Greebo
-
Posts
1458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Greebo
-
-
Well Mr. Ebert may not have liked it, but the small audience I saw it with in DC applauded at it's start and finish and quite a few of us discussed it afterwords for a brief period and I think all were generally pleased.
I certainly wasn't disappointed - it couldn't be everything we'd hope, but I thought it did the book a great justice. Far better than the Hollywood Fountainhead did...
-
Nice to see SOMEONE presenting her views honestly for a change.
-
Seeing it at 4:45 today in Washington DC. Hoping not to be disappointed.
-
Tickets purchased - 4:45 PM next Friday
There's a kind of deliciousness to going to see the Opening of Atlas Shrugged, The Movie, IN the Nations Capital on Tax Day, no less.
-
Jacob:
I'm curious how you tie o'ist ethics and power together.
-
And all of you "demonstrations" and "objections" have repeatedly been against fictitious straw-men that do not resemble my position, like the one below:
A) We agreed that "arbitrary" means lacking any reasoning. Have I "required a first cause" without putting forth copious reasoning to back it up? If I have, then you can call it an arbitrary position. But if I have provided even a moderate amount of reasoning behind my position on that point, then do not call it arbitrary.
To be reasoning, it must be based on premises that have a basis in reality. None of your premises do. You drew conclusions that excluded one possibility in favor of your own and called it reason, when it was bias.
You can disagree with my reasoning and point out flaws in it- but you cannot call my position arbitrary.I can if your premises have no basis.
I have, in fact, shown that it is contradictory and therefore false to imagine that there is not a first cause.And you then ignore the requirement for your God to have a first cause.
See the infinite regress thread. I believe mine is the last post, to which no one else has replied. In that post I succinctly demonstrate the inherent contradiction in the possible positions in attempting to avoid a first cause position.Being last doesn't mean you were right. Being the last one to post an argument followed by a lot of "Oh yes, you're right, I see that now, thank you" would be evidence that you were right. Being last in an endless circle of explanations why your reasons didn't work, followed by you regurgitating them with ever increasing verbosity just means people decided that there was no reason to keep bothering with you.
Once again you equate "physical existence" with "existence as such" in a debate where that very issue is in question. How many times (seriously) do I need to explain that my position is that God is an existent. He exists. He is included in existence. My position does not pit God against existence and "grant" anything to God which is not "granted" to existence. If God is included in existence and if God is eternal, than existence is eternal. That is my position. That has always been my position. I have labored intensely to correct you EVERY time you've mis-read or mis-understood that position. Please, Please, Please, Please, if you are going to attack a position (and much more, if you are going to declare triumphantly that you have succeeded in defeating that position), PLEASE, make sure that you actually understand that position first. It saves A LOT of time.
Well if you'd like to pose a position that *CAN* be understood properly I'd be happy to - but since your position is a cognitive null - an arbitrary concept that can neither be proven nor disproved, I simply have to reject it every time.
But you've said existence can only be eternal if there is God - and not if there isn't - and ignored everything said about how matter can convert into energy and more importantly, VICE VERSA.
Last time and then I give you up for deliberately irrational:
Energy and matter are interchangeable. Why? E=Mc2.
Energy thus theoretically has a "pure" state.
Matter can be converted into energy - proven - nuclear physics - bombs and reactors alike.
This means energy can be converted into matter.
Energy has no mass and thus no gravity.
Matter has mass, and thus gravity.
So all you need is for energy to spontaneously coalesce into matter, which has been theorized by Hawking, and suddenly you have motion coming from a NON VOLITIONAL, FIRST ACTION.
Now - quantum physics indicates that is possible, but you ignore all that and declare it impossible and thus your God must be real.
Go on - tell me why that isn't arbitrary.
-
Does that mean there is gold on Pluto? Oh I forgot, that’s not a planet any more, or is it? Regardless grab some shovels and a pick, we’re going to Pluto.
It's possible but not certain. But *if* I understand solar system formation correctly, the heavier elements will gravitate towards the center of a solar system during early formation due to their heavier mass, and once the sun ignites, the lighter elements tend to get pushed outward away from the sun by the solar winds which overcome its gravity. Thus the gas giants usually form in the outer rings and the rocky ones in the inner rings.
Course the Keiper belt and Oort clouds are little understood - who knows what all is out there...
-
We are, literally, made of star stuff.
That quote would be better if your name was D'Lenn.
-
Well I'll be dipped. You're right - I totally read that wrong.
But really the source proves the TV shows wrong, not me.
