Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nate T.

Regulars
  • Posts

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nate T.

  1. I don't know if this will help, but I'll give it a try. There are two ontologies of space: it's a thing which is everywhere (like "the ether"), or it's a relationship between things that exist. If space is an absolute entity that exists independent of particles, it would still be an existent, presumably the only existent, but it would exist. In that sense, space without existence is a contradiction. If space is relational, i.e. it is the time-space relation between some two particles, then that particular space is meaningful only with respect to those particles. If there are no particles, the "space" relationship between particles also doesn't exist.

    That's a good way to think about it-- thanks!

  2. I don't know what is provoking people to attack this particular argument which I just used in passing in a reply and is now utterly irrelevant to the discussion, but it's F-ING IRRITATING. Anyway

    How can divorcing logic from fact and divorcing existence from identity be irrelevant to a discussion about metaphysics? These are basic things you must understand about the Objectivist metaphysics if you are going to ask questions about it. If you are here to simply disagree with Objectivist metaphysics, I suggest you read the Forum Rules. In any case, you ought to work on your manners.

    Also, I don't know how else to explain to you that space is a meaningless term if nothing exists, so I'll stop trying.

    That something does not yet exist doesn't mean I can't speak of it meaningfully; I can plan for its creation.

    Of course; I've already conceded that it will exist. But you don't get to assume that it exists now. Remeber, the whole point of bringing this up was to give counterexamples to "nonexistents do not exist." Something that does not yet exist does not exist. Just because you're referring to it does not mean it exists. As such, this is not a counterexample to "nonexistents do not exist".

    I did say that we may speak meaningfully of things that do not exist. Take, for example, the keys that are not on the table. Their meaningfulness lies in my inability to use them. I cannot take the keys from the table. And yet I'm apparently able to refer to them meaningfully in some sense; "The keys are not here. The keys are here in the mode of 'not'.".

    Referring to "keys that are not on the table" is a reference to keys that exist, but which are not on the table. As such, those keys exist, and by your manner of speaking you're introducing extra information about them through the dependent clause "that are not on the table." The keys aren't in a 'mode of nonexistence' or anything. However, if you were to say "the keys which aren't anywhere," you would be spouting nonsense, since keys are material and hence have a location. In any case, "the keys that are not on the table" are somewhere, so they are not "nonexistents that exist."

  3. LarkLadyInn,

    Saying something like "non-existents exist" is contradictory. To treat your counterexamples:

    First, I didn't deny that existents exist, I said it was not logically necessary that they do.

    Since I can imagine an existence without existents (e.g., an empty space), it does not defy logic that no existents exist.

    Leaving the false analytic/synthetic split aside, there's a problem here: space is defined by reference to existents (say, the distance from one entity to another, or some suitably defined coordinate system). If nothing exists, therefore, there can be no such thing as "space" (indeed, there can be no such thing as any concept!) Hence, there is no such thing as a space devoid of existents.

    Plus, as I said in my last post, "There are, in fact, some senses in which I could meaningfully speak of non-existents as existing, such as when I speak of something yet to be created [...]

    The only way you can talk about something yet to be created is if you know about that kind of thing to begin with. If there is an entity which you know will come into existence but has not yet done so, it simply does not exist. However, there is nothing contradictory in saying that it will exist, but it does not now.

    [...] or when I speak of something in a negative sense (e.g., "Billy's not here. Billy was never born.")."

    One can imagine all sorts of things (unicorns, gremlins, etc.) without any of them actually corresponding to anything in reality. Nonetheless, one's conception of such imaginary or mythical constructs do exist, as conceptions. The fact that one's imaginations do not correspond to reality is not a contradiction-- it is, in fact, an affirmation of the primacy of existence.

  4. This is the idea that we do not perceive the world directly, but only perceive a representation of the world. Visually, it would mean that you don't see an apple, you see a mental image of an apple which is somehow projected in the brain. I think these guys actually believed that there were little visible "brain spots", and when you heard a sound there would be an actual vibration inside the brain.

    Thanks for the summary. So according to representationalism, you only perceive "perceptions", not existents? Sounds like the makings of a Kantian split to me.

    I understand that there are modern versions of representationalism that don't seem so silly, except that it intersects with string theory so that lo and behold it turns out that in one of these hidden dimensions, there really are images and sound waves inside the brain, in the 18th dimension.

