Drregaleagle

On another thread entitle "The true nature of religion in civilization's development", Black Wolf raised a good point. This thought should cause us to ponder the nature of absolute certainty. The critical characteristic of absolute certainty is that certainty develops from the definition of one's terms. Relating to Black Wolf's example, how would you ever notice a correlation of the Maclaurin series with sine values in the first place? If one took a protractor and drew many right triangles, the side ratios of the triangles could be measured with a ruler and the sine values could be calculated. These calculations are not based off of pure deductive reasoning, but the presumably inductive reasoning of the protractor and ruler markings. The measuring instruments are not necessarily accurate. The Maclaurin series values could be infinitely calculated until one noticed that it didn't agree with the empirically observed values. Obviously, one of the methods is wrong. The reason the observed values must be wrong is because the Maclaurin series determines the sine values by definition. Before Maclaurin series, we didn't have precise values for trigonometric functions. Also, mathematical objects only exist, however objectively, in the mind. We define and represent objects such as point, line, circle, angle, etc with what we sense in the real world but we don't sense the objects themselves. We develop the concepts of geometric and mathematics objects by thinking about the nature of what we perceive.

The universe is potentially infinite and not actually infinite because the universe itself is merely a concept of set theory; we determine that certain things exist and then we assume that we can construct a set of all that exists, the universe. The problem is that this set is a concept of our mind so your god must be a concept of your mind. Points and lines are potentially infinite in certain respects also so they are just abstractions of the mind and not existing things.

In short, Happy Thanksgiving in honor and memory of the Pilgrims' contributions to America.

Fair enough. Regarding color, it is objective but still observer dependent. Color, by definition, is a state at which an observer sees it and a concept of the mind. A color is an attribute of sensory interpretation, a concept used in thought. Without any concept formers, concepts wouldn't exist. Matter exists independently of sense perception, but our sense perceptions of matter do not exist outside of our minds per the Law of Identity. Regarding the unmoved mover, he must be unmoved. He cannot be in motion presently. Any event that created the universe would have operated under certain laws of creation. Therefore, this event would only have created the known universe and not the universe by definition. A being cannot exist outside of the universe.

I'm not equating two per se, but I think territoriality is part of understanding property. Animals can understand food ownership too sometimes, but your example shows that obviously sometimes they don't. Just like humans.

Which means that a first cause does not actually exist. Nope, the idea that an unmoved mover must have existed to ignite the universe is contingent on the postulate that everything is in motion. Since an unmoved mover is not in motion, he cannot currently exist in this system. Therefore, the unmoved mover would have existed in the beginning, but not currently. Hence, he died. Reread the proof, you don't understand it.

An omnipotent God could not redefine objective truth. If you at 3:00 P.M. ate a late lunch on 11/23/2010 and drove to Wal-Mart, an omnipotent God could never ultimately change the substance of such truth. You might counter with the fact that God could travel back in time and alter events, but that time travel would only be from your perspective. Time is always moving forward from some frame of reference so it would still be an objective fact that from God's perspective at 3:00 P.M. you ate lunch and went to Wal-Mart. You might also argue that words can mean multiple things. They can, but the substance of the words intended meaning cannot change. God cannot change the fact that "A is A" in the same sense. This would destroy the ontological argument. The transcendental argument for God is definitely the most clever in my opinion, but it has other flaws. This argument postulates that Logic and the laws of Logic are God, or at least one person of their holy trinity. The major flaw here is that the existence of logic is contingent on the existence of the human mind. To contend that logic exists without the mind is to claim that there is color without any eyes. There isn't. Without the sense of sight, the colors "red", "green", "yellow", etc wouldn't exist as they are human or animal perceptions by definition.

I probably should have titled the thread "the true nature of the philosophy that emerged from religion in civilization's development". I was considering religion synonymous with philosophy but the mystical aspects are not, once it is rationally demonstrated that they are mystical.

The number of events between two events is potentially infinite as it is potentially infinite because every event can be broken down into sub-events. The idea of an "event" is a human product similar to a point. Events, like points, only potentially exist as they are infinitely small. According to Aristotle, the originator of the thought behind the Kalam and Cosmological Argument, the Unmoved Mover must be the source of all motion. However, Aristotle also postulates that everything moves. Therefore, the source of all motion must not exist currently. Hence, that god died at the inception of the universe if one accepts Aristotle's argument. Aristotle contradicts himself with this argument. As for the all-powerful type of God, that cannot exist in reality either because it ultimately leads to other logical contradictions regardless of the argument put forth. There is or was value in this conception of a Cosmological God for human convenience, but it doesn't exist.

