Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About lex_aver

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/13/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Alexei Averchenko
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Occupation
    Web programmer

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Math, physics, computer science, macroeconomics, film, video games, science fiction.
  1. What we have here is a failure to communicate.
  2. sNerd, are you just pretending to not understand the basic things? I said multiple times that I believe that the best criteria of truth available is empirical. You understand what the word means, right? And the fact that you can't achieve total certainty for statements of law quantified over an infinite range of possibilities is just something you'll have to put up with. In case you're a child English lit. student who won't accept anything but the total certainty, here's a nice essay by Isaac Asimov that should clear things up: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
  3. dream_weather, what is this, a pathetic attempt at bullying? It doesn't phase me, whatever it is. Since you didn't object to my arguments, I will assume that you admit that you're wrong.
  4. > How then would you propose logic works? I'm not opposed to the law of identity in logic, I'm opposed to a vague metaphysical notion of "identity" which is supposedly enough to reason about things-in-themselves. That one is bullshit. > How then would you propose logic works? It's first formulated as a formal system. You'll ask how it's validated: it is applied to statements of fact, and the conclusions are tested empirically. It's a simplification (first someone must construct a semantics), but it's a nice summary, I guess. > Can you provide some example of logic that
  5. > All propositions depend on the axiom that the things being discussed must already exist before you can discuss them! If you treat entities as heuristics for reasoning about observation and assume no more than that, then I agree with you. However, you are trying to extend this to a metaphysical claim that entities are behind the observations but are different from their sum, and this is just not something that you can conclusively establish in any way. You can't deduce anything from such a hypothesis which would affect my expectation of future observations. So it goes to the trash can
  6. dream_weather, > Yes, deduction can only go so far. It depends on the validity of your premises. Since you contend that you are unable to determine if your premises are valid or invalid, it would appear you are also unable to determine if anyone else premises are valid or invalid either. Have you even read the links? It doesn't depend on what your premises are: any rich enough formal system is limited by these theorems, no matter what axioms are there. You missed my point: deduction can only go so far, because no useful deductive system can establish its own consistency, you need a
  7. sNerd, you missed the point so hard it's even funny
  8. I don't. Coming back to Plasmatic's original request, proving (conclusively, deductively) that my view of the world is indeed correct is impossible, as was illustrated nicely by Carroll's story. In fact, if we entertain for a minute the thought that one's worldview is a formal system, then two crushing no-go results are available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel_incompleteness_theorem#Second_incompleteness_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_indefinability_theorem That's just it: deduction can only go so far, and consistency of a theory can only be established within
  9. dream_weather, no, I meant Carrol's story Eiuol, > Objectivism is not a deductive system, but metaphysical axioms do establish an understanding of reality in an explicit way. And, at least in your formulation, they utterly fail at that, for I've yet to see an example of a proposition concerning observations which relies on them. > Thinking was probably a bad word choice in that sentence. I should have said "I am aware of something, so at least something exists". Same objection. > The hallucination question though, how do you establish what a hallucination even
  10. First I'll finish Ayer's Language, Truth, and Logic. Then maybe I'll read Rand right away, or maybe I'll first familiarize myself with some works of Quine, Popper, Hume, Kant and Descartes, and then give her a shot, I haven't decided yet.
  11. Have you read a story about Achilles and the Tortoise?
  12. sNerd, considering that "identity" is a vague blob that Rand didn't bother to adequately explain, the statement you've just made is also nonsense. Even supposing I understand what Randian "identity" is, does a sentence's "identity" include its meaning? It would seem bizarre, considering how identity is supposed to work on the level of entities, and meaning requires at least two: the sentence and the one reading it, because even literal meaning can be slightly different for different people. So how can a sentence have a meaning by itself? Eiuol, > (1) and (2) are arrivaed at in a "natu
  13. > So why are you going around calling something nonsense? What made SoftwareNerd's post non-sense? It didn't look like it had literal meaning, at least I wasn't able to parse it that way.
  14. Nicky, probably not. I have some intuition for it, but that's about it.
  • Create New...