    That's great-- 18-dimensional brain waves. LOL. :P

  5. It seems inevitable that the axioms of Objectivism lead one to a metaphysical problem analagous to that of the relationship between mind and body.

    If 1) I am identical with myself, 2) objective reality is identical with itself, and 3) I am conscious of objective reality, then how can I account for my being conscious of objective reality without either admitting that I extend beyond myself to include objective reality (thereby denying the axiom of identity) or admitting representationalism (thereby denying my relation to the world and by extension the validity of the axiom of consciousness)?

    In other words, what is my relation to the external world if the world and I exist independently of each other?

    The Objectivist position regarding the validation of the axioms is that they are undeniable, since any challenge of their validity makes use of them. One's relationship to the outside world is (1) one can gain information about entities in the world via sense perception, and (2) one can will one's body to physically move, act, and observe reality in certain ways and under certain circumstances in accordance with the identity of one's body and sense faculties.

    So, Objectivism does not hold that one's consciousness has no effect whatsoever on existence (since one can move around one's own body, for example)-- it holds that one cannot change the identities of existents merely by willing it so (including the identity of one's own consciousness, which operates in accordance with its nature). However, it is also true that consciousness is dependent on reality, since consciousness is the faculty which perceives that which exists. If consciousness were totally independent from all sense perception, it would not exist.

    I'm not sure what you mean by a person "extending beyond onesself" to include objective reality. Also, could you briefly summarize representationalism?

  6. Assumption: (0.9999~) + (0.000~1) = 1

    ...

    Further conclusion: 1 + (0.000~1 + 0.000~1 + 0.000~1 + …) = 1

    So you can add infinite sets of 0.000~1 to 1 and the sum will always be 1? Not 1.000~1, 1.000~2, 1.000~3, etc.?

    These calculations (esp. the symbolism 0.000~1) make the tacit assumption that there is a "last" decimal place in a decimal expansion. That isn't the case using the standard expression of real numbers by decimal expansion. A decimal expansion 0.abcde... is merely a shorthand way of saying that the real number is equal to the series a/10 + b/100 + c/1000 + d/10000 + ..., which can either be left as it is or shown to be something simpler via calculations involving limits (as is the case for 0.999~). Therefore, each digit in the decimal expansion corresponds to exactly one natural number. Hence, assuming that there is a "last" decimal place is tantamount to assuming that there is a "last" natural number, which there isn't (at least, for the usual natural numbers learned of in grade school).

    Formally, what you're doing here is defining an infinitesimal (intuitively, an ideal number less than every positive number and greater than zero) using the symbol 0.000~1 to denote the unit infinitesimal and extending it to an algebraic field. Then, you're defining .999~ = 1 - 0.000~1. This is essentially non-standard analysis, which I've already said some things about in this thread. From a limit standpoint, the only way you could make sense of the notation 0.000~1 is to define it to be the limit of the sequence (10^-N) as N approaches infinity, which is zero. Similarly, 0.000~n will also be zero for any n you choose since (n 10^-N) also goes to zero as N gets large for any n, and so there are no problems with your equations above.

  7. How about the range 26-35 then?

    I'm really just trying to defend the aged from your unprovoked attack on our ability to figure out all this new-fangled gadgetry.

    I'm not questioning ability, just willingness. I figured that if you've gotten along without something for a long time, there's little reason to go out of your way to learn it. Also, I'm talking tendancies, not causality-- there are obvious and numerous counterexamples to the behavior I'm citing (my own grandfather being one of them), but that doesn't negate the trends I've seen.

    I'm not trying to diatribe against the elderly here-- just looking for possible explanations for the poll results. :)

  8. Check your premises.

    I thought that's what I was doing in my last post! :(

    The survey reveals more people over 30 responded than under 19. Maybe it's the young who need to feel more comfortable with the new technology. :D

    Perhaps-- but the fact that the range (30, +) is larger than the range (0, 19) might also have something to do with that.

  9. Haydn in general, but esp. the Cello and Violin Concertos

    Vivaldi, Four Seasons along with some of his other Violin Concertos

    Smetana, Moldov

    Dvorak, New World Symphony

    Beethoven, 7th Symphony (can't beat the second movement!)

    Saint-Saens, Violin Concerto #3 (esp. the 3rd movement)

    Elgar, Serenade for Strings in E minor.

