m082844

makes sense to me.

I got this recently in a book called "Atheism: The Case Against God" Law Of Identity: A is A Law of Excluded Middle: Anything is either A or non-A Law of Contradiction: Nothing can be both A and non-A at the same time in the same respect

Does that mean there is gold on Pluto? Oh I forgot, that’s not a planet any more, or is it? Regardless grab some shovels and a pick, we’re going to Pluto.

Iron asside, if the fusion stops, then why the explosion (super nova)? Just looking at the forces involved--gravity (in) and atom structure (out)--there doesn't seem to be a reason for a super nova if fusion stops.

The kid has a point. I took an astronomy 101 class and I wondered a similar thing, but never sought out to disprove anything (thought they taught it in the 102 class). For one thing we think the Universe is 13.7 billion years (I believe) because that’s as far as we can see (13.7 billion light years). The Universe could be bigger (I think it is), but the expansion rate of space keeps light from reaching us much like a black hole keeps light from reaching those outside of it. The kid was wondering if carbon could be formed in the beginning—he concluded that was unlikely given the model. He then concluded that the carbon formation would take about 20 billion years (longer than the model’s age of 13.7 billion years). I describe the theory of elements formation below. Supposedly, only hydrogen without electrons (proton) and electrons formed from the beginning. So where do the heavier elements come from? If you start combining nuclei, then you start to get heavier elements, but in order to do that you need pressure (lots of it). You have four fundamental forces in nature. The electromagnetic (same sign repulse, opposites attract, and magnetism), strong nuclear force (what keeps the nucleus of atoms together), the weak nuclear force, and gravity. As these hydrogen scatter after the big bang, their gravity pulls some of them together. Groups collect with other groups, and those bigger groups collect into bigger groups, and even bigger groups. Gravity is pulling inwards and the structure of the atom (electromagnetic forces are pushing the protons away from each other). Once enough hydrogen is pulled together, the gravitational forces start to overcome the electromagnetic forces and the protons become close enough for the strong nuclear forces to form helium and that reaction (fusion) produces an immense amount of energy and more outward pressure (which equalizes with the inward pressure of gravity or the mass goes poof). Assuming enough gravity, the young star consumes hydrogen and produces helium and a system of convection keeps a flow of hydrogen to the core to be fused into helium. It takes more pressure to turn He(2) into Be(4) than it does to turn H(1) into He(2) so the helium just hangs out. There are more than (2) ways for starts to die as I understand. As soon as the hydrogen is consumed to the point where fusion stops gravity pulls helium together (denser than hydrogen) and either there is enough mass to increase the pressure so that fusion occurs with helium or the star dies (and the core is left); or there is enough gravity to initiate more fusion of heavier elements, but not enough mass to keep it together and the star goes super nova; or there is fusion and enough mass to keep the reaction going (there is still a smaller nova, which ejects part of the content of the star). These same three options affect heavier fusion processes, but only to a point. There is a point where the electromagnetic forces are overcome all together by gravity and electrons fall into their nucleus and neutralizes the protons; this produces a Neutron Star (the biggest visible star) which are more prevalent the closer you get to the edge of the visible Universe (take that into account with time difference and I don’t think they exist anymore). The last element to be made before a neutron star occurs is suggested to be Fe(26) (I believe). If gravity becomes any bigger than neutron stars, then it may overcome the strong nuclear forces of the neutrons collapsing the nucleus structure, and producing a singularity (a black hole), which eventually fizzle out over time. Where do the heaver elements than Fe (26) come from? Perhaps there are side reactions to make heavier elements while Fe(26) is being made; IDK, that is the extent of what I know. The process takes a very long time. The kid I believe took an estimate of how much carbon exists on earth (or in our solar system) and calculate how long the fusion process would take to produce that much carbon and came up with 20 billion years. The weird thing is our star isn't big enough to produce the heavier elements (Just He I think) so I have no idea where they came from.

Your essays do help thank you.

Good quote; I read that first and didn't understand the root of justice, but I think Marc provided the best answers to my questions. I like the video link too; my connection isn't the best and I could only listen to the first 20min of it. I'll have to wait for a better connection to finish it.

