Alexandros
-
Posts
121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Alexandros
-
-
If you are finding it difficult to comprehend, I assure you it is not because of any failings in my use of the language. You seem to think that simply by mentioning a concept, I am inherently asserting that it is reflected in reality. This is your problem.For someone who denies the 'future', you utilize it rather accurately from a present tense perspective, just prior to your re-denial of it.
As to a distinction between existence and the universe (note the singular usage of 'the universe', prior to a possessive plural? invocation) you have not elaborated.
Your command and grasp of the language is making your point difficult to comprehend.
By saying that the future doesn't exist, I am simply making use of its definition. Since the concept "future" has no meaning if not related to the concept "time", it can only be shown not to exist if the present is considered. The future is "time that is to be or come hereafter" (this is just a statement of the word's definition).
To exist is to be.
Now we can see from the definition of "future" and what it means to exist that the future does not exist. Put another way: a time which could be described by the word "future" has not yet occurred, and therefore it does not exist.
-
I do not consider "existence" and the "universe" to be synonymous. It may or may not be that our universe is all there is to existence.The argument can be described as circular or as "begging the question" because 4 assumes the universe is finite, which was the point to be proven.
I've stated that time and existence are inseparable. I do not believe that time is a human creation or that there is a point where time ceases to exist or ceases to matter. Where there is a process, there are actions or events taking place after other actions or events. If there is no "after", there can be no processes. If there are no processes, then there can be no life as "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action" (Ayn Rand). But, clearly there is life.
It follows that the universe is finite. If something is infinite, there can be no point in time when it is finite. Put another way, something which is infinite is infinite in the instant. Therefore, something which is infinite must exist in the future because everything is finite in the present. But the existence of free will negates the existence of the future. Also, the definition of "to exist" negates the existence of the future: something which exists exists in the present; the definitions of "future" and "present" contradict each other.
There is more I can say, but I think this covers it.
-
They acknowledge only that given any moment in time, there will likely be a moment that follows it. It does not acknowledge that the future exists. "Future" describes a point in time that comes after the present moment in time. Relative to the present, which is always only an instant in time, the future does not exist. To exist is to be in the present. To say otherwise is to say that whether or not a thing exists is independent of time.Both adequate lifespan and the idea of enough time, both acknowledge a future, unless being refered to in past tense. Reality cannot be faked.
Let's put that idea to the test. Actually, let's not. Not because I don't feel like it, but because it is actually impossible not to describe existence without implicitly referencing a time. Try it out: there was a time when the Earth didn't exist; now the Earth does exist. How would you reconcile this fact with a timeless existence?
Time is independent of consciousness.
-
In saying "adequate lifespan" I'm making the assumption that there will be enough time to complete the job, which is an assumption independent of whether or not the future exists.Does not an 'adequate lifespan' encapsulate a 'future'?
-
This is an argument that I came up with a couple of years ago. I've never seen it elsewhere, but I'm sure it's been made before. Over the years, I've whittled it down to something very concise and complete, so far as I'm concerned:
Time and existence are inseparable; things exist not only in space, but in time as well. A result of this is that the number of things which exist is a constant at any instant. To put it another way, at any instant, the set containing all things in existence is finite. Therefore, there can not be an infinite amount of things.
That's the argument. I think the idea is basic enough that it doesn't need any explanation, but just in case the argument is not as complete as I think, I will expand upon it anyway:
1. The future does not exist.
Thus,
2. if an infinite number of things exists, then it exists right now.
However,
3. if there is an infinite set, one of it's properties must be that if a person set out to count the elements in the set, that person would be counting for an infinite amount of time.
Therefore,
4. There can not be an infinite number of things in existence because a being with an adequate lifespan and the right instruments could count the number of things which exist at any point in time.
-
I wouldn't bother contemplating scenarios that can only be imagined. And I also wouldn't pay any attention to a person who can only make his point by making use of such scenarios. This is the go-to tactic for any person who wants to make any point that they know can't hold its water in the face of reality.
In this case, the author is using an impossible scenario to avoid the fallacy of false dichotomy. If you came to some satisfactory conclusion based on his scenario, you would quickly realize that you wasted your time once you tried to apply it to the real-world and found that at least two other outcomes are possible.
-
This is the first I've heard of something like this ever being brought
to discussion in the American Congress, and it serves as a frightening
wake-up call. I feel I've been naive, as this is a level of evil that
I didn't think we were close to having to deal with. I thought perhaps
one day, but not now.