-
Are you sure they didn't say that going beyond iron is what does this? Seriously, I've looked again and again, and cannot find anything that says that the attempt to create iron kills the stars.
I can't provide a link to a TV show dude. All I can tell you is that it's been stated at least on "How the Universe Works" in a few different episodes and Morgan Freeman's show he did last year - and yes I'm *POSITIVE* that they said it was making Iron that did it because I watched it over and over, commented on it to my wife, and even noted the coincidence with mythology that said that iron kills/blocks magical creatures.
Oh, but here's a link that says Iron does it:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/book/export/html/1829
The reason that fusion of light elements produces energy to support a star is because of the “mass defect” we discussed when we studied the proton-proton chain. The product of hydrogen fusion (one helium nucleus) has less mass than the four hydrogen nuclei that created it. The extra mass has been converted into energy. Each fusion reaction of light elements in the core of a high mass star always has a mass defect. That is, the product of the reaction has less mass than the reactants. However, when you fuse iron, the product of iron fusion has more mass than the reactants. Therefore, iron fusion does not create energy; instead, iron fusion requires the input of energy.When iron builds up in the core of a high mass star, there are catastrophic consequences. The process of fusing iron requires the star's core to use energy, which causes the core to cool. This causes the pressure to go down, which speeds up the gravitational collapse of the core. This causes a chain reaction: core collapses, iron fusion rate increases, pressure decreases, core collapses faster, iron fusion rate increases, pressure decreases, core collapses faster, iron fusion rate increases, etc., which causes the star's core to collapse in on itself instantaneously. After the core collapses, it rebounds. A large quantity of neutrinos get created in reactions in the core, and the rebounding core and the newly created neutrinos go flying outward, expelling the outer layers of the star in a gigantic explosion called a supernova (to be precise, a type II or core collapse supernova).
-
Are rare occurrences, such as this one, justification for an "anti-capital punishment" stance? The man was only weeks away from being executed as I read it; the timing of his release could not have been more last minute.
Imagine for a moment that he HAD been executed, wrongfully, and then the exonerating evidence had come to light.
How could ANY restitution be made at that point? How could the dead man be made whole?
IF a Death penalty is to be invoked - and I think there are cases that warrant it - there must be absolutely no possibility of doubt. There must be absolute certainty - "beyond a reasonable doubt" simply isn't enough in cases warranting death.
-
The defense attorney failed too.
By not knowing something that was not disclosed to him despite a legal obligation to do so?
I think not.
-
What JR said - the fusion doesn't stop - it just stops producing enough energy to keep the star from collapsing. As the star collapses, pressure increases, so heat increases, so now a new fusion process begins which is no longer balanced by gravity - it runs away and explodes the star, creating even MORE heat and higher order fusions.
-
You have been challenged on you "rational" basis for believing in God before, and it was demonstrated than that your basis is arbitrary and unproven on several counts. You arbitrarily require a volitional first cause and grant to your God that which you won't grant to existence - eternal existence.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110329/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_exonerated_inmate
Summary:
Man is convicted wrongfully of armed robbery (exonerating evidence withheld by DA).
Said conviction is used to convict for murder, despite eye witness description not matching the accused. Sentence: Death.
After release, awarded $14M in damages, but ultimately overturned by US Supreme Court, reducing damages to state limit of $150,000.
LEGALLY, the Court may have acted appropriately - complying with state law and all that - but morally, the State of LA has effectively declared itself IMMUNE to serious harm no matter how much harm it inflicts on others.
Should the US Supreme Court have ignored the state defined limits in this case?
-
Actually my understanding is that stars can make iron without trouble, it's proceeding beyond iron that starts to use more energy than is generated. I agree with what Greebo said otherwise; my disagreement is regarding which side of the line iron is on. (Also, this is not recent research; it has been understood for decades--since 1957 at least.)
Well, there's half a dozen TV scientists saying that it's Iron that does the trick over several shows - and I'm no astrophysicist so for me it's purely academic interest but I understand that they can be wrong...
Although one of those shows is narrated by Mike Rowe, so I think that settles it. It's Iron that kills stars!
-
According to recent research, at least if you believe the Science channel, the larger stars CAN make Iron - but once they start to do so, since the fusion of Iron absorbs energy instead of releasing it, the fusion process collapses and that triggers the supernova. Within 30 seconds of making Fe, the star explodes - and in the resulting explosion, the heavier elements are created. Since those stars are SO massive, enough Fe is made by the star and Fe + other heavier elements in the explosion to form planets like ours later on.
-
Thank you guys! I think I understand this all now. I will pick up that OPAR book next time I find myself near the Barnes & Noble here.