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** *** Clearing up definitions of “values” and “good”. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/good--the.html The first school is the belief that things are good in and of themselves; the second school is good evaluated by an individual’s feelings dethatched from reality; and “The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value.”—Ayn Rand Also, one must grasp “presence” before “absence” can be considered—existence before non-existent. Existence and non-existence is only an option for life forms; they have a choice between life (existence) and death (non-existence). In animate objects have no choice; they will merely exist and obey external and internal reactions dictated by laws of nature. Values are associated with a choice and is an answer to the questions of “to whom?” and “for what?”. Where no alternatives exist then no value (or good) can be exists. Lastly, there is a huge difference between existence and non-existence; they are not opposites. One is a positive, the other is a zero. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/non-existence.html Ok, getting back to your post right before my definitions/premises post... Let’s say you have accepted this contradiction—“you can flap your arms and fly”. 1. You did. 2. Words are existents, they never left (“left” would suggest that the text still exists, but somewhere else). The phrase “you can flap your arms and fly” exists. 3. not any different is my guess. 4. you wouldn’t know—knowing is not automatic. You would be left with your premise “you can flap your arms and fly” and you wouldn’t be aware of the contradiction until you can compare it with a non-contradiction—is this case, you experiencing you falling even though you flap your arms. Also you will not know contradictions are non-existent until you discover that law of nature. I don’t realize I assumed a contradiction until I’ve identified it (after the fact) and address the contradiction. 5. you wouldn’t know. Same reasons as before. 6. Not sure I understand. You are you, and as long as you actually write something those letters and words exist. 7. Not sure I understand. Are you saying you claiming that “you haven’t done something” is not the same as doing something (or the opposite)? If so, I agree. Existence and non-existence are not opposites. So, you can identify a contradiction, accept it, and still exist. Your body is still here. However, your mind now has a non-existent within it. Whatever degree of non-existents within your mind is the degree to which you (your mind) are separated from reality. If you take it to the extreme and nothing within your mind represents a non-contradiction (everything is a contradiction), then the whole of your consciousness is incapable making sense of reality. Taking it one step farther; cause-and-effect along with human nature will make it extremely difficult for you to survive for long, and when you ultimately die from your contradictory choices and actions, then your life with cease to exist (the full logical conclusion of your contradiction which results in casting your life out of existence completely). To sum up, every contradiction you accept is one more degree of separation between your mind and reality; that is one more subject (referencing the contradiction) in which your mind will be unable to help you—it will not have a means to help you until you identify and clear up the contradiction. That is what I think is meant by “to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality”. I don’t think she meant you’ll die or be ejected out of existence since she maintains “oneself” still exists but no within the “realm of reality”—death (non-existence for life) is the tendency of a contradiction, but it’s not a guarantee. We (our consciousness) may still exist in a realm of “non-reality” by maintaining and processing contradictory concepts. *** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

I see. Maybe I’m getting this wrong, but there isn’t value when no choices exist. Value judgments presupposes a choice; what to value and how to acquire it. What choices exist when laws enforce “choices”? Doesn’t the law replace a muzzle of a gun with what used to be a choice? Obey the law or be fined; pay the fine or go to jail; go to jail or we will force you; resist and we will match your resistance up to deadly force... obey or go out of existence... some choice. I guess if you can escape the eyes of the law, then a choice may exist (with risk). Then cooperation with the law is matter of each individual's threshold and what they value more. I speed all the time; so mine is relatively low, but I will pay the fine if caught.

I apologize if this was covered already. I didn't see a topic dedicated to justice. I'm having a hard time integrating the concept of Justice with everything else I know. Is justice an objective evaluation (judgment) based on values that the judger holds? If so, are these values objectively based on reality or subjective? Are these values connected with rights--i.e., life, liberty, property, etc.--and that which promotes life? I know values are chosen by the judge, and he determines how rational they are. I also know rights are connected with reality, so if these values are connected to rights then justice is connected to reality given this chain of relationships. If I'm close, what else am I missing? If I'm inconsistent, feel free to point out where. I’ve heard someone say recently that justice outside the court of law is subjective. I thought if that’s true, then it’s subjective inside the court of law as well. That got me thinking what is the objective base for justice? I can see how someone with arbitrarily chosen values will assume justice is arbitrary as well (i.e. might makes right).