It is, but that doesn't mean that animals never understand private property. Charles Cornish wrote a book "Animals of today, their life and conversation" where he shows examples of dogs respecting property rights. A quick Google search of "animals understand property" yields several instances that shows a rudimentary concept of property rights in animals.

I've been following Neurosky and the research of Tan Lee for about three years now. This is the most likely imminent advancement that will make a difference in our lives. The machine relies on something like an EEG machine that reads brainwaves instead of buttons. The greatest difficulty with the design is that our brainwaves are continuous and have ranges. It's easiest to set up the machine to receive exact frequencies so much of the recent research has been about getting it to work at a wide range of frequencies. Another obstacle is the interference from other devices, but wires reduce this a lot.

Peikoff acknowledges that experimentation refutes mysticism. One needs to be able to interpret sensation, to reason, accurately to experiment. Reasoning skills are not merely innate qualities that we evolved; they are sharpened with practice, study, and the advice of others. If this weren't true, no philosopher would ever need to write any books to convey his philosophy because everyone would instinctively know it. Reason must be developed. Since reasoning must be developed, people will naturally always hold to mystical ideas until their reasoning sharpens. However, it is the recognition of reason's primacy that matters. I think this is why it is important to understand how ideas evolve. And mysticism doesn't end with atheism. A thousand years from now people may very well consider some of Ayn Rand's views mystical. I don't know which ones, but anyone will ultimately make logical errors.

Correlation implies causation in a controlled study unless the correlation can be explained otherwise. If you reject this, you reject the scientific method. Neither is Enlightenment thought; the Enlightenment also produced the disastrous French Revolution. Certain aspects of Protestant Christianity were mostly just a US phenomenon by 1700. Yes it was and those historical principles came from religion, particularly Protestant Christianity. You still don't seem to understand the difference between Christianity and a philosophy that evolved from Christianity. Many Objectivists cite Samuel Adams as a major influence on American political thought, rightfully so. Sam Adams was probably a closet Deist or a religious pragmatist, but he stressed the fact that his ideas largely came from his Puritan ancestors. The other Adams, John Adams, was explicitly not a normal Christian. He was a Unitarian, and he readily identified the Reformation as his intellectual precursor on many occasions. He wrote "Let not Geneva be forgotten or despited. Religious liberty owes it much respect, Servetus notwithstanding.” John Adams also wrote, "After Martin Luther had introduced into Germany the liberty of thinking in matters of religion, and erected the standard of reformation, John Calvin, a native of Noyon, in Picardie, of a vast genius, singular eloquence, various erudition, and polished taste, embraced the cause of reformation. In the books which he published, and in the discourses which he held in the several cities of France, he proposed one hundred and twenty-eight articles in opposition to the creed of the Roman Catholic church. These opinions were soon embraced with ardor, and maintained with obstinacy, by a great number of persons of all conditions. The asylum and the centre of this new sect was Geneva, a city situated on the lake ancienty called Lemanus, on the frontiers of Savoy, which had shaken off the yoke of its bishop and the Duke of Savoy, and erected itself into a republic, under the title of a free city, for the sake of liberty of conscience. " The Works of John Adams, edited by Charles F. Adams. No, but the views that did establish the United States evolved from certain mysticism. Mysticism can only be refuted by experimentation, whether it be "thought experimentation" or otherwise. Peikoff readily acknowledges this, but he goes from Thomist mysticism to the Enlightenment. By skipping Protestant mysticism, he gives a weak impression of US history.

Actually, it is A according to the primary source documents. A) Jamestown's founding statement reads: “Wee, greatly commending and graciously accepting of their desires to the furtherance of soe noble a worke which may, by the providence of Almightie God, hereafter tende to the golire of His divine Majestie in propagating of Christian religion to suche people as yet live in darknesse and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worshippe of God and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in those parts to humane civilitie and to a setled and quiet governmente, doe by theise our lettres patents graciously accepte of and agree to theire humble and well intentioned desires;” So officially, even Jamestown was founded to spread Christianity. I think the reasons behind the religion were economic and practical, but the official reason for Jamestown's founding was explicitly religious too. It was the Industrial Revolution of Carnegie, Bell, and Edison that marked the evolution into atheism.

