easy to do and takes years. It is beyond the level to which some bother to reach , even though they may understand things to some degree and be able to apply them successfully in some/many instances.
Understanding Objectivism not simply comprehension of what Ayn Rand said and a basic knowledge of when it applies. It is the ability to trace what she said to the facts which lead her to make those statements and an ability to apply her statements to situations outside anything she may have mentioned in a broad range of new situations. Getting to *this* level is what takes longer.
-
Leonard Peikoff ( her intellectual heir) had a radio show for a number of years, and the Ayn Rand Institute have made some of the recordings available for registered users (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index) . These may be the closest thing you could find to what it might have been like if Ayn Rand had have done such a thing.
I believe he considered it useful to help get Objectivist ideas "out there" and to further discussion of important issues amongst existing Objectivists, as well as clearing up any possible confusions that they might have had. I am not sure if Ayn Rand would have seen as much value in it ( Peikoff considers himself more of a [ philosophically informed ] "social commentator" than a philosopher, so this may partially explain his former interest in the project), but I think it is conceivable.
-
You know what? I'll explain to you exactly how people started talking about "god" when there is no such thing.
.....
. This is how it can get started anyway at least.
And then some other people decided that these people were mistaken and this is the fact which the concept "atheism" refers to. See how it exists even though deities do not? I am guessing by the fact that so far you have refused to think rationally, that you do not see.
-
I am dealing with Objectivisms Athiesm. I am saying that it takes God to sustain Atheism, and that Objectivism is entirely dependant upon God and Atheism Both.
By that "logic" it requires a lie to be true for a lie to be conceived of. But that makes as little sense as anything you have said so far.
-
yOU ARE USING ATHEISM IN A RELATIVE SENSE (TWO PERSONS/GROUPS RELATIVE TO ONE ANOTHER) BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS ACTUAL DEFINITION.
I AM MERELY ASSERTING THAT IT TAKES GOD TO SUPPORT RAND'S DENIAL OF HISMELF, IT TAKES GOD TO SUPPORT RAND'S ATHIESM. AND IN FACT IF EVERYONE GOT TO TRUE GODLESSNESS IN OBJECTIVISM THEY WOULD ABANDON IT AND RANDS WORK WOULD DIE OUT.
No, I am using its actual definition : The theory or belief that God/deities do not exist. ie : The explicit refusal of the existence of deities.
It does not take the existence of something to believe it does not exist. You are basically imagining the possibility of the ability to conceive of things which do not [yet] exist. By that logic the process of invention does not exist, as the things that were "invented" already existed as proven by the fact that the "inventor" was able to think about them.
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND ABOUT WHAT WE ARE SAYING. Logic does not consist of playing idiotic word games.
-
But that is the point, CAN you make a DENIAL THAT 'OBJECT A' EXISTS WITHOUT HAVING A CONCEPT FOR 'OBJECT A'??
IF 'OBJECT A' DOESN'T EXIST THEN YOU CAN NEVER RATIONALLY MAKE A DENIAL OF ITS EXISTENCE, BECAUSE YOU NEVER COME TO THE QUESTION RATIONALLY BECAUSE YOU CAN NEVER FIND 'OBJECT A' TO DENY ITS EXISTENCE.
According to Objectivism, valid concepts refer to FACTS OF REALITY, not arbitrary claims which have no basis in reality and imaginary. God is not a valid concept : http://aynrandlexico...n/concepts.html . "God" is simply a floating abstraction which refers to nothing in reality. Not every abstraction is a concept.; let alone a valid one. Not everything which I claim to exist is an alleged example of a concept. Not everything which I claim to exist has needs to have a basis in reality, some things are based on things I imagine to exist. I can come up with a "label" for things I imagine, but that does not make it a "CONCEPT".
Nor is it true that if I conceive of it it that it must exist. Humans are amazingly at creating abstractions which do not refer to anything that actually exists.
