DAC

Just for the record, I am not an environmentalist and I could give a hoot about the spotted owl. I understand the protection of rights argument, and I agree with it. Where I become confused is in the implementation of certain principles to certain specific situations in life. I thought that if I saw a properly constructed law in this matter, it would serve to help my understanding... As it stands in my mind, there is a 'breakdown' in that area that exists between understanding the principles, but not knowing how to implement them to a specific situation. It doesn't happen often, but when it does I like to resolve it...

Since you will not reply (or are unable) we are left in a parculiar state. I believe going from principles to specifics is what philosophy is about... Talking about principles is given, Rand has covered that very well. I am talking about application of those principles to man's life... If you don't want to go to the 'concrete bound' as you call it, then it is you sir, who should withdraw... Because it is not the 'concrete bound' to ask for clarity in how you would apply those principles you speak of... especially if it helps the understanding of the concept by others, which if I am not mistaken, is the point of this forum...

I believe that every physical existent posessess temporally and spacial properties... this is how I apply it to the whole. If every physical existent does not possess temporal or spacial properties then I am not aware of this... hence my question: Maybe it would help me if I had an example of an existent that did not have any temporal and/or spacial properties... Can you provide an example... BTW, do not expect a response until monday morning...

Can you give the proper content of such a law? BTW, this is on topic regarding environmentalism... and I do have a point.

From what I gather, we are in agreement that the universe is finite, and that it possesses a finite quantity of its building blocks, which I represent as all the matter and energy that exist in whatever form. I am basing this alleged agreement on your statement: "The concept "all", while not identifying SPECIFIC quantity, does identify A quantity, meaning it identifies a finite number [of existents]. As such, the concept "universe" necessarily is finite because it includes the concept "all" [existents]"- DACs comments in brackets. Therefore, the universe is finite, has a finite quantity of entities, there are a finite quantity of relationships between entities, a finite quantity of characteristics, etc... Also, omitted means they exist, but are unspecified... all existents have qualities. I believe the properties of the existents (matter and energy) that make up 'all that exists' are transferable to the concept 'universe' (which is the sum of matter and energy) as a whole and you do not... This is where the disagreement lies... It is like saying the universe is made of matter and energy existing in many forms, that can be quantitatively defined, have quantitatively defined relationships... and then saying that the matter and energy that makes up all the universe cannot be used to describe all the matter and energy that makes up all the universe. 'Universe' being interchangeable with 'the sum of all that exists' (i.e.- all the matter and energy in existence in whatever form) To recap: The universe is finite. It possesses a finite quantity of its building blocks, which I represent as all the matter and energy that exist in whatever form. It has a finite quantity of relationships between its constituent matter and energy, some of these being temporal or spacial in nature. Yet, as you claim, these temporal and spacial properties do not apply to the whole... Where I say they do. Maybe it would help me if I had an example of an existent that did not have any temporal and/or spacial properties... Also, do we have an answer to this: I am still debating within myself if mental existents were meant to be included in the concept universe (e.g.- emotions, etc.), I am currently re-reading what Rand has said on this... I think they should not be included, and when I speak of the universe I am 'assuming' just what is 'out-there'... Including my body, but not its mental inner workings or processes...

For the record, this was my observation of the conduct of my company, not necessarily how I would run the company. See the previous the referenced post please. My point was without an objective law to deal with the specifics of toxic waste dumping this would be difficult to accomplish. I do not think a blanket "Anyone who initiates force' law is sufficient to cover every situation... In some situations, some people might not see the initiation of force in all that they do. Some may be general oversights and objective law helps to clarify this. I guess my question to you would be... What is proper content of the law in this situation?