Since causality is inherently a potential, an infinite regress of causality is potential also. When you say that turning the key starts the car, the turn of the key isn't the direct cause. There are a potentially infinite number of steps between the turn of the key and the start of the car. This isn't an actual infinity. This is why there's an infinite regress of causality. This argument is called the Kalam argument. I personally think it's awful, but a lot of people are taught it. It isn't rational at all because it worships a dead and impotent unmoved mover. That being said, Catholics, William Lane Craig, and all Muslims use this argument.

I didn't know that Locke considered himself an Anglican! I share your assessment of Locke except for the fact that his philosophy was a driving force of civilization and had early Objectivist elements. However, he didn't come out of Catholic tradition, but Augustinian(Protestant) tradition. Samuel Rutherford isn't too well known, but he was an early example of a philosopher who attacked divine right of kings and he had a enormous influence on John Locke. There is ample evidence of this including Locke's reading list and evidence that Rutherford and Locke's father maintained a correspondence. Rutherford was devoutly Calvinistic. If this were just one instance of Enlightenment values coming from Calvinism, I'd consider it an aberration. However, it occurs repeatedly throughout the Enlightenment until the Industrial Revolution. Max Weber's theories can't be quite right either because religious Protestants weren't obsessed with accumulating wealth. In fact, it was extremely heretical to think that poverty was necessarily a sign that a person was damned. The only explanation I can think of is that Protestant philosophy is closer to Enlightenment thinking than Catholic philosophy. I agree with this, but our country(assuming you're American) still evolved from Protestant Christianity.

This is a great question. I think Capitalism as a system of private property predates humanity. Animals understand private property within a pack and even sometimes value their creation.

Locke was not a Christian, but he was clearly influenced by the fundamentalist Christianity of Samuel Rutherford. That is the crucial point. Locke's family fought for Oliver Cromwell.

What would you call an apple made of anti-matter? Anti-matter has a positive mass but it does annihilate upon contact with it's analogous "normal" matter. The visualization of 3+4i apples in a spatio-temporal realm is very difficult for me. At times, I've thought it might be possible by representing it as a negative component of an apple, but I don't think that works anymore. I was referring to a philosophy of logic called "Pragmatism" and a related philosophy called "Pragmaticism". I'm arguing that reasonable philosophy evolved from primitive, religious philosophies, just like Rand argued. However, I contend that the order is backwards. Objectivists tend to ignore Stoic philosophies role in evolving human reason. Peikoff's history basically goes like this: Rome falls with Christianity-->Dark ages for 1000 years-->Thomas Aquinas brings back Aristotle-->yay Renaissance and Enlightenment-->USA-->Industrial Revolution in USA shows basic Objectivists like Cornelius Vanderbilt and Andrew Carnegie. In the classic Objectivist view, Aristotle just naturally leads to Enlightenment with nothing in between. My history of Europe would go like this: Rome falls because it's rulers were hedonistic jerks with no respect for the individual-->Dark ages for 1000 years-->as Dark Ages end, proto-markets develop and Aquinas produces influential logical tracts using Aristotle-->Renaissance produces artwork that emphasizes individual idealism like Michelangelo's David-->Art, being expensive and never contributing to long term production, forces artistic patrons like the Medici to tax everyone else to maintain their wealth-->Thomist Papacy degenerates into hedonism-->Occamist Martin Luther, infuriated by the degeneracy of the Papacy, modifies Christianity to emphasize the pursuit of moral perfect. Jean Calvin, to escape sodomy charges and ease his conscience, soon follows suit-->With rationality eventually being considered a part of moral virtue, thorough philosophical and scientific studies explode in Protestant countries-->A type of Deism and later Atheism takes hold where morality and productivity are sought, but irrational religious beliefs are neglected upon discovering their irrationality-->USA-->Industrial revolution by which time most industrialists are atheists-->By the 1920s, urban America is atheistic and American culture is born, yay! An obvious criticism of my view(and Peikoff's) is that Judaism, which has Maimonides in place of Aquinas, isn't covered. This is a valid point, but I think the Jews positive role has more to do with their ethnic culture that emphasizes success to shield against persecution than their particular religious beliefs.