If you *still* do not get this, then obviously you are refusing to think and know nothing about Objectivist metaphysics or epistemology. I suggest you learn something about both and how to think rationally while you are at it.
-
I am being logical, If something actually doesn't exist, then you cannot derive any further concepts having anything to do with that object.
Non-existence of God, makes Athiesm useless as a concept, hence Athiesm is useless once God doesn't exist. Because it takes God to keep Athiesm actual..
So yes, I am being logical.
Well defining Athiesm with respect to if your pink toaster exists or not, is pretty pointless in Objectivism, because Objectivism's point is that God doesn't
exist, hence Rand's Athiesm..
I am merely asserting that God must exist for Rand's athiesm to exist, and in fact Rand's entire body of work does have God in it, and Rand's stated position
of being an Athiest makes GOD MOST NECESSARY IN HER UNIVERSE.
If by "logical", you mean "totally illogical and nonsensical and ridicolous" then : yes I agree.
The concept of atheism is *not* useless, it refers to a fact which given that religious views *do * exist, is in fact useful. Ie, to help distinguish those that do not believe in such from those that do. Deities may not exist ( they dont), but that does not change the fact that people claim that they do and that millions of people disagree and that it is useful to have a concept to deal with this fact. Given that the claim of the existence of deities exists, atheism refers to the fact that some do not think that they do *REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT GODS WERE TO BE POSSIBLE OR NOT*. People do not believe deities exist even though it is claimed that they do, therefore atheism is a valid concept because it refers to facts of reality.
The fact that people assert it does and that some disagree does not prove that god must exist. The fact that someone can dream up something does not prove it exists. To think that it does is the opposite of logic.
The point I was making with my pink toaster thing apparently went over your head.
-
This is really absurd. All you are doing Mr OP is making nonsensical and totally illogical assertion after another and then ignoring the attempt to point out what should be obvious facts which if taken to heart would would prevent Mr OP making the most elementary logical errors.
Atheism does not require its own non-existence in order to exist, OK?
-
Not Believing doesn't create NON-Existence.. Rand's Athiesm never denies God's existence. merely deals with her belief in his non-existence. Which still doesn't
create God's actual Non-existence merely Rand's Atheism.
YEs one Universe, which Rand was only Athiest in, So God was in Rand's universe also, hence Rand's Atheism makes God in Rand's universe absolutely necessary.
Hence my assertion that Objectivism nor Rand can survive without her Athiesm nor the God that Rand's Atheism need to exist for there to be a Non-Belief in God.
She did not say that not beleiving creates non-existence. Nothing can , non-existence refers to the fact that something..does not exist and hence "creation" does not apply obviously. "Not believing" means that one thinks it does not exist ( regardless of whether that belief is correct or not) or the fact one simply does not believe that it does, possibly because they have not though come to a conclusion either way.
-
Yes but what if your entity is GOD..
Entity EGG exists?? how??
Why did lightning in the primoridial ooze create amino acids??? WHY??? Why Amino Acids??
Couldn't it have created like hardened carbon with one less oxygen molecule or something, why did it create Amino Acids??
You are not making any sense. It is almost as if you have never heard of logic before.
I might as well imagine what would happen if my "entity was a pink toaster with one million legs and light-sabers for arms".
Speculating about what might have happened in the primordial ooze is not an argument and is rather pointless in this ( or almost any other ) context.
-
Non belief in God does nothing to God's existence.
Existence or Non-existence must come first. Belief can only come afterwards.
But belief cannot cause something to exist or not exist..
SO GOD!!<----- there it is again..
Objectivist, "we don't believe that.."
GOD<----there it is again..
Objectivist, "We still don't believe that.."
True, belief in something or otherwise does not change whether or not it exists. It does or does not, regardless of what anyone this.
But atheism is not about believing in something and hence causing it not to exist. It is simply believing that it does not.
All I am saying is that if GOD doesn't exist, then you can't get to a concept of Athiesm..If God is truly non-existent then no one would claim that God exists and Athiesm ceases to exist. Is all I am saying.