"Is it always wrong to break the law?" This seems to suggest that right/wrong and good/evil are determined by law. Are they?

Perhaps it will help. I think I need to define more words and list some premises, if only just to clarify things for myself. Concepts: are existents because there is evidence that they exist, even if abstractly. Words: physical representation of concepts, in which we integrate abstractly--obviously the word "horse" is not an actual horse, but the idea is an abstraction in our head. They are existents and can exist as either sounds or written. contradictions: only exist abstractly and never physically (meaning never in reality). non-contradiction: “A” is “A”. “A” cannot be “A” and “B” at the same time. perception: a tool to interact with existents (hear, taste, smell, touch, see). mind: our tool to integrate perceptions into concepts (identification); works best when being rational. E.g. that sound/sight/smell/feeling/taste belongs to what I identify as a cat. It is also a tool of reason, and uses logic or “non-contradictory identification”. Are my premises and definitions good so far?

I don't know of any other contract that can change terms by changing the meaning of words. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a contract?

1. You said "animals do both of these", and you were referencing "assign values to things"; there seems to be a choice involved [AKA free-will]. The choice is what value do you assign different things? Perhaps the assignment of values is automatic for animals, but then they don't assign them at that point. 2. Yes they are. 3. (all semantics on my part here) Is that the standard of free will--whatever capacity we have to choose to act against our lives? I'd hate for people to have to prove that they have free will. I've heard of animals attacking or provoking a bigger animal to protect their young--that seems to go against their lives. Also I read your previous post, and I'm not sure what you want me to get out of it. I can't see anything that I disagree with.

I think Thomas Paine was getting at the absurdity of assuming a properly restrained government. I haven't seen one. It's kind of like who will police the police? And who will police them? And so on. The nature of governments is to find, create, and make up excuses and reasons for their continued existence and why they should become more influential (at the expense of natural rights). Their nature is what I consider evil. Also, I think a common saying around here is the only evil is the refusal to think. Well the only people who are elected to run the government continually refuse to think. How do we fix that aspect of evil? Each generation would have to relearn what those before them discovered, which actually requires intelligent effort. The tendency seems to be that each generation becomes dumber, and therefore, the government becomes more evil over time.

At least we agree on the necessary part.

I see your point, and I have to agree. I think I make a similar error that Dagny makes (referencing Atlas Shrugged). I tend to think people will naturally be rational. I'm having a hard time with that. It's pretty frustrating sometimes especially when some of these people hold influence over my life, like being able to vote. Then they vote people into office who then think it’s ok to force me to do whatever they think is "good". I appreciate the arguments from everyone to help clear my thinking.

Granted, given the context I gave. Perhaps animals have a free will too, given this context; and only to the extent of their mind's ability to choose/act. I think more accurately what distinguishes us from animals is our ability to think with greater abstraction and synthesis. Also, we can set values in contradiction to one another, and we can act in contradiction--and we can switch it later. I don't know if animals can do that. I mean the former. Again my context was lacking. If man acts self-destructively base his assumed contradictions then he will tend to destroy himself; thus, eliminating his contradictions. I agree that man can survive with a certain degree of contradiction; however, those with the least amount of contradiction are better able to survive [compare Galt's Gulch to the rest of society]. Contradictions tend to work themselves out when contradictory abstractions are applied concretely; that's what I thought Galt assumed anyway, and that's what I think.

No, one mustn’t forget; I considered including it to demonstrate that our founding fathers thought that rights exist outside the constitution but the length was getting pretty long.

