Existence exists subsidiary thread

[Ilya Startsev]

Here is an excellent presentation on how the Universe came from nothing (and that completely avoids the question of God):

 

[dream_weaver]

From Peikoff's presentation on Logic:

Lecture 1: "If you hold a contradiction, you deny identity to the subject matter that you are discussing. A contradiction is the violation of identity."

What about the new identity that is created? If it has no identity, it is nothing. Why can't identities change from one thing to another (e.g., from tissues to organs, or bodies to groups)?

Law of contradiction: "nothing can be A and non-A."

How come everything can be (the sum of) everything and something "at the same time"?

You advocate the premise of existence, but at the same time you say you cannot know all of reality. What really happens in your logic is that you irrationally know the Truth and are somehow not omniscient. The entirety of the premises of Objectivism are self-contradictory. The only time when you may be consistent is when you do not deal with your premises.

They must have changed the course from when I acquired it. (Actually, I know better than that.)

 

Rand identifies logic as the fundamental concept of method. She also indicates that it has to be volitionally adhered to. It is also self-evident, implicit in every percept, to be abstracted from the evidence of the senses. It even has to be used in any attempt to deny it.

 

These four points were quite adequately dealt with in the first lecture. Also pointed out, was the fact that this is a standard introductory course on logic. With the exception of two logical fallacies, the section on definitions, and part of the portion dealing with induction, - it is what would be taught in any introductory course on Aristotelian logic. While Objectivism agrees with the material presented, so do most other philosophies that adhere to ontological logic. 

 

As I indicated earlier, logic is not my forté. I know, if knowledge is my goal, it must be used to the best of my ability. The act of intentionally trying to undermine that process would be an anathema to me. I find it incomprehensible why anyone would willingly do so. It would have to be akin to administering on one's self an intellectual frontal lobotomy. Like any frontal lobotomy the procedure is, by all practical means, irreversible.

[dream_weaver]

Here is an excellent presentation on how the Universe came from nothing (and that completely avoids the question of God):

There is some discussion on his book of the same title here.

[Ilya Startsev]

There is some discussion on his book of the same title here.

I see Krauss contradicting Objectivism because Objectivism does not take something that does not definitely exist as a part of existence.

[Ilya Startsev]

Lecture 3:
Peikoff claims that "human knowledge is contextual." And then Peikoff claims that "obviously there is nothing other than or outside the Universe to operate as its cause." Is Peikoff omniscient to make such a claim? And if so, how is his knowledge contextual?

[New Buddha]

I see Krauss contradicting Objectivism because Objectivism does not take something that does not definitely exist as a part of existence.

Objectivism says nothing about physics or cosmology - which is ALL that Krauss covered on the video.  I watched the full video and it was wonderful.  Krauss is passionate and  articulate and I wish he had been my physics professor in college.  However, he makes a mistake.

 

Do you know what it is?

[New Buddha]

Lecture 3:

Peikoff claims that "human knowledge is contextual." And then Peikoff claims that "obviously there is nothing other than or outside the Universe to operate as its cause." Is Peikoff omniscient to make such a claim? And if so, how is his knowledge contextual?

Knowledge is objective, but contextual.  What this means is that any statement of information (knowledge) is necessarily a condensation.  Take the following propositions about my car.

 

My car is a Mazda 3.

My car is silver.

My car has four doors.

My car is manufactured by a Japanese company.

My car is bigger than my microwave oven.

My car is bigger than my refrigerator.

My car is smaller than Mt. Hood.

My car is smaller than the earth.

My car is smaller than the solar system.

Etc., etc., etc.

 

You can never exhaustedly state all possible propositions about a subject, and no one proposition IS the subject.  Information (knowledge) is analog  and limited by the medium in which it is recorded.  If recorded information were too truly corresponded 100% with a subject, it would BE the subject -- and omniscience would indeed be possible.  Our knowledge of the Universe can be objective but it will always be subject to limitations.

Edited August 15, 2014 by New Buddha

[Plasmatic]

Im gonna make an exhaustive proposition about the universe right now:

All existents have identity.....

Ms Rand herself said "when you say "existence exists" you have implicitly stated the proposition of omniscience, because whatever exists- even things of which you have no suspicion at present-is included in that proposition." ITOE

You will never learn another thing about that truth, it is on the absolute foundation of axiomatic knowledge that all other knowledge rests...."this doesn't mean you know everything"....

Edit: By the way, whether or not something can come from nothing is a philosophical question, not a physics question.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

Im gonna make an exhaustive proposition about the universe right now:

New Buddha didn't say propositions can't be exhaustive. He said no one can exhaustively state all possible propositions.

[Plasmatic]

New Buddha didn't say propositions can't be exhaustive. He said no one can exhaustively state all possible propositions.

New buddha said:

Knowledge is objective, but contextual. What this means is that any statement of information (knowledge) is necessarily a condensation.

The above is a statement about propositions themselves.... Of course if one is concrete bound by symbols it is difficult to see this because there is no sign saying "no proposition is exhaustive".....