I shall address your premise... I disagree with your statement that the universe has no identity. Existence is Identity and if it exists it exists as something. Quoting from Radcap quoting Dr. B: "That could be read as committing the fallacy of composition. It does not follow from the finiteness of each thing that the totality of all things must be finite. But I think his argument is actually: If to exist is to be finite, then since the universe exists, it must be finite." and I add if it is finite, it has identity... There is your response... I was not ignoring it, I was simply surprised by the fact that an objectivist would claim something exists yet have no identity. I have never seen this posited in objectivist literature... If I am in error, refer me to the proper objectivist text. If you have access to some of Dr. B's thoughts on this subject that we do not, then I would hope you would share them with us... Again, I would like to discuss the questions in my previous post (Does identity imply characteristics, etc..) EDIT: Quote from RadCap quoting Dr. B "(You might argue that since the ultimate constituents of the universe do not come into existence or go out of existence [Matter of Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change forms, and the total M+E is constant], we can get round this temporal problem by counting [i.e.- measuring by a specific means] just the ultimate constituents. [speculation by Dr. B begins here] But I don't think this is possible either--I don't know how you'd ever be able to determine if you'd counted them all once and only once. And what if there are ultimately only four kinds of ultimate constituents, which interpenetrate or are goo-like? We can't assume that the ultimate constituents are physical objects in the perceptual-level sense.) [but we can assume that they exist, possess identity, and are therefore measurable somehow, we can know reality. Nothing is unknowable]" DAC- Brackets and emphasis mine... My answer to this: Just because we cannot determine if they have all been counted once and only once has no bearing on the quantity of matter and energy in existence. Put simply, our inability to measure a thing accurately does not negate the possiblility of its finiteness (in this case our inability to measure quantity does not negate the possibility of an actual quantity)... I believe this attempts to answer my claim in another thread... (that the universe is the sum total of all the matter and energy in whatever form it exists). But does not do it to my satisfaction. Briefly, my agrgument is as follows: All the matter and energy that exist are constant (i.e- Finite) therefore the universe is finite, since the universe is the sum of all the matter and energy in existence in whatever form. Our inability to 'measure' the quantity is irrelevant. For reference, see the brief discussion of the Uncertainty Principle in the other thread for clarity (NO physics discussions here please)

I agree with most of what you are saying. The law would never say: NO toxic waste dumping on your property. Which I would disagree with... It would say something like this: If your total land area is less than 1000 acres and is no closer than 15 miles to the nearest town, a town being defined as blah blah blah... And your property does not have the proper scientifically determined means for disposal, whether that method by a Thermal Oxidizer, underground piping, underground storage, blah blah blah... Then you shall not dump on the property, but shall be required to take it to an approved dumping station. Basically the law would be written, so the average person could not drop toxic waste in their yard. I know that the average person may not have access to toxic waste, etc... I feel I am 99% there, it may be my 'bad programming' from working in chemical plant design most of my life. Some stuff, if release into the atmosphere would not be very good. And it seems like companies would not be as safe as they are today, if it were not mandated (I gather this from mettings I attend, where the cost of safety is looked upon rather negatively, as an extra cost that takes from profit, not from saving lives, or a safe working environment. Granted I have not worked for every company and this may just be bad perspective.) I'll think about this over the weekend and post any comments Monday if I have any... (I am only on the internet M-F 6am-2pm) If I am understanding correctly, I would say this... The regulation serves no purpose. If the potential is never actualized, then the time wasted on drafting, voting, etc. on the regulation was wasted production. If it is actualized, then there would be another recourse to law. Either way the regulation prevents or stops (or helps) nothing... This leads to another question... Would this law be justified... If toxic waste you dump on your property (directly or indirectly) injures another person or damages another property then you shall be liable for all damages to said property and person. Including all attorneys fees etc... If death is the result of your action then you shall serve a term in prison no less than 5 years and a fine of $100,000... Either way the regulation would not have saved this man's life... but the law above gives his family a recourse in law...

This quote is mine from the previous thread: Some say that I commit the fallacy of composition here. But my point was if the universe is not an entity, but a shorthand way of saying all that exists. Then the properties of the individual entities would be the properties of the whole. This is not the same as a human body analogy, since the human body is an entity itself... The universe is not... Now if the existents of the universe possess temporally and spacial boundaries (and other characteristics), and the concept 'universe' is a way of saying 'all that exists' and not meant to be an entity in itself. Is it not reasonable to concluded in this case, that since the individual physical entities possess these qualitites, that all physical entities would possess these qualities (i.e.- to exist is to exist finitely, and possess identity, and characteristics) I am still debating within myself if mental existents were meant to be included in the concept universe (e.g.- emotions, etc.), I am currently re-reading what Rand has said on this... I think they should not be included, and when I speak of the universe I am 'assuming' just what is 'out-there'... Including my body, but not its mental inner workings or processes... Quote from DAC in a previous thread included for clarity: I believe to be classified as a new entity, the collection must be fundamentally different than its parts, as in the NaCl example above. I do not believe the concept 'universe' meets this requirement... Any additional comments... or disagreements with what is below... I believe it does... identity is existing as something in particular, and that something must have characteristics... [i'd like to add, that if the concept is not a new entity then it necessarily has the characteristics of its constituent parts. This differentiates 'sum concepts' from new entity concepts.]-DAC (Not a part of the original quote, added for clarity) I understand it to be synonymous with 'attributes' This could also be taken as the age of the universe is as old as its oldest entity...