Hi Mikael, To save time I will assume you disagree with the statement, "...to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality." based on your three questions: 1. "How can I be conscious of something as that someone has evicted her/himself from the realm of reality?" 2. "Where is someone, which has evicted her/himself from the realm of reality?" 3. "If someone somehow is different from reality is she/he a case of either existence exists, non-existence does not exist or non-existence exists?" If this is not correct, then I apologize. Context is important so I’d like to break up her statement to bring it into full context as I understand it. To “abdicate one’s mind” meaning to relinquish (as sovereign power) formerly your mind. “Mind” meaning our sole tool in which we use to interact with reality. “evict oneself”. What is “oneself”? I identify people by their mind and I identify myself by with mind (as the defining characteristic). So to cast out our minds could mean to “evict oneself”. “realm of reality” meaning all that exists. So to relinquish, as a sovereign power, one’s mind has the effect of casting our mind from existence because our mind is dealing with non-existence (the contradiction). How does accepting a contradiction lead to this conclusion? Our mind is the only tool that can judge and distinguish truth from non-truth — no other mind can do that for you. Contradictions do not exist, so when you accept a contradiction in your mind you are now dealing with non-existence. By carrying contradictions in your mind, and therefore, non-existence you relinquish the sovereign power of your mind to distinguish truth (existence) from non-truth (non-existence). Since you’re mind no longer has the power to distinguish what is not true about the contradiction (because you accepted it), then you have casted your mind (or oneself) out of the realm of reality leaving yourself with the contradiction (or non-existent). Now to answer your questions: 1. By rejecting contradictions. 2. They are living within their contradiction. 3. Reality will not budge; it will fail to comply with your assumed contradiction. E.g. I assume I can spend more than I earn. I don’t work and spend until my check bounces—that’s a message from reality flagging an error. Now I will die unless I change my premise to make equal or more than I spend. If I don’t change and I die, then that is justice and the contradiction no longer exists within my consciousness since my consciousness no longer exists.

I'm convinced. There is no reason for me to believe that God exists. I think it was bluecherry who made the strongest case and addressed all my concerns or conflicts within my mind. This seems a bit quick for me so I'm going to think it through for a while to make sure I don't give any unearned credit or value where it doesn't belong. 1. You’re probably right. I guess was wrong to assume that. 2. good point about existents. I agree. 3. good point again. I don’t think anything can be self-caused, like you said. If existence needs a cause, then why not God (an existent)? It may be possible that God always existed, but then existence could also have always existed (using that logic)—they are equal in the sense of existence always existed. The question remains for me: is it existence or God which was the first existent? If it’s existence then there is no need for a God, if it’s God then there ought to be more evidence than existence itself—even if the evidence is that existence can self-annihilate then that is good reason (or if it can be created, not proven yet). Anti-matter colliding with matter annihilates the matter and anti-matter, but energy is the output (another existent but of a different form). 4. I think this to be wrong, though it doesn’t affect your argument. The universe is expanding, and it is all relative depending on the observer with respect to any certain point. There are points at some 15 billion light-years away or so, which is expanding at a rate equal or greater than light and we do not see any light emitting from there since it will never reach us. Black holes are another example where light cannot reach us due to a singularity which bends space so that the acceleration is greater than the speed of light. 5. I agree. We have no reason to think arbitrarily. 6. I don’t think you actually answered this question, but I agreed of your description of volition. I have a theory that assumes that the ability for contradictions to exist in our mind and our ability to distinguish a contradiction from a non-contradiction gives us the power of volition (not the other way around). After all, we are made up of existents which cannot contradict so volition most likely is a byproduct of the ability to use reason. 7. Good point, I agree. Good point. Either God has no cause or existence has no cause. I thought it was God, who had no cause, but now I’m not so sure. 1. This is moot now, but I wouldn’t have accepted your premise, which is I need to act for myself in conflict with God or God in conflict with myself; the socialists use a similar argument against private ownership in the means of production [AKA capitalism]. I always acted for myself. Also in my first or second post I stated that “to me God is in essence reality” (which everyone must obey to some extent if they wish to live). 2. I took my shoes off this morning and put them on this evening but I have no conclusive evidence to support this; no pictures, no means to get the carbon dated information, and no interest to put forth the effort to prove it to you. Is it still true? Yes. Your last question and causality only affecting existents is very good in all its implications, but bluecherry made that argument earlier. I read and own the last; I’ll take a look at the first two. Thanks. Oh, and how does one become anything else after becoming an Objectivist (assuming they don’t accept contradictions)?

I thought you both were pretty hilarious. Out of 6 members of both houses, which this letter was sent, we got one response. This part got their attention: "It seems that every issue being proposed on the floor in either house ignores Liberty’s importance and focuses on providing for the “needy”. Our country wasn’t founded to provide goods or to satisfy whims of a collective mob at the expense of others. Our government is not a bottomless cookie jar available to whoever claims to need it. Our government was established, in the words of Thomas Paine, “as a necessary evil” to protect life, Liberty, and property in order for individuals to be free from any form of coercion and tyranny—that is the extent of it. Our country was supposed to be a safe haven from these evils." --OP Let me see if I can get permission to post the Congressman's response from the man who the congressmen sent the letter to.