  10. If one agrees with a person, it means that one has observed reality and by a process of reason arrives at the same conclusion as that person. To "impose agreement" here just means that one is forcing others to agree with you, i.e., forcing others to think and conclude as you do. However, processes of thought must be chosen. Therefore, Objectivism would say that there is no such thing as an "imposition of agreement." The most you'd get if you tried is empty noises of assent from your victim on the other end of the gun barrel, which have absolutely no epistemological import.

  11. donnywithana,

    Therefore it might be necessary to violate certain rights to prevent the violation of other rights.
    If you're really talking about rights here, that the rights of rational men in a free society cannot conflict with each other. So, if you're okay with violating some "rights" to uphold other "rights", by what means do you choose which "rights" are okay to violate for the sake of which other "rights"? Perhaps, because any business may be defrauding the public, we should tax every business who may be defrauding the public (i.e., any business), to protect people's right against being defrauded? Or perhaps, since every customer of every store might be shoplifting, we should impose a fine on anyone who has ever walked in a store to protect the rights of the store owners to keep their property?

    For example, if someone wrongs me, why shouldn't it be in my hands to avenge the wrong? I am to turn the case over to the police because "it works out a lot better, empirically, that way."

    No, the real reason that we must defer our moral right of retaliatory force to the government is to uphold the Rule of Law, which is a principle. Without this, society would devolve into anarchy, with vigalante gangs roaming around dispensing whatever twisted versions of law and justice they might accept. I'm surprised that you missed that point in your reading of Rand.

    However, if people do pollute (and I'm talking about the negative kind), they should have to recompense those damaged by it. Because, empirically, it's impractical to set the system up where people have to individually "sue" the polluter, it's better, empirically, to say, "if you pollute, you must contribute towards the cleaning of your mess."

    How does this follow? Why does the "impracticality" of a huge number of individual suits necessitate empowering the government with the power to tax all companies that "pollute", regardless of whether their pollution is actually hurting others? A flurry of individual lawsuits is not necessary-- if the pollution affects a wide number of people, one can always bring a class action suit against the company in question. Maybe you meant something else by this passage, but as it is, I can't make sense of it.

    To everyone else,

    Could nuisance laws be used in some way to address this problem?

  12. Is anyone familiar with an Objectivist conception of the philosophy of mathematics?

    As an aspiring math professor, these kinds of questions have interested me before, so I've given them some thought. The short answer is: you're right. Mathematicians of the Platonist persuasion are intrinsicists-- they believe that the concepts with which they work have existence independent of human minds.

    As in many other fields dealing with concepts, the philosophy of mathematics has generally split along the intrinsic(Platonist)/subjective(Formalist) false dichotomy. Constructivism, OTOH, is an attempt to answer troubling paradoxes resulting in the use of the Axiom of Choice and applying the Law of the Excluded Middle to infinite sets, adn so addresses different questions than the other two I mentioned. IMO, constructivism is far too strict and too vague in what it considers "constructible."

    So, while there is no Objectiviost philosophy of mathematics, I don't think there's really a pressing need for one, since the biggest problem in the Philosophy of mathematics has been the "ontological" status of mathematics concepts, which Rand already dealt with in IOE.

  13. First, to address Nate T's point (which I think was dead on and very problematic to my arguments) (and to an extent this covers Inspector objections), I agree. This is where my argument parts ways with [O]bjectivism (to rejoin later). It's almost Marxism in reverse. I know most of you will despise that. But I believe that there is right in the world and I believe that there is wrong. And I believe we're been so separated from nature (or the environment, although that seems to be an unwelcome word here), that we've lost a sense of what is truly valuable. And I think it's an enormous problem and that there may not exactly be 1 solution. I guess, before I propose my answer and get tackled, I'd like to know 1.) whether you think there is right and wrong, 2.) do you do nothing when someone is wrong?

    To address your first question: There is right and wrong in the world-- specifically, any given individual's actions can be moral or immoral. The crucial question is: right and wrong for whom? Rand held (and I agree) that each individual's life is to be the standard of morality (the measure by which one judges one's actions as good or bad), with the ultimate goal of morality (the motivation behind acting morally) being to enjoy life and live happily, as is fitting human beings. Do you agree with this? If not, what do you think the standard of morality is, and what are your reasons?

    I'm puzzled by your belief that "we're been so separated from nature ... that we've lost a sense of what is truly valuable." I really can't comment on this without knowing what you mean by "separated from nature." Also, what does degree of separation from nature have to do with pursuing and achieving one's values?

