Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

MisterSwig last won the day on November 26

MisterSwig had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About MisterSwig

  • Rank
    Radical Animal

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Chat Nick
    MisterSwig
  • Real Name
    William
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Biography/Intro
    YouTube show, Welcome To Reality! https://youtu.be/YEQTs3ovbtc
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Extensive

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://freewilltheory.blogspot.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    Biology, Volition, Values, Rights, Music

Recent Profile Visitors

5411 profile views
  1. A whole is its parts. So if there might be an outside of the parts, that means there might be an outside of some part of the whole. How would you differentiate between a part whose outside is outside the whole versus a part whose outside is inside the whole?
  2. Thanks for reminding me, I meant to respond earlier. Yes, I listened to the lecture, a couple times now. Around the 14-minute mark Peikoff discusses the etymology of "universe." He knows there is a problem with it, so he redefines the word specially for his own purpose. That might be fine to do, except his new definition doesn't make sense to me. He describes it as "all the parts turned into a single entity." That sounds like he's describing an object to me, a "whole with parts." Looking at the Lexicon entries under "universe," Peikoff brushes aside "what is outside the universe?" as an i
  3. As in #1. Though confusion creeps in because we normally think of X in terms of things or entities that exist with attributes and parts and relationships. I agree. Actually, I'm not a fan of the "unity" idea. I don't conceive of existence as an object or totality. That's why I don't like the word "universe." I think it assumes more than can be logically proven.
  4. You're discussing a section of space. It is not nothing as in a zero. It is nothing as in unoccupied by a material thing. Defining it positively is a real challenge, because it is unlike every thing that exists. It's just space. It's where everything is.
  5. No. Leibniz was too much of a theist and idealist for my taste.
  6. I think space is real, but not a thing, as in an object or body. It's what most people mean when they refer to nothing rather than a mere absence of something. You could look at the space between two trees and say there is nothing there, because you don't see a thing in that space. Then science can reveal that gas molecules are in that space, and with tools we can still see a space between the molecules. We can break the molecules into smaller pieces with space between them, but what of the space? As for whether space is physical, I don't see how it can be. But I'm curious about your idea
  7. The cylinder chambers are not equivalent to the physical space. The chambers include the walls and partitions which form and separate the chambers, thus providing containers for the air and gas. So the displacement refers to the capacity of the chambers. But that capacity is measured in reference to a standard amount of liquid (water), not physical space. At least that's my understanding. Of course a section of space must be chamberized to make the volume of liquid possible. But I'm not sure how creating a section of space implies or proves that space is physical. As the earth moves throu
  8. Here aren't you describing an "object" or a "body"? Matter is matter. It's material, tangible. An object or body is composed of matter and the spaces within the object or body. But I don't think a physicist would say that matter consists of particles. It's the other way around. Particles consist of the matter and the spaces within the body of the particle.
  9. When I imagine space as a physical structure, I cannot make sense of the vacuum drop experiment. Why doesn't space resist a feather more than a metal cube? The implication seems to be that physical space cannot affect the motion of physical matter. Thus, what exactly is meant by the term "physical"?
  10. To limit outside influence, I'm trying this without looking at a dictionary first. universal (n) - a concept or proposition that identifies a class of similar things universal (adj) - applicable or usable in all similar circumstances with the same relevant factors certainty - the state of complete confidence in the accuracy of one's evaluation or proposition possibility - something that could be or could happen
  11. My counterfactual is the idea that movement would be impossible if existence consisted only of matter. Therefore, perhaps I'm assuming that there is more to existence than matter. Is that along the lines of what you mean?
  12. True. I'm only familiar with solids and movement in this world. So I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to understanding the physics of the other world.
  13. Do you think such experiments prove anything about the nature of space?
  14. You could say the mass "moves" without explaining how, but I still don't understand what would be moving if there were nothing but an absolute material solidity. Also, what do you mean by "internal"? If there is no external, there is no internal. There is only an absolute material solidity. It's hard to describe, because I don't think such a thing exists or makes logical sense. Yet that appears to be the necessary conclusion of materialism.
  15. Did the "metaphysical universal" for a hammer exist before man created the first hammer? If yes, where did it exist if there were no hammers in which it could exist? If no, what caused it to come into existence after man created the first hammer?
×
×
  • Create New...