I agree with this... This is a potential lethal threat. I would not be opposed to someone who owned 500,000 acres dumping in the middle of his property. What I would object to is my neighbor on his 1/5 acre lot doing the same. To me the situational context matters... where is he dumping, what are the dimensions of his property and its location, etc. are all valid question that must be taken into consideration. Not just property rights and that is the end of the thinking. Dumping on the 1/5 acre lot, the potential nears 100% of me recognizing the ill effects of his dumping and there would exist a different context for dumping on his property in the 'middle-of-nowhere'. I don't believe this to be an accurate analogy since gun ownership has a potential as you pointed out to be not only hamful, but beneficial, depending on human action. Toxic waste is only harmful, no possible benefits could come from dumping this on your property. I believe this minor difference makes all the difference. The question more specific and refined would be: Does the government have the right to preemptively legislate behavior that when executed by the individual on property he owns (in the given context of his surroundings etc.) have the potential, very near 100%, to cause harm or damage to his immediate neighbors property or life, with no potential benefits? Yes, they have this preemptive right ONLY in this very limited context. Where the potential for harm nears 100% and the potential for good is 0%... I would argue, since the action is completed and given the context of this discussion, toxic waste in the ground in such near proximity to my property cannot be good and that the initiation of force occurs when he dumps the waste in his yard, but is not realized until I am affected. For instance it may take a few days to realize the effects, in this case he would be liable for all damages up to the point in time where he dumped the waste. I can see this applying to the gun example, but not the toxic waste example. Guilt and innocence only apply to an alternative. (e.g.- I can use the gun for criminal or self defense purposes, one lawful one not.) Once the waste is dumped, there is no alternative. There is no potential for benefit only destruction... For the gun example, the gun per se, is a potential... a potential for good or evil based on its user. The only alternative for the waste is not to dump it (which is fine by me). But once it is dumped in this situational context, force has been initiated. Just like if the bullet has been fired, regardless of if it hits or misses me... I see the difference... When the potential for harm nears 100% and the potential for good is 0% I believe this is a necessary distinction. Again, I would only support preemptive regulation ONLY in this very limited situational context. Where the potential for harm nears if not equals 100% and the potential for good is exactly 0%...

Yes, your post is helpful... I have a few questions though: You say, I am correct in assuming that Objectivism would tolerate preemption only in a particular case of a particular instance (like your example above), but would not tolerate a blanket legislative preemption to prevent anyone from dumping toxic waste on property they own... if so I am confused in the aspect that an intervention by the government is taking place, but the timing of that intervention is relevant... For example, why is it acceptable for the goverment to preemptively stop the waste from seeping onto anothers property after I have already dumped it on my own property (presumably they intervene with or without my sanction, I assume that after the clean-up I was unable or unwilling to perform they would 'bill me'), but it is not acceptable for the government to stop me from dumping it on my property, thereby retroactively preventing their involvement? Is the only objection that I own the property and can do as I will (and pay the consequenses if applicable, Innocent before Guilty, etc.)? What if I deny the government access to my property for the clean-up? Are you saying they have a 'right' to stop the violation against my will, or they may stop it with my sanction if I am incapable of stoping it and they are? I realize that even if I may stop government preemption (assuming I have this right), I do not escape the consequences that would result from the damages caused by a denial of that preemption.