Except that I have already proven/demonstrated that you can g et to that concept, ie by forming a concept which refers to the fact that some people do not believe that deities exist. Also, just because something does not exist does not mean that someone cannot imagine that it does and then claim that it does. Lucas conceived of Darth Vadar, by your logic that means he must exist. Talk about reductio ad absurdum..
-
Lets not deal with ownership right now, and merely talk the concept itself.
If you are certain that GOD has an absolute Non-existence then you can't derive a definition for any notion of a Concept that has Belief as its definition about
that non-existent object in this case GOD.
....
NOTJOHNGALT?, "Please hurry!!"
Except that people are able to imagine the existence of things that do not actually exist and other people are able to recognize that the alleged existence of such beings is an invalid claim and that the alleged entities do not in fact exist. In the case of claims that deities existence, that denial is "atheism".
-
Rand is a self-proclaimed Athiest (Doesn't believe in GOD!) That doesn't cause God's Non-existence.
Rand is a self-proclaimed Athiest (Only Truly Believes that God Does not Exist) That does not cause God's Non-existence either.
Hence my point stands , UTTER LACK OF GOD (God's actual NON-existence) deny's the possibility of Atheism's existence as a result. and So therefore Rand wasn't truly Godless merely Athiest. God existed and Rand merely Chose to not-Believe in God. Or God existed and Rand (using your words) Merey TRULY BELIEVES THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST;
and Rand wasn't Godless merely Athiest.
If God is actually NON-existent , then a rational person cannot come up with a concept such as Athiesm because he has no basis for that, because
it takes a BELIEF about a NOn-existent Object to come up with a concept of a Belief in a Non-existent Object, which it is irrational to formalize a concept for something
that doesn't exist if it doesn't exist.
You quickly get to a reductio ad infinitum with God always existing..
You are not making any sense at all. Atheism refers to the belief/conviction ( comprehensively thought out or otherwise) that deities do not exist. It refers to a *FACT* that people do not believe in the existence of deities. The concept exists because the idea of deities exists and is common knowledge in our culture. There are three choices given this inescapable fact :
A) Believe that they do exist regardless of any evidence for the fact and regardless of the fact that the notion of deities is contradictory.
BB) Refuse to come to a definite conclusion .
C) Come to the conclusion that deities cannot possibly exist.
Atheism refers to the third alternative. It is not true that a "true" atheist would refuse to form the concept of atheism in the first place, even though the concept refers to the belief that they do in fact subscribe to. If they refuse to accept the existence of gods, then they refuse to accept the existence of gods and they are atheists. Valid concepts refer to facts, and the fact atheism refers to is the refusal to accept the existence of gods. Nothing changes that, not even your little word games.
The basis for the concept of atheism is the fact that some people refuse to accept that deities exist , despite the fact that other people assert that they do exist. This is all that is required for the valid concept of atheism to exist and for a logically valid reason.
-
Hello and welcome to the forum.
How important is it that you be dominated in a such a relationship and to what degree ( you do not have to answer )? I would think that the last thing one wants in a healthy relationship is to be dominated in that sort of way. Personally I think it is *possible* that you have an incorrect view of the proper role of dominance in a romantic relationship between a man and a woman. The way I view it is that male dominance is not an essential aspect of the relationship ( outside of the bedroom and such
). I personally prefer woman that are mentally and emotionally strong and challenging and I do not really gain a lot of value in the dominating them outside of the more physical/sexual aspects of the relationship.Lets consult the Ayn Rand Lexicon to get some clues on some pretty rational views of femininity/sexual/relationships :
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/femininity.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/love.html
-
Because you see, If you come to an Utter Lack of God, then there is no such thing as Athiesm, it ceases to exist as a concept.