    In any case, to answer your other question, it depends a lot on the context in which you ask. Are you asking how I would act when I see someone acting immorally, or illegally? For example, if I see someone doing something which is clearly not in their best interests (such as smoking outside) but is not initiating force against others, it gives me no reason to interfere with that person. However, if I'm being mugged, I will summon the police if I can, and failing that, do whatever is necessary to defend myself and my property.

    Edit: Hooray! I finally got my 3rd dot!

  14. NewYorkRoark,

    Therefore, as an individual, I would never pollute and I would never abuse a resource so that another individual would be disadvantaged by my abuse. I would attempt to hold resources constant, by not wasting what I use, using what can be used again, and recycling what cannot be used anymore. I would maximize efficiency.

    The problem with capitalism right now, is that this moral situation is not the norm. We spend rediculous amounts of money on products that serve nearly no purpose. Think about fashion and think about movies. Our consumer choices represent our values, and our values are rotten. We live in a society where people are so socially aware, that they'll starve themselves to death (Terry Schaivo)! Is that not rediculous? Capitalism will work, but only when are values aren't corrupted.

    The major point is capitalism will work, but our consumer choices and business will represent our values, and only when are values are righted will unrestricted capitalism be successful.

    With this, you've gone beyond the problem of how to deal with pollution as an initiation of force in a laissez-faire system and have claimed that the majority of people are ruled by irrational desires, and hence that laissez-faire capitalism will fail, since it depends on rational producers.

    If what you say is true, and people are not competent to pursue their own values, how do you plan to correct their "corrupted" values? Who would dictate, amongst the myriad of choices of the innumerable values in each of the innumerable lives you plan to interfere with, what is to be valued, and what is to be considered "wasteful?" And by what standards would these things be valued-- your judgement of their best interests, perhaps? If so, how would you plan to gather the information needed to make such determinations, and then enforce them?

    And what of those who disagree?

    You can't enforce morality at the point of a gun; moral actions must be chosen. I sympathize with your judgement of the baffling actions of irrational people, but we must not forget that there are rational people, too-- it would be quite presumptuous to dictate to them how they should live their lives, and quite immoral to attempt to enforce it with force. How would you judge the person who declares that your favorite dessert, your favorite movie, your hobby, your chosen career, or any other value which brings your life joy, is "wasteful" because they do not think you should be valuing it, and then fined you for pursuing it?

  15. rob.sfo,

    Thanks for posting these references! They make for interesting reading. I thought that the following in the interview with Dr. Gray was especially interesting:

    Now there’s a few modelers around who know something about storms, but they would like to have the possibility open that global warming will make for more and intense storms because there’s a lot of money to be made on this. You know, when governments step in and are saying this – particularly when the Clinton administration was in – and our Vice President Gore was involved with things there, they were pushing this a lot. You know, most of meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.

    Now I'm not claiming that the existence of a global warming "establishment" is evidence that global warming does not exist. However, Rand was right-- scientists will go where the money is, and if the government is allowed to fund science, they'll fund any politically fashionable areas like global warming. It certainly casts a suspicious light on the whole movement.

  16. I disagree to that. "Older" Objectivists are mostly professionals that have no time to keep up with any forum. You have to identify the age range of your "older" Objectivists.

    Also true. The tricky thing about looking at statistics is that any given causative explanation may not be exclusive. I see no reason why it could not be a combination of these factors-- they certainly both seem plausible.

    In fact, after thinking a little more about it, my explanation may not hold water. I may be improperly inferring that characteristics shared by most older people (ages 40-70, to answer your other question) are shared by older Objectivists. Most older people I know are uncomfortable checking their email, let alone participating in an online forum. Because it's easier to learn new technology young (when you aren't "set in your ways," so to speak), it makes sense to assume that older people are less likely to participate in an online forum. However, I'm not at all sure that this would be the case, since I imagine that Objectivists (the primary participants at OO.net) would want to be at the forefront of technology.

  17. Well, as some will tell you here, I'm rather biased toward John Adams and George Washington, so take my recommendations with that in mind. First I recommend <i>John Adams: The Spirit of Liberty</i> by C. Bradley Thompson. I haven't found a trustworthy bio on any of the other founders, but I generally like what Joseph Ellis writes. For example, <i>Founding Brothers</i> is a fun read. I still haven't read <i>American Sphinx</i> which is supposed to be about TJ.

    Thanks Felipe-- a good biography on John Adams is exactly what I was looking for, since I know next to nothing about him.