RC, Yes, I own my section of the river and the other individual owns his section. I realize that I did not post this, but this was my intent... I should have been more clear... This being the case, I do see that I would be causing (indirectly) harm to another individual by dumping toxic waste into my section of the river... I feel I should be liable. The question that remains unresolved is: Given my ownership of my section of river, I dump waste into it. It travels down into a section owned by another. Damage is done to the individual or maybe this particular time it isn't (maybe the damage is cumulative, and this being the first instance has a very small effect). I believe that I am responsible for any damage caused to him or his property, I am not disputing this. But, based on this... would the government have a 'preemptive' right to legislate that I cannot dump waste into the river (in my section that I own more specifically, I have no right to dump it on another's property)? I realize that the government 'can' legislate in this matter, but would they be objectively justified in doing so, given the certain harm that would result from my action to another's property or person over time? If I am understanding your previous post correctly... I would say that you would support preemptive legislation to prevent the violation of another's rights. Just like you would support the invasion of a country that violated the rights of its citizens if that country also posed a threat to America (or your country if you do not live in America), and your country was also a just country. Is this an accurate summation of your views? I can see this leading to a confict of 'objective regulation' v. 'non-objective regulation'... To summarize questions: Should (i.e.- would they be objectively justified) the government 'preemptively' regulate potential private behavior that if executed by that individual, would cause harm or violate the rights of another individual? Is there any type of legitimate 'preemptive' legislation a government can do, or does it all have to be 'reactive' justice (e.g.- tort law, etc.)? Is there a distinction between 'objective regulation' and 'non-objective regulation' or is this multipling concepts beyond necessity? 'Objective regulation' in this context meaning only that regulation that protects the right of one individual from violation by another, preemptively banning that particular conduct.

I'm thinking of a river analogy. I have property on the banks of a river upstream from you and I dump toxic waste, or something harmful, into my portion of the river. It flows down to you and you drink it, maybe not knowing it is in there, and are injured in someway. Or the same could be argued with air pollutants, just substitute the air for the river. I would like to state before I continue that I am a student of objectivism but also when a family member presents the argument above and says should I be responsible for your illness. I believe the answer is yes. Because it was my actions that led to your harm, albeit indirectly... Would this be initiation of force? I agree that if it is my property I have the right to do what I want on it as long as I don't hurt someone else in the process. But does this apply when the injury is initiated on my property but is realized by the effected individual on his property. Overall, I loathe the environmentalists... But at the same time I find myself 'appreciating' clean water to drink and air to breathe... Government regulation is not the answer... which means that the individual has to be injured before he can file a claim against me, but what if that potential injury is life threatening... EDIT: I believe objectivism respects the right of preemptive force against nations. I derive this from the 'right to invade' (i.e.- 'can invade' not 'shall invade')a nation that does not respect the rights of its citizens. Does this same preemption (i.e.- preemption of law) apply to the previous paragraph... Why or Why not?

I can see the connection between a mental entity v. physical entity and saying that properties of the physical do not apply. I have trouble with the physcial v. physical saying the same thing... EDIT: Or are you claiming the 'universe' is a mental entity...

I don't think the Uncertainty Principle is a problem for Objectivism... all it states is we cannot know both the location and direction of a sub-atomic event. For exaple if you could 'see' a sub-atomic event and shine a light on it. The light particles when interacting with what you were trying to measure (e.g.- an electron) would cause that electron to change position. You may get its speed, but would no longer know where it was going... I like to think of a billiard table, with the electron being the 8-ball and the light photon being the cue ball, they collide, and positions are changed.

It tells me several things...

Is this the objectivist way of incorporating General Relativity (e.g. Background time and Absolute Time) This was partially helpful, I'd be interested in reading more... Where are these lists...

I agree with this also, I should have included this perspective in my post, but for brevities sake I did not. I figured you were speaking of environmentalists in the objectivism context. My younger sister is an example of the latter type of 'environmentalist'. I too think it is unfair that objectivism lumps all the enviornmentalists into one category. Not to give any weight to their arguments but it could be rationally demonstrated that it is against our rational self interest as individuals to dump toxic-waste into a river, etc... This type of 'environmentalism', which really needs a new word to describe it, should not be lumped in with the E.L.F. lunatics...

I believe it does... identity is existing as something in particular, and that something must have characteristics... I understand it to be synonymous with 'attributes'

From what I understand of the environmentalist movement is that they seek not to preserve nature in a state uneffected by man for use by some future environmentalists or persons pleasure. They seek to isolate it from humans for the benefit of nature. An environmentalist would not have this objection, but would object on grounds of the rights of the ecosystem etc. not on the right of future use by man. Honestly, I don't think any answer Objectivism could give would be satisfactory to the environmentalist... They start from a different base, one in which nature is primary and human's are viewed parasitically. The only defense or chance to convert the environmentalist is to attack at this root, and make Objectivism's stand there.