What the hell? I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Are you trying to say that if she truly refused to consider the possibility of God that the issue of whether or not he existed would not come up? And/or that if one was truly an athiest ( i.e. only truly believes that God does not exist) that atheism would not exist? This seems sort of stupid. A concept is a mental integration of facts into a mental unit used to refer to a certain class of entities, grouped according to their common characteristics and according to a specific definition. Atheism refers to any theory/belief with the essential characeristic that it denies the existence of God ( or any other deities). Are you saying that anyone that believes this obliterates the concept , even though the concept simply refers to a fact? I dont get it at all..
-
I think it is helpful to consider Aristotle's analysis of time in his Physics. Time is not, properly, a continuum of events but a measurement of change or motion. ("It is clear, then, that time is ‘number of movement in respect of the before and after’, and is continuous since it is an attribute of what is continuous.") Time, like space, is relative, space being a way to describe the relative distance between objects and time being a way to describe the relative motion of objects. We measure time by the motion of an object which moves in equal increments, like the earth around the sun, a clock's hand, or an atom's decay.
Its been far too long since I have read much Aristotle, I had missed/forgotten all about that one. It is a pretty useful formulation though.
Time is defined on the basis of periodic phenomena. For many centuries periodic astronomical events like the movement of the Earth were used as a basis for the definition of time, but this standard was due to all kinds of small perturbations less regular in comparison with such elementary physical phenomena like the oscillation of a light wave with a given wavelength, so that this is the basis of the modern definition of time. Any definition must refer to some physical phenomenon - the check with reality - otherwise you're just really engaging in a "floating abstraction".
Almost true : The measurements of time are defined in such a manner. Time itself is not defined in such a manner per se. Though I do not know how you would measure it except by measurements which rely on periodic phenomena.
On the contrary, this process is understood perfectly. It follows directly from Einstein's postulate (together with a few elementary assumptions) that the speed of light is constant and independent of the motion of the observer. Einstein's theory still stands firm after a century, having been experimentally confirmed with great accuracy countless times, that is the check with reality.
On the contrary, the mathematics is understood perfectly and has been confirmed countless times. However, what is not understood is that despite how the mathematics is interpreted, it does not mean that time is dilating or that it is a dimension. What is not understood is the correct physical implications / meaning of some of all of the math.
That's very simple. Dimension is a mathematical concept, which uses a ordered set of coordinates. When you compare two such sets, there is nothing impossible in a dilation or contraction of one set with regard to the other one.
Yes, I know he mathematics involved. The problem is that once you get to the "higher" dimensions (4th and above) it becomes "pure mathematics" with no real meaning or physical referents. Time qua dimension has no physical meaning, even if mathemtically speaking it has a clear and conceptually relatively simple definition ( though as simple as you may find it, lots of students find it very tricky).
Mathematics is all about abstractions, but there is nothing "floating" about it. Dimensions higher than 3 do have many, many physical referents. Thanks to theories that use such higher dimensions we have been able to create modern technology, from atomic bombs to lasers, electronics and computers, check with reality!Yes obviously mathematics is all about abstractions. But the abstractions exist to help us measure things or to discover abstract methods of measurement ( calculus would be a good example of something which lets us do this). I did not say *mathematics* was a floating abstraction, only that some things in mathematics are.
I challenge you to name the referents, physical or otherwise ( ie, valid lower level concepts which refer ultimately to "physical" objects ) of "time" qua dimension / as physics generally views it as.
The fact that the math allows us to do useful things does not validate arbitrary physical interpretations of it.
And that slowing down of the motion of all processes is exactly what "time dilation" means, as time can only be defined in terms of physical processes. But there is nothing "somehow" about it, read Einstein's article from 1905 to see how he simply and elegantly explains this phenomenon.This sounds good, except that regardless of whether "time dilation" was meant to refer to purely mechanical processes experienced by clocks and such caused under specific conditions, the terminology is misleading and needlessly confusing. The way time is usually conceived of in physics is not consistent with time dilation referring only to changes in the manner in which devices used to measure time operate. If it did, maybe it would be simply a misleading way to refer to such things. However, if you then treat time as they do, it becomes far more confusing and nonsensical....