Dood responses. Directed at rebelconservative, So do you think providing for the general welfare of the United States is a listed enumerated power as long as it is applied objectively (not at special interests)?

There are those who believe that rights of men are derived from the Constitution. Are they? There is a certain code that life forms follow in a state of nature to further their life. What is man’s code? Let’s start with his volition. Whether God or reality granted man free-will, it doesn’t matter; man will think freely on his own effort and no one can stop him except by killing him; and no one can think for him. Actions are derived from thought; therefore, no one can act for him since no one can think for him. Others can only make it pleasant/unpleasant for him to act or not to act — they could also take away his ability to act by killing him. Man needs to take certain actions to sustain and further his life; no one can eat or drink for him and no one can make him happy. Man will live or die by his own actions and he has a natural interest in living that no one else possesses for him; therefore, he is solely responsible for sustaining his life if he is interested in living. Others may be able to take his life away, but none can live for him. How does this relate to rights? Natural rights, which are derived from nature and reality, come from the premise that life is good — more specifically the thought that "my life is good". This view that "my life is good" allows us to set our first value — right to life. Certain conditions must exist for man’s ability to thrive and further his life; among these are his free reign to seek, acquire and maintain that which he values — i.e., food, water, shelter, and more complex values. Therefore, if life is a right, then by extension, so is liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and other such concepts which further his life. You'd see man practice those rights if he were isolated in nature; thus, the term “natural rights”. Man leaves a state of nature to seek the benefits that society offers — free-market, free association, family, protection, etc. — which do not exist in isolation. A question remains however: is it possible to leave the state of nature and join society without conflicts of interest between men, i.e., can men live together within society without the violation of their natural rights? The answer is undeniably yes, but the scope of this paper will not cover how. If this is acomplished, then that fact creates a clear advantage for individuals who join such a society over those who remain isolated in nature. Man’s requirements do not change once he leaves a state of nature. Man still requires his natural right to be unobstructed in order to thrive because the conditions necessary for his life remains the same — he still exists qua man. Therefore, society must integrate the natural rights of men without conflict and without contradiction if man is to thrive in society. By protecting these natural rights for each individual, the code that society sets for man is the code of life — i.e., man's ability to live freely for himself. A common misconception about rights is the notion that they cannot be violated — they most certainly can. Rights only give us a basis for justice. It’s how we distinguish right from wrong. I hear the left claim they have a "right to a job", which is an appeal to justice. They think it unjust that they are without work; however, in order to come to that conclusion, they would have to first ignore reality to make way for their desired "reality". It is apparent that their whims and desires, not nature or reality, which crafted the so-called “right” so that they can justify making demands on others. “Right to a job” can only exists through government decree, and therefore, only through the violation of another’s natural right, who is now forced to supply said job. They know that “rights to a job” do not come from nature and they know that someone else must provide a job in order to satisfy their alleged “right”, but they don’t know and they don’t think we know that that fact matters — it without a doubt matters as a matter of life or death. If by preserving natural rights the code that society sets for man is the code of life, what is their code which they wish to set — those who clamor "right to a job", "right to welfare", "right to a home", "right to healthcare", or "right to forfeit your property and liberty to satisfy their ‘needs’ or whims"? I'll give you a hint — it is not life. There is also this misconception that any right can be granted or taken away by the government. That is true of course for those rights issued by government decree; but that is not true, however, for natural rights — those can never be taken away as long as they remain necessary for man to thrive. Natural rights can only be given up or surrendered by individuals themselves and only if one surrenders their right to life, at which point the only thing man can hope to achieve for himself is suffering at best, and at worst... death. If you are suffering or are depressed or are miserable and think this world is not for you, ask yourself "Have I accepted my natural right to life?" Indeed our natural rights do not come from a piece of paper, but from reality herself — that much at least is self-evident. In fact the only proper use of phrase “Constitutional rights” is to apply it to those limited rights we granted the federal government; just enough rights to enable it to protect our other natural rights from trespass of others, of other countries, and of the government itself.

I like this thread I hope you don't mind me posting so I can store it under "my content".