I didn't like how Civilization II, Civilization III, and the Call To Power games never took free market industry into account much at all. Even in Republic, businesses and entrepreneurs never did anything. Caterpillar Construction Tycoon offers a better simulation of how civilization is built! Oh another thing, it would take 400 years to move an army! It's sense of time is so incredibly unrealistic.

Objectivist philosophy can be a great aid to depression. Unlike every other world view that is obsessed with an individual's status being determined by either society or a divine being, Objectivism emphasizes an individual trying to achieve his own goals without caring about what other people want. I think the best long term treatment for depression is the constructive achievement that comes from one trying to accomplish something. In some ways, the pursuit of one's goals should make him happy even if he doesn't always succeed because he keeps trying and remains determined. It can't be smart to give up a friend. The best way to strengthen a friendship happens to be the best way to fix depression, work on common problems for common ends.

The concept of the complex number necessitates the concept of the imaginary number. The imaginary number part of the complex number is the part that doesn't tangibly exist. Phasor diagrams are visual interpretations but unlike other vector diagrams, we never see natural phasor diagrams. Rather, we apply the phasor diagram to oscillations to describe the motion without having to draw the repetitively moving object. You are right about the fact that imaginary numbers are very useful. However, in Objectivist Epistemology, the usefulness of a principle does not make a principle true because the truth is inherently objective and not altered by the human mind. Only William James' epistemology "Pragmatism" would justify the existence of imaginary numbers based on their use in engineering. (Benjamin and Charles) Peirce's later anti-nominalist "Pragmaticist" epistemology denies the "existence" of imaginary numbers but affirms the "reality" of the imaginary number, vaguely meaning that it exists only as a concept of the mind(it's actually more complicated but I don't want to go into his elaborate theory of signs). Either way, Objectivism has historically repudiated both of those philosophies. Also, the law of the excluded middle poses problems for the complex number. You're only looking at the weak side of religion. Your model fits Catholic acceptance and even promotion of evolution, their support of interracial marriages, their calls for marital equality, and their eventual recognition of a heliocentric solar system. However, it doesn't explain when religion has evolved on the basis of logical thought and philosophy without science. It doesn't explain the "hard" religion of the Stoics, the Lutherans/Calvinists, and Vaisheshika Hindus. These "hard" religions evolve to advocate a certain primacy of logical thought much more than the Thomist religions regarding one's moral conduct and goals. These religions didn't evolve because of scientific discoveries. In fact in Democritus and Kana-bhuk's case, scientific theories evolved against Aristotle's science because of their theologies! Protestant theological ideas motivated Euler, Faraday, Riemann, and many others and they pushed science and forced it to change. These developments and also the logical thought of mathematicians have ultimately discredited religion as I know it. With the Stoics and Vaisheshika atomists extinct, it is probable that Enlightenment ideas came from Protestant ideas and not Aquinas directly. Almost every single Enlightenment philosopher of lasting consequence came from a Protestant background, but became Deist later or remained Christian. It is quite clear that Locke based his pro-individual views on Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex and also George Buchanan's thought for instance. David Hume and Thomas Paine clearly considered Aquinas as inferior to Jonathan Edwards. Rand's philosophy is good, but her and Peikoff's views of the history of religion fly in the face of every bit of historical evidence. Nazi Germany certainly wasn't godless; you're absolutely correct. Socialist societies are always theistic because they always worship the state by definition. Socialists believe the state to be infinitely powerful and 'God' by definition is infinitely powerful. The basic syllogism is completed with the conclusion that the state is omnipotent. Hitler was professedly Catholic, but he was probably a closet pagan because he made plans to eradicate Christianity and replace it with "Ariosophy".

See this. I don't agree with everything he says here, but his main ideas are exactly right! youtube.com/watch?v=NhvhNZC51gY Western values are better.

You know, it really is! I never thought about the plot much and just played on Battlenet as a kid. We need to take the video game industry back. That is our industry. Everything of merit in video games comes from Objectivist thought. The beauty of the graphics, the elaborate stories, the enticing gameplay, and the realization of the fantastic for the sake of simple enjoyment without any value to the state, all gave rise to the video game industry. Hell, even the city in Bioshock, the only good part of the game, comes from Objectivist thought. Let's take it back. I've always imagined Galt's Gulch having a video game design lab.

I think I can summarize this succinctly. Kronecker was a jerk, but he was right. Cantor's theories are interesting, but they aren't cut out for dealing with things that actually exist.