Also, what attributes does the 'universe' possess other than identity? Since it cannot have the characteristics of its parts, it possesses identity with no particular characteristics (as noted by mattbateman, I am still digesting this)... This does not seem to far off from infinity (infinity in this context is defined as an alleged entity that possess a non-measureable quantity of a particular characteristic. i.e.- No characteristic at all). How does this differ from the above statements of the universe from Silverman? On one hand you have a universe that has identity but has no characteristics and on the other, a universe that has identity, but has infinite characteristics (impossible)... It goes back to my question asked in my last post... What is the difference between a universe with 'no size' and a universe with 'infinite size'... The end result is the same in reality, neither can exist... My understanding of identity and existence is that to exist is to exist as something particular and possess characteristics. Does silverman ever say what are the characteristics of the universe, other than it has identity (which I don't believe is a characteristic, but a corrollary of existence)?

He seems to be using 'finite' in different contexts, in one he uses it to mean finite as synonomous with identity (EDIT: I don't recall objectivism using 'finite' in this context. Why use finite when you can just say identity) and then uses finite as a limitation on attributes, this was confusing when I first read it. Maybe the problem was with the word 'sum' I will have to think about this... Sum implies all the characteristics of every entity are included in the concept universe, just like every entity is. At the very least I found the Silverman essay not entirely clear. He also claims that the universe possesses neither infinite size or finite size, he says size does not apply (yet, the universe is 'finite'). For example, what is the difference between 'no size' and 'infinite size'... The end result is the same in reality, neither can exist... I am trying to eliminate what I call 'Word Art' and arrive at the essential meaning without contradiction (or the very least questions).

I understand this. This is symantecs. The question is that if all matter and energy (I include consciousness in energy) exist and have properties, some of which are spacial and/or temporal, how is it that the parts say nothing about the whole? Yes, I agree that there is nothing to compare the motion of everything to. But I do not believe this means the universe (i.e.- the sum of all that exists) is not temporally or spacially bounded. The universe is the matter and energy that makes it up (assuming all that exists are matter, energy, or combinations of the two). Matter and Energy have always existed finitely, according to Objectivism and science. If this is true, then the individual matter and energy particles, waves, etc. have always existed and if these possess temporal (e.g.- The electron is in motion relative to the nucleus) or spacial (e.g.- The 'electron cloud' posited earlier) boundaries then the universe (i.e.- The sum of matter and energy) possesses temporal and spacial bondaries. In other words: The sum of all that exists has always existed as matter and energy varying in different amounts in each existent. Therefore, in the frame of reference of the universe as a whole time does not exist, but the whole cannot contradict the parts when it is a collective noun. It is not a new entity. From the frame of reference of an atom, time has always existed because the atom has always been in motion. I think 'time' may not be the concept I am looking for to describe this.

My understanding of the article above is this: The universe is spacially and temporally unbounded There is no circular space or time The universe is finite (i.e.- possesses identity) Time can only be applied to entities that have a duration characteristic with a beginning and an end. Size can only be applied to entities that have a finite spacial extension. The universe is 'out-of-time', or time does not apply to the universe as a whole... Basically this is treating the universe as one entity, without reference to the fact that the concept 'universe' is a collective noun used to denote 'the sum of all that exists (many entities)'. My question is: What is the nature of all that exists? It is matter and energy in many different forms. What are the properties of matter and energy? Because spacial and temporal characteristics apply to these entities. Therefore they must apply to the universe as a whole (used in the collective sense). Put another way if the matter and energy possess attributes, some of which may be spacial or temporal, how is it that the universe cannot, when the universe is nothing more than a shorthand way of saying 'all that exists'. The universe is a collective noun, not a concrete entity in it own right. NaCl is its own entity, with its own properties, that differ from its constituent atoms (e.g.- Sodium is explosive in water, Chlorine is a poisonous gas... Put them together and you have salt... A requirement for human survival). The universe is not like this, it is a shorthand concept, not a new concrete entity. No one can point to the universe and say there it is. It is grasped conceptually not ostensively. Does anyone have any particlular disagreement with the logic in my first post? I believe I am defining the concept of universe to be in agreement with Objectivism. But in thinking it through. I arrive at a different conclusion than Mr. Silverman, or more importantly Ms. Rand and Mr. Binswanger. I believe that y_feldblum does not agree with the objectivist view of the nature of the universe (as possessing no temporal or spacial extension) and I have to say that I am leaning that direction as no satisfactory answers are forthcoming. But in the interest of understanding, I must acknowledge the possibility of my error and ask any who are interest to throughly read both my first post above and the article I linked to and offer any insight they deem helpful.

For completeness, the article that sparked my question is here: Temporally and Spacially Unbounded Finite Universe