  18. He did bring a can of whoop-ass with the navy John Adams built, but I say Washington would without hesitation rid of us of this pesky Islamic problem.

    I think both candidates would do an effective, and more importantly uncompromising, job taking care of Islamic terrorists-- after all, all of our candidates would be using today's superior US military anyway, right? :D

    (By the way, I get really excited about the Fathers, so don't mistake my enthusiasm for animosity!)

    No problem-- I've always been meaning to study the Founding Fathers in more detail, since what little I know is from a crappy public school civics class and a significantly better college AmNatGov class. Since you're an enthusiast, do you have any recommendations on where to look for good biographies and other writings?

  19. It was a close call between Washington and Jefferson, but I chose Jefferson in the end. After all, the man wrote the Declaration of Independence! If we're talking about being the President today, Jefferson's slave-holding issue (which is my only reservation about his moral character) is a non-issue-- I find it highly dubious that a man with all of Jefferson's convictions born today would consider advocating slavery, much less holding slaves personally.

    However, I wouldn't at all mind having a candidate nowadays who has the kind of character (like Washington's) necessary to win a war against a tyrranical regime in the name of liberty and then, upon winning it, voluntarily step down from power when no term limits existed.

    Felipe,

    I honestly hadn't considered the need for a wartime president-- so you actually make a pretty good point. But for what it's worth, Jefferson did put the smackdown on piracy towards US ships, which if anything more closely mirrors today's terrorist situation than a domestic invasion.

  20. Some of my thoughts about OO.net:

    I'm mostly a lurker here, and while I do post occasionally, I mostly visit this site to read interesting conversations and debates. When I first found this site, I liked the serious debate and high standards which were missing from the other "Objectivist" sites I had participated in before. In any case, from what I see, the atmosphere is as friendly and safe as one can expect from a forum which still allows the benefit of the doubt to newbies who may turn out to be trolls. If you ask an honest question stemming from genuine confusion without trying to pick a fight, people will for the most part treat you civilly.

  21. Does anyone know the status of the ICANN non-profit corporation, which controls most of the major root servers that organize the internet? That is, I'm trying to determine whether ICANN is a government-backed "corporation," or a genuine private corporation so I can judge whether it ought to exist or not.

  22. Thanks for posting this, Pancho Villa.

    And, whether independently or incited by the EU, the UN is trying similar plots. I found this article in Business Week summarizing the attempt. An excerpt:

    SEP. 29 10:35 A.M. ET A senior U.S. official rejected calls on Thursday for a U.N. body to take over control of the main computers that direct traffic on the Internet, reiterating U.S. intentions to keep its historical role as the medium's principal overseer.

    "We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet," said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. "Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable."

    Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development.

    Gross was in Geneva for the last preparatory meeting ahead of November's U.N. World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia.

    Some negotiators from other countries said there was a growing sense that a compromise had to be reached and that no single country ought to be the ultimate authority over such a vital part of the global economy.

    But Gross said that while progress was being made on a number of issues necessary for producing a finalized text for Tunis, the question of Internet governance remained contentious.

  23. Ugh, the debate goes on.

    If people have trouble dealing with repeating decimals, what is the state of NON-repeating decimals?

    We all know that the circumference of a circle of radius r is 2 * Pi * r

    But Pi = 3.1415926535...

    To maintain logical consistency the people who believe that infinite decimals DO NOT specify real numbers but rather some limiting process would have to believe that the circumference of a circle gets larger and larger the more decimal digits of Pi we used because there is no number exactly corresponding to Pi since it just exists as an ephemeral limit of some process. Of course this patently contradicts a circle as a single finite object.

    This confuses the act of measuring the length of an object (or the magnitude of the number) with the length itself. The length of the circumference of a circle does not change simply because you've specified more digits of its length-- and the value of pi does not change merely because a supercomuter somewhere found the next digit. Under your logic, you'd think that I believe that a stick's length changes when I measure it with an (inch-ruled) ruler as opposed to a metric meterstick-- this is not being "logically consistent."

  24. A friend of my mom's suggested Atlas Shrugged to her, and I saw her reading it and thought it looked interesting. She would sometimes summarize pieces of the plot to me as she went. When she got around to finishing it, I snatched it, started reading it myself, and was hooked. It's kind of ironic, since (with the exception of epistemology, which we haven't discussed), my mom's philosophy is the exact opposite of Objectivism.

×
×
  • Create New...