-
The quick answer goes as follows :
Sure, it may take a decent amount of intelligence to learn all the intimate details of the philosophy and to gain a highly developed understanding of it and its applications on the level of say Leonard Peikoff. However : One need not aim for this level of understanding in order to understand the basic tenants of Objectivism and to be able to apply them to ones life. This is not the same as blindly accepting what O'ism has to say, and it does require a fair bit of learning and thought, but I do not think it is beyond the intelligence of anyone that does not have serious mental problems. Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence should be able to eventually and with varying degrees of effort , be able to understand O'ism well enough to successfully apply it so that they can think more rationally and live their life in a moral way.
An Objectivist is someone that understands O'ism and attempts to live their life according to its principles. But those principles involve not blindly accepting what O'ism has to say and in fact understanding to some significant extent what Oist prinicples mean, what facts give rise to them and their implications to ones life. That is what understanding (according to O'ism) involves, the ability to comprehend why a given principle/fact is true and how to apply it in the correct contexts.
Anyone can pick up O'ist principles and apply them blindly, and it may help them to some extent. An Objectivist on the other hand has a reasonable understanding of Objectivism, he knows why its principles are important and how and when he should apply them. Again, anyone without serious mental issues should be able to eventually get to this point ( it can ages, trust me) with more or less effort. Nothing in O'ism is all that difficult to grasp if one studies it in the correct order, it all deals with fairly fundamental facts which relate to things which one can easily observe ( at least if one knows what to look for ). So I dont see why it should require any great intelligence to be able to apply it to ones life to some degree of success. The extent to which this happens depends on to what extent one is able to connect ones experiences etc with O'ist principles, but for most cases in ones life, this should not be too hard if they really get O'ism and train themselves to think properly ( O'ist material helps with that too).
I would like to add as as an aside : Anyone that thinks they have a *deep* understanding of O'ism and that thinks they understand the roots of all / many its principles without years of study, is almost certainly wrong about how much they actually understand. It is actually a lot harder than that, as simple as it may seem at face value.
- Superman123 and ttime
-
2
-
And that "something" is called time dilation. Time is that what a clock indicates. If clocks are slowing down time is dilating. With "clocks" I mean of course here not just some bad clocks, but all possible clocks, i.e. all physical, chemical and biological processes (some of those processes that are regular of character, e.g. a harmonic oscillator, can be used for constructing practical clocks). Therefore the twin traveling through space is in fact aging slower than his brother on Earth and could in principle survive him by 1000 years or more. Time is indeed a dimension with physical referents. By all definitions of time, the time for the traveling twin is running slower than for his brother on Earth, that's a fact that cannot be denied. And time dilation is just another word for the slowing down of tim
No, that "something" is something which makes clocks and so forth operate differently in certain contexts. Clocks "measure" time in as far as they provide a means to track the units of time ( seconds, hours , minutes etc) . They do not actually measure time though, they are an instrument by which humans can perform the measurements involved in the concept of time. They are purely mechanical / electrical devicse which are designed to track periodic phenomena and report back to the user so that they can measure time.
Clocks are not slowed down (etc) because they have some strange connection to time the dimension ( or whatever you want to consider time to be), but because of some process which apparently we do not yet understand properly. If you think about how a clock actually works, it does not make sense to claim that it measures time per se, or that somehow speed could slow down time. Physics claims time is a dimension, but how could dimension dilation/contraction make clocks slow down/speed up? Does not make any sense. Sure, this may not be how physicists claim that you are meant to view it, but it is the *correct* way to analyze the matter. The confusion is compounded by the fact that the "concept" of dimension ( higher than the first 3) degenerates into pure "mathematics" ( except, is it really mathematics if it is this much of a floating abstraction and rationalistic?) with no physical meaning or referents , ie by the fact that the higher dimensions ( again past the first three ) are floating abstractions.