If a bill such as this were to pass, it would mean the end of America
as a free society. That a politician could feel safe in bringing this
to the table (let alone even whispering it in a dark alley) tells me
that the totalitarianism is no longer knocking at our door, but has
grown impatient and is taking an axe to it. With the passing of such a
bill, the time for intellectual warfare will have ended and the time
for armed conflict will have begun.
Tell everyone you know. Put it on your blogs, your twitters, your
facebooks, and everything else you can think of. The passing of Health
Care Reform is evidence enough that this national service bill is (as
much as it hurts to say) an actual threat. As individuals, we can not
afford to let this bill gain any steam. We must kill it before it ever
gets the chance.
What follows is a description of the bill and a listing of the parts that
were most interesting/important in my mind:
On July 15th, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York introduced H.R. 5741,
the 'Universal National Service Act'. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.5741:
The bill's purpose is "To require all persons in the United States
between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a
member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance
of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the
induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet
end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other
purposes."
From Sec. 102 of the Bill:
(a) Obligation for Service - It is the obligation of every citizen of
the United States, and every other person residing in the United
States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of
national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the
provisions of this title.
(
Forms of National Service - The national service obligation underthis title shall be performed either--
---(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed
services; or
---(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President,
promotes the national defense, including national or community service
and service related to homeland security.
From Sec. 103 of the Bill:
(
Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described insection 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--
---(1) a declaration of war is in effect;
---(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the
President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform
military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for
the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service;
or
---(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are
engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional
authorization for the use of military force.
From Sec. 104 of the Bill:
© Early Termination- The period of national service for a person
under this title shall be terminated before the end of such period
under the following circumstances:
---(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an
active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of
at least two years, in which case the period of basic military
training and education actually served by the person shall be counted
toward the term of enlistment.
---(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or
midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States
Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard
Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
---(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer
candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a
Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to
serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion
of the program.
---(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.
From Sec. 105 of the Bill:
(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out this title.
(
Matter To Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shallinclude specification of the following:
---(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order
for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under
this title.
---(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and
of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.
---(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction
under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be
notified of such selection.
---(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the
induction of persons under this title and the registration,
examination, and classification of such persons.
---(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to
inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this
title, including questions of conscientious objection.
---(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing
their national service obligation under this title through civilian
service.
---(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to
carry out this title.
From Sec. 109 of the Bill:
(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be
construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and
service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of
sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is
conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.
(
Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claimsexemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and
whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--
---(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the
President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or
---(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously
opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform
national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a)
and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.
-
It's time to set your TiVo: the series starts April 25th on the History Channel.
Trailer here:
http://www.history.com/shows/america-the-story-of-us
And the mouth-watering description:
America The Story of Us is an epic 12-hour television event that tells the extraordinary story of how America was invented. With highly realistic CGI animation, dramatic recreations and thoughtful insights from some of America's most respected artists, business leaders, academics and intellectuals, it is the first television event in nearly 40 years to present a comprehensive telling of America's history. Elaborate, ambitious and cinematic, America The Story of Us will take you into the moments when Americans harnessed technology to advance human progress, from the rigors of linking the continent by transcontinental railroad--the internet of its day--to triumphing over vertical space through the construction of steel structured buildings to putting a man on the moon. It is an intensive look at the people, places and things that have shaped our nation, and the tough and thrilling adventure that is America's 400-year history. -
It reopens today. Check out the webcam
Haha! That's great! Sending this to my physics and calc profs.
-
Depends. Are we still a democracy (representative or direct, doesn't matter)? If so, then without a rational majority, the irrational choices of the majority will eventually lead to a corrupt government.
-
Almost seems like it was left there on purpose, doesn't it? No better way to demonize anyone than to label them baby killers. And if they happen to be incredibly wealthy?
-
Doesn't look like that's the case. From Wikipedia:I agree, but I think the reason was not an artistic failure but a financial demand by the studio that the movie be converted to 3D after it was shot to get the higher ticket prices.Development and writingJoe Roth was developing Alice in Wonderland in April 2007 at Walt Disney Pictures with Linda Woolverton as screenwriter.[4] That November, Burton signed with Disney to direct two films in Disney Digital 3-D, which included Alice in Wonderland[5] and his remake of Frankenweenie. He explained "the goal is to try to make it an engaging movie where you get some of the psychology and kind of bring a freshness but also keep the classic nature of Alice." On prior versions, Burton said "It was always a girl wandering around from one crazy character to another, and I never really felt any real emotional connection." His goal with the new movie is to give the story "some framework of emotional grounding" and "to try and make Alice feel more like a story as opposed to a series of events."[6] Burton focused on the Jabberwocky poem as part of his structure.[7] Burton also stated that he doesn't see his version as either a sequel to any existing Alice movie or as a "re-imagining".[8]
He went into the project with the purpose of creating a 3D experience.