Edit: And correspondence for Oism isn't about exhaustiveness in the sense he is applying it to non axiomatic statements anyway...

And here is another statement for Buddha:

Existence is identity

I chose that one because I know Buddha has in the past made the claim :

I've been toying with the idea that Identity can best be described not with the axiom A is A, but rather with A is not B (or C or D....). Knowing what something is NOT is a valid statement of it's identity. Perception seems to tell us that one thing is not another thing. This is true of two very different things (a car and a horse) and it's true of two similar things (this car and not that car).

I make my responses to people from an integrated mindset drawn from everything I know about them..... Edited August 15, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Ilya Startsev]

What you do not realize is that there is an irreparable schism in Oism between your exhaustive axioms (e.g., what Plasmatic said) and the actual world we perceive (what New Buddha said). Knowledge is indeed contextual, and it is also different from person to person. The person can think he knows everything abstractly (as in your axiomatic definition), but you cannot know everything contextually. I agree with New Buddha that specific knowledge is necessarily condensed, but I interpret it as a lack of evidence.

 

Here is what Peikoff says on Lecture 2 (Logic):
Peikoff explains two situations in different years: [situation A:] "The onus of proof is on the one who claims that phenomenon, there is no evidence, therefore I say no - it does not exist . . . [and situation B, when we learn that] after all there is evidence, therefore the proposition exists, it is true, isn't that the case where ignorantiam led you astray because when you followed the onus of proof principle, it lead you to the falsehood? And my answer to that question is no." He explains it that "[y]ou cannot make any claim within the context of omniscience." So, knowledge is contextual, and your axioms are unknowable because they are not contextual.

 

To me the situations can be described as:

A. Guilty until proven innocent.

B. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

Although I have nothing against the onus of proof, I still pick B because it simply depends on your choice. If some idea is not in conflict with my own base of knowledge, then I accept it until there is evidence to show that it's false.

[Plasmatic]

No, there is a schism between those who misrepresent and contradict Oism and those who seek to make what Oism actually says clear.

[New Buddha]

The issue I'm discussing stems from thoughts on the analog nature of recorded information relative to a resolution to Zeno's Paradox.  On the Wiki page the answer that makes the most sense to me is one provided by a mathematician Pat Corvini.  And it's rather amazing (and yet no coincidence) that if you follow the link it takes you to the The Ayn Rand Institute. eStore Pat Cornini.  I think I'm going to purchase the recording.

 

Plasmatic, I think my moniker "New Buddha" colors how you read what I write.  Your subtle yet obvious negativity says more about you than about me.

 

Edit.  I also try and make clear where I am toying with an idea.
 

Edited August 15, 2014 by New Buddha

[New Buddha]

No, there is a schism between those who misrepresent and contradict Oism and those who seek to make what Oism actually says clear.

I agree 100% there is no schism in Objectivism.

[Plasmatic]

Buddha said:

Plasmatic, I think my moniker "New Buddha" colors how you read what I write. Your subtle yet obvious negativity says more about you than about me.

Notice, my point, has nothing to do with your user name... What you actually say, is what I comment on. However, your choice of moniker and avatar does reflect on your person wether you like it or not. I judge your ideas that I challenge as negative and I have no qualms with stating that whatsoever. I am anything but "subtle" about my disagreements! Cute strawman though....

Edit:

Buddha said:

The issue I'm discussing stems from thoughts on the analog nature of recorded information relative to a resolution to Zeno's Paradox. On the Wiki page the answer that makes the most sense to me is one provided by a mathematician Pat Corvini. And it's rather amazing (and yet no coincidence) that if you follow the link it takes you to the The Ayn Rand Institute. eStore Pat Cornini. I think I'm going to purchase the recording.

What about Corvini's theory, or rather, someones representation of Corvini's idea, do you think makes the Oist position on knowledge of axioms and Identity in particular, more like your toy "idea"? Edited August 15, 2014 by Plasmatic

[aleph_1]

Although I have nothing against the onus of proof, I still pick B because it simply depends on your choice. If some idea is not in conflict with my own base of knowledge, then I accept it until there is evidence to show that it's false.

 

So Ilya, I have a proposition for you. There is a starving race of people on Venus. They need your help. If you agree that this proposition is innocent until proven guilty, please send me $100 to help feed that starving venutians. Surely, this propostion is not in conflict with your base of knowledge for any objection you give can be countered to make this plausible. If you do not have direct evidence to show that this is false, then you must send me $100 to help these poor creatures.

[Ilya Startsev]

Consider taking a gander at Peikoff's breakdown of "friend" in OPAR starting on page 134 showing a hierarchal relationship back to the perceptual level (a relationship between existence and consciousness serving as the base of all man's knowledge).

About friendship:

Peikoff says that in order to form the concept of "friendship," one "must have formed many earlier concepts, including “man,” “knowledge,” and “pleasure,” "several concepts of consciousness, such as “value,” “interest,” “affection,” "esteem," "free will."

In my theory of relations, "man" matches with "body" and the rest match with "consciousness." The remainder is whether you choose to be your relationships or not. So far, Oists ignore the nature of their relationships and are thus on level 2 of the theory.