-
Right, I was simply trying to emphasize that recreating the past events is the only thing even remotely like "time travel" which can be rationally conceived. You did touch on that a little, but thought it necessary to emphasize that the reason you cannot travel to the past or the future is that they don't exist.
Fair enough, I realize I was not making some of the key points quite as clear as I could have. In any case, I thought your explanation was pretty useful. It might be a minor issue, but as I keep saying , I do think it is useful to refer that to as time travel, even metaphorically. However, given it is clear what you do mean, it is probably a relatively unimportant semantic complaint.
-
Id put it thus,"Time is a conceptual method of keeping track of our experiences while we age"
Yeah, I like that. The concept of time exists to help us "keep track" of stuff / to help us put events in a logical sequential order after all..
-
This is controversial. But I've already made the topic controversial, so I might as well bring it up. Dwayne and Carl both defended Peikoff in the chatroom. One was asked to leave this site, and the other doesn't talk much anymore in the chat. From what I've observed, they both have very strong opinions and aren't afraid to voice them, which I consider a virtue. Carl has mentioned before in passing that he is required to practice tolerance as a virtue in the chatroom now. The context I have suggests that people who insult Peikoff and other experts of Objectivism are expected to have their opinions respected in the chatroom, while those who most strongly defended those experts are made fun of precisely for the virtue of having done so.
Pretty much. The issue is that anyone can get away with attacking anyone that they like , on any terms ( at least as far as I know) they like : as long as that person is not in the chat at that time/a member of the forum. But if someone in the chat wishes to condemn someone in the chat and to speak to them in a way which can be viewed as insulting , then that person is in the wrong. Regardless of whether or not that person objectively deserves to be treated in such a way and regardless of how doing so may be a just(ified) action. Though there has been at least one exception to this that I know of. The excuse is partially something to do with the fact that treating people in such a fashion drives some of them away and reduces traffic ( I think ), but it is nonetheless a policy which is going to drive away a lot of people with strong opinions and those that refuse to refrain from treating certain sorts of people as they deserve to be treated. So in as far as it does that, it is partially self-defeating.
Not necessarily you specifically, but it’s my immediate impression having recently noticed the feature. It looks like something out of a Junior High School popularity contest.That is a pretty absurd generalization. Sure, some people will be bound to treat it that way. However it does have valid purposes : Such as bringing certain posts to the attention of others and serving to try to indicate that certain members are considered to post better or worse posts, which may be worth considering in some instances.
-
Whether one can travel backwards in time is of course a different question, but that can't be trivially disproved from your armchair.
True, if you treat "Time" as some sort of stolen concept, you will never be able to analyze it logically.
Talk about circular. The above assumes the premise that time is what causes age and that movement is through a medium of time.Aside from the fact that this thought experiment is only just that. The same premises underly the interpretation of clocks slowing. The central question here is how does one determine a normative definition of "time". Start with perception!
Obviously time does not cause again. Biological factors cause aging. It just "happens" that as time "progresses", aging occurs.
I don't think this conversation is getting to the essentials of the issue: time "travel" is not possible because the past and the future do not exist (i.e. the past no longer exists, and the future does not yet exist).
Thats true, but I think I actually did mention that. Ie, that the past and future simply refer to events that have already been and which are not locations one can travel to and from. Though even if you recreate these events, it is nonsensical to refer to it as "time travel" , even in a metaphorical sense.
time dilation continuum
Time does not dilate or contract. I have to make this point at least once a week on average : No matter what physics may tell you , time is not subject to contraction. This does not mean that clocks do not slow down etc, just that even if they do, it is not because time is some sort of dimension ( which seems to refer to some mathematical construct with no physical referents in that case), just that *something* is happening.
Collatz Conjecture might have been solved
in Physics and Mathematics
Posted
Yeah, I would prefer mathematicians spend less time doing this stuff and spent more time trying to see why this theory is applicable to something. People are frequently finding applications for stuff like this in number theory, so who knows what someone might find to do with this eventually. Offer someone £1000 for that instead and then maybe they will prove it while they are at it...