-
Ha. Interesting. I actually think this is the worst movie I've paid to see in at least a year. The storyline was completely ordinary, which, considering the source material, is a total travesty. Absolutely everything about the story was predictable from start to finish. Nothing close to the humor and cleverness of the novels is preserved for this film, as Tim Burton opted instead for silly one liners. And possibly the worst part of all, the movie included nothing discrete or thought-provoking, which is possibly the best characteristic of the novels and even the original animated Disney film. Also, I think Tim Burton got confused and thought he was still in the 80s, when he was a hit machine, because his usage of RealD (the best and most advance 3D experience there is) is closer to the 3D of of terrible 1980s horror flicks than it is to modern films, like Avatar.
C+
-
This video put a big smile on my face:
The author has written a program that treats clocks like organisms and simulates their evolution. When it's run, very very interesting things happen.
(On a side note: The simulator was programmed in MATLAB, which is really exciting for me as I've just begun programming in MATLAB this semester. I knew this program was awesome, but this is the coolest thing I've seen so far.)
-
Here is a short clip from an interview with Jimmy Wales on what the misinformed or confused might see as a contradiction between his Objectivist beliefs and his life's work:
-
FYI, the founder of Wikipedia is an Objectivist.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-organised.html
Headline:
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995Sorry for only posting a link and a headline, but I'm a little busy right now and just wanted to post the article here if it hadn't been already.
-
No, but according rights to a human that has shown no greater capacity for rationality than say, a dog, is a deontological premise.
How would he have shown it?
-
Then you better sit down, because there seems to be no end in sight for her reign of terror.
-
As an example of what DavidOdden put so well, consider laws that ban things (guns, smoking, etc). Are cigarettes and guns at fault for being... cigarettes and guns, and therefore their very existence is illegal? No, that's ridiculous. With laws such as these, what is actually being made illegal is some choice involving the things. If guns were to be banned, it isn't that guns are illegal, it's that the choice to own a gun is illegal, leaving you only with the choice not to own a gun (which means there is no choice at all).
-
Someone needs to give them a quick physics lesson, mainly Newton's third law and the centripetal and centrifugal forces. I'm sure that will settle the issue.Some of the women luge competitors have complained that the speed was reduced too much on the track. While they re-iced and walled the area where that guy died, they also forced the women to start off from a lower position on the starting ramp.Many of the athletes are pretty upset about it. They know what sport they're in, and sometimes people overreact to tragedy. Overreaction won't bring the dead back to life. Prudence will save others from dying in the future.
-
If you're interested, this was my reply in a discussion that was going on at another discussion board I frequent. I posted it after reading pages and pages of misinformed/brainwashed children condemning the United States for using the bomb in WWII:Off topic - - - What exactly about Hiroshima and Nagasaki was evil?The use of the bomb in World War II saved more lives than it cost. If you found yourself interested in the time period and wanted to learn more than what you were taught in school and Hollywood movies, you might wind up in a library, where you’d be able to check-out several books detailing the situation and events of WWII. In your studies, you would no doubt read much about the Nazis in Germany, the fascists in Italy, and the communists in Russia. But, most relevant to this discussion and the naive comments being made by so many obviously ignorant children, you’d come across books on Japan’s involvement in the events leading up to the war and in the war itself.At the time, the emperor of Japan was Hirohito. Hirohito was a god-king. That is to say, Hirohito was thought to be of divine birth and divine appointment and, as such, his rule was unquestionable. Let’s think about something for a second: the country run by a god-king is also the country that created the Kamikaze (which, for those in the cheap seats, is a suicide attack involving flying planes into enemy ships in an attempt to sink them). This was a country filled with “true-believers”. I do not wish to get into a conversation about religion, but I will use this to illustrate a point: because of their faith and their belief that their emperor was a god on earth, millions of people were willing to die for the cause of Emperor Hirohito. Civilians were told to prepare to fight because they may be needed. They even planned to use their children as weapons.
