Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Iudicious

Regulars
  • Content Count

    189
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Iudicious last won the day on September 27 2014

Iudicious had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About Iudicious

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 09/23/1993

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Florida
  • Chat Nick
    Iudicious
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Sean Carter
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • School or University
    St. Petersburg College
  • Occupation
    No occupation

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    St. Petersburg, Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

4238 profile views
  1. So, here's my issue with what you linked - and it's the same issue that caused me to speak so rashly with regards to the place of philosophy in scientific issues: all of the quotes on that page discount the notion of something infinite existing in reality and speak of mathematical infinity and the meaning of infinity in the context of mathematics or science - but not a single one of the people quoted has any credentials, training, or education to back up what they're saying. They're talking out of their ass based on their personal experience and beliefs. I think Peikoff and Binswanger and Rand
  2. Based on the discussion thus far, I would agree with your disagreement. I was, beyond any shadow of a doubt, being rather rash when I included that line. That rashness comes from a tendency that I've seen in some places to try to use a great deal of philosophizing to answer questions that require at least some science. There is certainly a great deal of philosophy underpinning science, and to rely on our mode of scientific inquiry to answer any question at all requires a significant philosophical underpinning, whether the scientists carrying out that process of scientific inquiry are awar
  3. That makes sense. I wasn't sure if you asked the question as a criticism of the points I was making, or if it was just a clarifying question. If your set of logical rules is inherently limited to only what is physically possible, then my comment about the "logically possible" and the "physically possible" would not make sense. As it stands, we can conceive of a mathematically logical universe that is infinite and still possesses all or most of the currently observable properties of our universe and fits all or most current empirical evidence. However, by the same token, we can conceive of
  4. If you were struck by the impression that my ideas on this topic are not fully formed, you would be entirely correct. The impression I've gotten from my reading and my discussion with other physicists is that there are theories with some basis that posit what might've existed before the big bang. I do not have a strong foundation of knowledge in higher level physics, so anything I say about the topic should be taken with literally the largest grain of salt you can find, lol. If there were empirical evidence and mathematical theory indicating that there is no way for a discrete
  5. Explain what you mean by this? To back up my statement, there are plenty of logical rulesets that could lead to results that don't necessarily have a physical, reality-based interpretation. For example, in mathematics, one could meaningfully work with a spatial coordinate system extending out to 27 coordinates or dimensions - or infinitely many dimensions. That doesn't mean there's a physical interpretation of that based in reality. One could posit any number of logically sound ideas based off of reasonable axioms without having any meaning in reality. I disagree with you on th
  6. Be careful what you mean by "logically possible." There are lots of things that are "logically possible" that are not physically possible. This is more of a scientific question than a philosophical question in mind (though, it seems that those who can't do, or don't like, the former often turn to the latter for their answers - just an observation). And as of right now, science doesn't have an absolute and complete answer. Of relevance, you might consider the planck length. It is a base unit of measure derived from the speed of light with an exact mathematical (not numerical) representa
  7. The best way to discover a passion, I've found, is to be open to new things. Try as many new things as possible, even things that sound strange to you or that you might not normally be inclined to try. When you find a few things you like, stick with those things, try harder, get good at them. Passions aren't found by introspection. They simply aren't. A passion is fundamentally an interaction between your values, your ego, and the outside world. The only way to discover a passion is by doing. And often times, it takes people a lot of time. I know many people who discovered their passion i
  8. Which is fantastic, except my point was a bit more nuanced than that. My point was that, people have a limited amount of energy and willpower that they can exert in a day. Human beings are not limitless reservoirs of energy. So it would really suck to have to exclusively rely on entertainment that requires significant mental accompaniment. E.G. In my absolute downtime - the time I'm not spending at my schoolwork or my job or pursuing my hobbies - I'm going to watch Supernatural, not a lecture on quantum physics. Because I don't want to have to work hard to get my entertainment at that point. I
  9. You missed the point. More points, being missed. Maybe you should quote the posts, because I certainly don't remember painting that picture. Based on your previous sentence, you seem to think that I disagree. I don't. Perhaps I was a bit unclear with the way I explained myself. Free time isn't the only component here. My point was that the OP was disparaging the existence of easily accessible, high payoff entertainment - entertainment that doesn't require significant foreknowledge, and is usually humorous, short, or otherwise easily digestible. This
  10. Do you think it's secondhanded or unoriginal to build off of the work of another? The fact is, throughout all of history, art, science, engineering, and everything in between has built off of what has come before. The fact that something references another work, or even that something samples from another work, does not mean it's unoriginal, secondhanded, or undeserving of praise. It is new content - and should be judged on its own merits. There are certain works that are entirely "derivative" - and those works should be called out as such, and often are. But if what you're creating
  11. Alright. I would certainly agree with the above poster on his point. There are some sites, such as Buzzfeed, that really do just leech off of existing content for their existence. Content aggregators like that that simply exist to get ad revenue using other people's products (in almost all cases without their permission) are more or less gutter slime. The original poster did not mention that kind of "parasitism" however, so I did not respond to it. Thank you for bringing up that point, Dormin111
  12. Hey, good on you VECT for making that decision. In my opinion, you're making the right one - the first step to breeding a critical mind is teaching that mind to question. Reasoning is a skill that has to be learned, and it takes a long time and it requires a much more mature brain. But questioning is something even a kid can do, and encouraging her now is the best thing you can do for her.
  13. All of the quotes below are from the OP, CptnChan Consider a couple things here: 1. I'm not actually sure that you're correct that these are more prolific than people who create "new" content. 2. Critics, reviewers, and game-streamers are delivering an actual product/service. They are content creators. The fact that you don't like their content doesn't actually mean anything - they are delivering value to someone. Except you're wrong here. That streamer is delivering content. People watch his channel, as opposed to other channels, because they enjoy watching him play
  14. Is it cool with you to teach her philosophy if it's not your philosophy? The guy's been talking about teaching her his ideas of government. Would he be alright with someone else teaching her their ideas of government as if their ideas were the right ones? She's in sixth grade. It would be very easy to convince her of his ideas without her gaining any actual insight. He wouldn't be "teaching" her anything - because she wouldn't be learning, she'd just be implicitly accepting. Which, as I pointed out, is no better than implicitly accepting any other ideas. It would be far better for her to l
  15. My vote is to let her figure things out on her own. You try to spoon feed her your ideas now, and all you get is a child grown up to mimic your ideas, instead of someone else's. Provide incentive to question things and learn more about them on her own - don't look for ways to teach her your principles. Live a good life and raise her in a healthy environment, and encourage her to explore. Teach by setting a good example, not by spouting principles she'd hardly be able to understand. If you feed her your ideas now, you're just brainwashing her - it may seem preferable for her to implicitly accep
×
×
  • Create New...