MisterSwig

Our new episode is about space tourism, and the three companies that have sent private citizens into space, SpaceX, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic. We discuss what they're doing now and planning for the future. Check it out!

Offline you asked about dimensions. I'm not sure if space should be considered a dimension. Currently I don't conceive of it as one. In my view space itself cannot be measured because it has no physical limits or boundaries. Isn't a "dimension" supposed to be measurable? A region or section of space can be measured in the standard dimensions, but if you try to measure "all" of space as a "whole," I don't know what that would mean. Since, logically, there can be no "outside" of space, it thus cannot have a physical limit or fixed volume. Space doesn't have a container. It's not a "whole," as we think of material wholes. This raises the issue of metaphysical infinity. Rand addressed the notion in the ITOE workshops on page 148: "'Infinity' in the metaphysical sense [as opposed to the mathematical sense], as something existing in reality, is another invalid concept. The concept 'infinity,' in that sense, means something without identity, something not limited by anything, not definable." I'm not a believer in metaphysical infinity, and I don't think it applies to my concept of space. I'm trying to define space as an immaterial existent that functions as a medium for all matter. It does not have physical identity or limits, because it's not material in nature. But it does have spatial identity and limits. It cannot be literal nonexistence and it cannot be material. I have rejected the classical "plenum" idea because, logically, I don't see how space could be entirely filled with matter and still allow for movement, as discussed earlier in the thread. If you're suggesting an immaterial "plenum" only sparsely populated with material things, that's closer to what I mean. Though we'd have to analyze your phrase "the entirety of the universe," as it might imply that the plenum is a kind of "whole" or "object." (Sometimes, in moments of weakness, I refer to space as a "thing," but I do so only in the most unspecific sort of way, not intending to imply a whole or an object, but merely an existent.) As far as object and space "covering the same location," that's close to what I mean, except that space doesn't literally cover a location; it's what's necessary for a location to exist, as locations are relative to material things which require space to move around and create distance between each other. I don't believe I said that in the way you mean, since a void would refer to the amount of things in space, not the amount of things composing it. For example, we can say that the vacuum of outer space is not a literal void because it still contains some particles. But those particles are not what constitutes space. Thanks. I'll read it and report back.

That depends on what you mean by "entity," a word which very much connotes a material thing. But I'm arguing that space is immaterial. It's not a physical entity. Also, note that in the ITOE workshops Rand pointed out that "an entity is its attributes." (p. 266) If existence is the only characteristic of space, then that's what space is, because space is its attribute, and its attribute is space. Now, I think space has at least one other characteristic: being a medium. So it's not merely existence. I was trying to emphasize its immateriality by saying "there is nothing to space except its existence." My understanding is that gravitational fields move with the body that they surround. They exist in a region of space that is relative to a body traveling through space. Thus, this would raise the question: if gravitational fields are the medium in which everything moves, in what are they themselves moving as they travel with their associated bodies? As for dark matter, I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on that. My understanding is that it's still a very speculative idea. If it's actually nonluminous particles, then I'd still want to know what is the space between these dark matter particles. Does dark matter move, and if so, in what is it moving?

I was wrong. He claims to be an Objectivist on this gallery page for his statue Atlas Shrugged V. He also quotes ARI as calling him "the best sculptor we've got." I'm asking Yaron if this is a genuine quote. Will let you know if he responds.

If you're saying that space is imperceivable, then how did you come up with your concept of it? In order to see an object in space, you must be able to see the space in which the object exists and moves. There is nothing to space except its existence. Existence exists, and space is existence without material composition. It is simply where matter exists and moves around. The space you see an object occupying is space. The empty space you see between objects is space. Yes, we only see regions of space, never the whole thing, because we can't get outside of space and observe it like we observe an object in space. Space is not an object and there is no "outside" of space. Think of it like people trying to conceive of the earth before science and pictures from outer space. They could only see regions of the earth, never the whole thing at once. They knew the earth existed because they lived on it and saw it with their own eyes. But many conceived of it being flat, because that's how the region appears to them. We're in a similar situation now with space. Many conceive of it being a relationship between objects, because that's how it appears to us in our small regions of it. Well, the regions of earth might be flattish, and the regions of space might appear as relationships, but earth itself is not flat and space itself is not a relationship. Space is a medium, except it's not a material one, it's the spatial medium in which material mediums exist and move. Material mediums occupy space, but they are also occupied by the things that use the material medium. Fish use water, humans use air, etc. The spatial medium doesn't occupy space; it is space. But it is occupied by the things that use the spatial medium. Every material thing uses space to move around.

The ITOE workshops do not represent any "foundational premise" of Objectivism. Not even Peikoff considers them "official Objectivist doctrine," as he makes clear in the Forward to the Second Edition. Rand's extemporaneous answers were edited by Binswanger after her death. So we can't even say that those are her exact thoughts. That said, the quote doesn't address imperceivable things. It addresses that which you can perceive in the context of entities and their aspects. I've already explained what I mean by space as a medium, so I won't go over it all again. But I want to make clear that space is directly perceivable. It is not my position that space is imperceivable. With the naked eye you see space everywhere you look, whether it's occupied space or empty space. Also, space is immaterial, which means it's not composed of matter (or material entities). It is up to those who assert material space to provide evidence of the material entities which comprise it. I make no such assertion. Based on my own observation and logic I conclude that space itself has no material aspect or attribute. It is existence minus matter.

The job, the car, the girl, these things aren't you, and so they don't define your value to yourself. But how you act in relation to these things, that is you. It's your life as a living being. You are the soul that motivates and causes your body to act in a particular way in relation to particular values, including your own existence qua living being. If you think a girl is "out of your league," as was the example in this thread, that might demotivate you from pursuing her with all your capacities for reasonable, emotional and virtuous action--or, alternatively, it might motivate you to work harder at gaining her love. Maybe you should study whatever intellectual subjects she enjoys talking about. I don't believe the OP's story was true, but still the girl wanted to have sex with him initially. So she was only "out of his league" in terms irrelevant to having a romantic relationship. His problem was that he failed to insert his penis into her vagina and get things going. He should read a book or watch some tasteful pornography to learn what to do with a girl.

Which "foundational premise" are you referencing? What's the quote? I asked how do you know that an imperceivable thing is at best an attribute? Why can't it be an entity? Rand argued for the primacy of existence, which means that "the universe exists independent of consciousness." Things in the universe exist whether we perceive them or not. But I don't see where Rand argued that imperceivable things are at best attributes. I don't believe she placed such a limit on imperceivable things. Actually, I'm not sure she addressed this issue. She wasn't too concerned about the realm of imperceivable things.

That's a piece of skin, not a section. Aren't you making a positive claim about something you can't perceive? You're saying it's at best an attribute. How do you know that? Take me through the logic. Why can't it be at best an entity?

In this context I believe it means having sex, possibly a monogamous sexual relationship. There are various possible meanings based on context, but typically it refers to some kind of sexual relation. In this context: a preplanned activity involving actual or potential romantic partners.

So, iflyboats/happiness, you're not actually like this, right? You're not a clueless virgin.

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.

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?

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?

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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?

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!

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.

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!