Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Posts

    2722
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    100

MisterSwig last won the day on September 26

MisterSwig had the most liked content!

3 Followers

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

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

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

Recent Profile Visitors

6410 profile views

MisterSwig's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

205

Reputation

  1. How is that abstract? The section doesn't exist outside your mind. You imagine that it exists. What exists is the skin, the whole thing (as a part of a body), but you abstract a portion of it in your mind and dismiss the rest in order to conceive of a section of it. Because it wouldn't exist in that case. It would have no mark upon reality, it would be beyond perception. Are you saying that if a thing is beyond human perception then it does not exist? I don't know how you would know such a thing, unless it contradicts some law of nature.
  2. I see. I think we're using two different senses of the concept "divisible." I'm talking about dividing into pieces, where you go from having one whole to having two or more wholes. For example, suppose I have one whole carrot. I then chop it up with a knife. Now I have many whole pieces of the original carrot, and the whole carrot no longer exists. It has been changed into many pieces of a carrot. But suppose, instead of chopping up the carrot, I take a marker and draw several black lines on the whole carrot. I now have many sections of the carrot, while still maintaining the whole carrot itself. So I'm saying space cannot be chopped up into pieces like the carrot, but it can be sectioned like marking up the carrot. Yes, because I'm thinking of "part" in the physical sense of a piece of something, like an arm is a part of a body, or a piston is a part of an engine. But if you mean "part" in some abstract sense, like a section of skin, or a section of sky, then we probably agree more than disagree. It's as close to nothing as something can get without being literally nothing. It's the medium for all material things. If something isn't perceivable in any way, why would it concern you? You couldn't know about it. The challenge is to differentiate the things you do perceive. If you define everything you perceive as "material," then you still need to tell me what distinguishes material space from material matter. Or are you saying that space is matter?
  3. What is it about space qua medium that necessitates space having parts? But people touch electricity and get shocked, so I'm not sure what you mean by "not tangible." By "immaterial" I mean that space is simply not material, it's space. If there's something about space which you think qualifies it as material, then we should discuss that aspect. Is it something to do with your idea of a medium?
  4. Now this would depend on what you mean by "real." A section of space is real in the sense that relationships between existents are real. A section of space is essentially one relationship between space and a material object(s). However, if by "real" you mean that a section of space is material in nature, then, no, it wouldn't be real, but then neither would space itself be real in my view. I can't think of better words to describe what I mean. I'm open to suggestions, but I've probably considered most of the alternatives already. Are you primarily bothered by "immaterial" or "medium"?
  5. Water is made of water molecules. Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are particles of matter. I don't think there is an equivalent composition to space. What do you mean by "take sections of space"? When you designate a section of space, you must do so relative to material objects. So there is no such thing as a nonrelative section of space. This is what I mean by sections of space are relative, but space itself cannot be. A section of space is not an actual part or parcel of space. It's whatever space happens to be relative to an object at any particular moment, as that object moves through space.
  6. And what is this "entity which contains the essence of your consciousness"? Here you suggest a thing without evidence for that thing, which makes it arbitrary.
  7. That's a bit much. It certainly won't be easy, but if the first Martian colony fails I don't see how it could take life on Earth down with it. To clarify, I don't mean all of life on Earth would suffer. I mean that to the extent resources from Earth are transferred to the Mars colony, those are resources unavailable for supporting life on Earth. It might not be the most important concern, but some thought should be given to the propriety of sending Earth's valuable materials on a potentially one-way journey to Mars.
  8. I'm not sure I follow you. Water is divisible. With a cup you can scoop some out of a pool or ocean and divide it very easily. As far as I know, you can't scoop up some space and set it apart from the rest of space. Also, you cannot displace space, as you can water by dropping a rock into it. All material objects pass right through space, without affecting the rest of space. (I know there is a theory of gravity that involves "curving" spacetime, but I don't subscribe to that theory and I frankly don't see or understand the evidence for it.) In my view, there is no way to divide space, unless by "divide" you simply mean designating different sections relative to material objects, such as the section of space inside my house versus the section inside your house. But as both houses are traveling through space while on a planet traveling through space, the walls of each house are also passing through space, which means these sections of space are relative to the houses, but the space itself is not relative to anything. The space itself does not travel with the house. Rather the house travels through the space. I don't think anything can technically be inside space. In my view space is unbounded. There is no inside or outside space. We take up space. We occupy space. But we don't divide or displace it.
  9. So a giant, galactic star's radiation will hit us with more energy than the sun's, despite having to travel a longer distance, because traveling through space doesn't reduce its energy very much?
  10. The problem with comparing the colonization of America with Mars is that America was not essentially different from Europe. European explorers had many excellent reasons to expect good things from the new land. Earthlings, however, know that Mars is essentially a barren wasteland. A Mars colony would be an unprecedented drain on Earth's resources. Mars must become self-sustaining very quickly. Otherwise its mere existence will threaten life on Earth.
  11. "Despite the relatively low fluxes of GCR particles, long exposure times to a constant background radiation of GCR can result in a significant radiation dose accumulated during the entire flight, resulting in dangerous biological effects. Shielding from GCR is a challenging task due to the high energies of the particles (Figure 1a). The high kinetic energies result in a high penetration ability and a large amount of energy being deposited in tissues and organs." Can someone explain to me why galactic radiation has presumably higher energy than solar radiation, when galactic radiation has traveled much further than solar has, before reaching us? What am I missing?
  12. We interviewed Richard Ebeling, the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel military college. He told us how he was introduced to Objectivism in high school and later how he discovered the lost works of Ludwig von Mises. Then we discussed his latest article on Marxo-Nazism. Check it out!
  13. Thank you, Stephen. This is what I try to do. It would be nice to live a few hundred years in good health, but I'll be lucky to make it to 100.
  14. We discuss rhetoric and persuasion in this latest episode of our podcast. What exactly is rhetoric and what are some important principles of persuasion? We answer these and other related questions. Check it out!
  15. Gennady Stolyarov II, chairman of the Transhumanist Party and an Ayn Rand fan, joined us this time on the podcast. We discussed the life extension movement and his efforts to unite like-minded people in a political party devoted to overcoming the problem of aging and death. Check it out!
×
×
  • Create New...