You may have to order it online - we radically rational thinkers are rare enough that Peikoff's book doesn't merit much shelf space in the freely competitive market arena of the B&N aisles.
-
Theft should be prosecuted, although I don't agree that a felony is necessarily appropriate in this case. Stealing media would seem on par with shoplifting.
If you shoplift something worth a few grand, then you're in felony territory.
-
Final response.
You don't need all the quotes. Never said disprove.
You demanded the quotes ace.
However, you are correct, you did say conclude, not prove. And I will grant that in proper context I have been using conclude as a synonym of prove where it really isn't.
-
OPAR: P 32-33 "If one is to postulate a supernatural realm, one must turn aside from reason, eschew proofs, dispense with definitions and rely instead on faith. Such an approach shifts the discussion from metaphysics to epistemology.
-//-
[Objectivists] ... reject every [supernatural idea]. We accept reality, and that's all.
Note - there is no conclusion drawn in this statement - because conclusions are epistemological. We reject contradictions - that's metaphysical. Leading up to P32 Peikoff addresses numerous contradictions presented in spiritual concepts, and identifying those contradictions, rejects them as impossible. However, in the quote given, he sets the groundwork for the concept of the arbitrary. That is continued on 163 in the entire section on The Arbitrary as Neither True Nor False. I will not reproduce that section here - but I will point out certain key statements.
"An arbitrary claim is automatically invalidated. The rational response is to dismiss it without discussion, consideration or argument."
Note - DISMISSED, not disproved. Conclusions are proofs and are established *only* with arguments.
"There is no way to reach a cognitive verdict, favorable or otherwise, about a statement to which logic, knowledge and reality are irrelevant."
You can't prove it false if it can't be proven. You cannot conclude that which is meaningless.
"Philosophically, the arbitrary is worse than the false."
To consider it possible to disprove the arbitrary is a denial of reason.
"The onus of proof is on him who asserts the positive, and one must not attempt to prove a negative."
The only valid way to prove a negative is to show a contradiction with established facts of reality. Since the arbitrary has no basis in reality, there is nothing in reality one can point to with the arbitrary and say, "This proves it false".
-
As I said before, I don't have OPAR in front of me, but read on about agnosticism and what Peikoff says about the arbitrary having no cognitive value. It's in the first few chapters - I'll find it tonight if you haven't by then.
-
This is an issue of terms. I don't have OPAR in front of me, but read on about agnosticism and what Peikoff says about the arbitrary having no cognitive value.
In logic, a conclusion is the outcome of an argument based on valid premises. A valid premise must be based in objective reality. Your "conclusion" is based on the inability to prove that God exists - but a lack of evidence is not a proof of lack. If I say, "there is no X here" I cannot say "there are no X anywhere". It's invalid reasoning. This rule of logic exists REGARDLESS of the value of X - Camels, trees, or God alike. The difference between Camels, Trees and God is that the 3rd is arbitrary, the first 2 are not.
Thus I do not believe there is a God because there is no evidence to support such a conjecture. I do not believe a God is possible, for the same reason.
But I cannot logically conclude there is no God because there is no evidence to support THAT conjecture. To define something as Not X you must be able to define X, and when X = God, X cannot be defined rationally.
I have dismissed all claims thus far that there is a God because those claims have been irrational and arbitrary. This is not a conclusion - it is a *rejection* of arbitrary premises.
-
To discount any number of specifically posited gods, one need only look at the evidence of how such gods contradict the evidence we have of physics.
Of course - but that's the failure of the one positing the gods. When they present a contradiction, then we can point out the contradiction and prove that specific claim to be false. And what do believers do? They broaden the definition to be non-specific and claim that they just know it to be true. How do you rationally argue with that? Answer? We can't. The only rational response is to shut up and walk away.
When the irrational present arbitrary claims of experiential evidence, we cannot prove them to be liars or deceived - we do not have their context. All we can do is point out that their claims are not supported by evidence and cannot be reproduced in any conclusive manner, thus they cannot be accepted as evidence of proof.
We do not *believe* there is no god and rationally we cannot *conclude* there is no god because there is no evidence on which to base a conclusion. You cannot prove a negative without there being a positive that contradicts it.
We simply *reject* the notion of god on the basis of the lack of evidence. We are atheists because reason refuses to accept as valid any premise without basis in reality.
"Atlas Shrugged" Movie
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
Reports are that it grossed $1.7M opening weekend, and since its production costs were < $10M, I think there's a decent chance of it making a small profit - hopefully enough motivation to see the project to completion.