Sound absurd? This is an excerpt from “The Age of Hirohito” by Daikichi Irokawa (a Japanese historian):
“Faced with the prospect of an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands starting with Kyūshū, the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded:
‘We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan’s one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.’”
You may be wondering why, having practically admitted defeat, they were going to continue the war and the loss of life. It is because America and the UK demanded unconditional surrender. Quoting Shigenori Togo (the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan during WWII) on July 12, 1945:
“His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland.”
Another quote from Togo, this one on July 21, 1945:
“With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. …”
(For more on this, research the Potsdam Declaration, which outlined the terms of Japan’s surrender but was rejected.)
Shortly after this last statement, on August 1, 1945, the United States did something totally unprecedented: they showered Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and 33 other potential targets with 5 million leaflets warning of the impending attack. The leaflets read:
“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”
Then, on August 6th, 5 days after the leaflets had been dropped, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. News made its way to Tokyo quickly that an air raid had leveled Hiroshima with a “blinding flash and violent blast”. Later that day, President Truman issued his most famous statement to the world:
“We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war. It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth…”
In addition to this statement, an American-controlled radio station in Saipan was broadcasting this message every 15 minutes:
“America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.
We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.
We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.
Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.
You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.”
Despite all of this, the Japanese did not surrender. They issued no cease fire, they just continued on fighting. In fact, they didn’t even meet to discuss the new development until three days after the bomb was dropped. And, in the middle of that meeting, the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki at 11:00.
At 02:00 on August 10, 15 hours after the bombing of Nagasaki, and three days after the bombing of Hiroshima, the divine Emperor Hirohito issued this statement:
“I have given serious thought to the situation prevailing at home and abroad and have concluded that continuing the war can only mean destruction for the nation and prolongation of bloodshed and cruelty in the world. I cannot bear to see my innocent people suffer any longer. …
I was told by those advocating a continuation of hostilities that by June new divisions would be in place in fortified positions [east of Tokyo] ready for the invader when he sought to land. It is now August and the fortifications still have not been completed. …
There are those who say the key to national survival lies in a decisive battle in the homeland. The experiences of the past, however, show that there has always been a discrepancy between plans and performance. I do not believe that the discrepancy in the case of Kujukuri can be rectified. Since this is also the shape of things, how can we repel the invaders? [He then made some specific reference to the increased destructiveness of the atomic bomb]
It goes without saying that it is unbearable for me to see the brave and loyal fighting men of Japan disarmed. It is equally unbearable that others who have rendered me devoted service should now be punished as instigators of the war. Nevertheless, the time has come to bear the unbearable. …
I swallow my tears and give my sanction to the proposal to accept the Allied proclamation on the basis outlined by the Foreign Minister.”
In the end, the estimated death toll as a result of the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima falls somewhere between 200,000 and 250,000, which is heartbreaking to say the least. But, just remember what you now know about the mindset of the Japanese. Remember that the god-king Hirohito was prepared to sacrifice every last Japanese life (72,000,000 people) for the Motherland, and that had he been able to get the support of only 1% of the population, he would have been sending between 2 to 3 times as many people to their death as had been killed by the bombings.
And please, for the love of all that is good and just, pickup some history books.
-
I meant as in born of a human mother. A flesh and blood person.
Can the qualifications of office pertain to an entity whose existence is a legal artifact, rather than a natural fact?
Bob Kolker
So you mean I can't run for office because my mother is a cyborg?
Curse my father and his robot lust!
-
.
Are you saying that making use of reason and logic isn't a good way of obtaining beliefs, and that people who have come to their beliefs this way are disingenuous? If beliefs are those things that we think are true about reality/existence, what other way is there to come to them except by reason and logic? Do you think your friends somehow arrived at their beliefs without using reason and logic? In doing so they would have to contradict every bit of their very nature, as reason and logic, combined with experimentation, is how we come to know anything. In other words, the very fact that your friends hold any beliefs at all is proof that reason and logic is the only way to obtain any beliefs. Otherwise, you would have to concede the position that they obtained their beliefs by revelation. And what is the source of the revelation? God? Vishnu? Spaghetti Monster? Gaia?
When you meet a true Objectivist, you are meeting someone who has obtained their beliefs in the same way your friends have, except the Objectivist is much more noble and thorough in his pursuit.
Arguments Against Infinite Quantity
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
That being said, I have quite a lot to deal with as well. When I started thinking about Zeno's paradox, my mind wandered away from this conversation and a few things occurred to me that require much pondering. I'll start a thread once I reach a satisfactory conclusion.