 

Objectivism says nothing about physics or cosmology - which is ALL that Krauss covered on the video.  I watched the full video and it was wonderful.  Krauss is passionate and  articulate and I wish he had been my physics professor in college.  However, he makes a mistake.

 

Do you know what it is?

His mistake is that he implies that space can be independent from matter. To say that space is expanding is necessarily to say that matter is expanding. One cannot go without the other. Following Einstein, he said "mathematically beautiful." And that philosophy is useless.

I liked that he said we do not "understand everything."

 

No, there is a schism between those who misrepresent and contradict Oism and those who seek to make what Oism actually says clear.

You do not have a hierarchical model of knowledge and thus cannot show that you philosophy has no schism. The one that Piekoff showed in Understanding Objectivism is merely abstract metaphysics that to me does not tell the specifics of our reality (except the later points, starting with 10).

 

So Ilya, I have a proposition for you. There is a starving race of people on Venus. They need your help. If you agree that this proposition is innocent until proven guilty, please send me $100 to help feed that starving venutians. Surely, this propostion is not in conflict with your base of knowledge for any objection you give can be countered to make this plausible. If you do not have direct evidence to show that this is false, then you must send me $100 to help these poor creatures.

There is no life on Venus in our context of knowledge. And since you have a financial motive, it shows that you are not concerned with knowledge as such.

[aleph_1]

Now, wait a minute, Ilya. You are rejecting your own standard of knowledge. You said, innocent until proven guilty. You cannot prove that there are no starving venutians. Therefore, by your own standard, you must accept this possibility (and send me $100). What you are missing is that my assertion was arbitrary and so does not even arise to the level of being false. We reject it out of hand because it has no basis in observable reality. We do not claim that my assertion is false (or even true?), but is unvalidated and unfalsified. As such it is worthless and rejected from consideration until such time as someone aduces evidence in favor of the proposition.

[Ilya Startsev]

Now, wait a minute, Ilya. You are rejecting your own standard of knowledge. You said, innocent until proven guilty. You cannot prove that there are no starving venutians. Therefore, by your own standard, you must accept this possibility (and send me $100). What you are missing is that my assertion was arbitrary and so does not even arise to the level of being false. We reject it out of hand because it has no basis in observable reality. We do not claim that my assertion is false (or even true?), but is unvalidated and unfalsified. As such it is worthless and rejected from consideration until such time as someone aduces evidence in favor of the proposition.

Here is what I originally posted:

 

...[situation A:] "The onus of proof is on the one who claims that phenomenon, there is no evidence, therefore I say no - it does not exist . . . [and situation B, when we learn that] after all there is evidence, therefore the proposition exists, it is true, isn't that the case where ignorantiam led you astray because when you followed the onus of proof principle, it lead you to the falsehood? And my answer to that question is no." He explains it that "[y]ou cannot make any claim within the context of omniscience." So, knowledge is contextual, and your axioms are unknowable because they are not contextual.

 

To me the situations can be described as:

A. Guilty until proven innocent.

B. Innocent until proven guilty...

As applied to the situations and not removed from context as you have done, guilty, by Oist standards, is that there is no evidence known to Oists, whereas innocent is if there is evidence. The difference is a time interval. So, a non-arbitrary claim as an argument with evidence that is not definitely known is considered by me true (or innocent), rather than guilty from the start. Your idea of life on Venus can be true (since I have heard of such thing before and believe it) and it is not rejected from my Model, but it is only included two levels above ours. Our level is our reality, but anything above is not specifically our reality. So, although there may be an extraterrestrial race on Venus, it does not exist where we exist, namely, in our environment. If you are working for a secret government agency and correspond with aliens from Venus directly, then this will be true of your reality, but still not true of ours. Either way you look at it, my Model includes all knowledge, possible or even, by your standards, impossible.

[Ilya Startsev]

When I say "existence" in the broadest sense, as I used it here, I meant what you perceive or a[re] capable of perceiving with your senses, period.

...Perhaps I have too delimited a scope for the concept of universe, which I tend to use synonomously with existence. Galaxies are in the universe...

Although we are able to perceive light coming from galaxies, we are not able to perceive them with our other senses, specifically touch.

 

From ITOE, Ayn Rand said:

"the process by which you establish texture or hardness is simpler than the process by which you perceive visually. . . n the perception of sight we can identify a particular sensation, color, whereas in the sensation of touch, we identify roughness or smoothness, let us say, which is closer to the actual quality in the object: a given surface is smooth, and an uneven surface will give you a sensation of roughness. So that it seems—and I stress: it seems as far as we know—that the process there is simpler. But you could claim that the object as such is neither rough nor smooth, because those terms refer to your sensation, just as “color” refers to your sensation and not to the actual object. A rough object is merely of an uneven surface. But the difference [between sensory qualities] is only one of the comparative simplicity and directness by which you perceive one kind of sensory data vs. another" (my bold emphasis).

 

I agree with Rand that our perception of touch refers more directly to our actual reality than what we see but cannot touch. This problem refers both, to a conflated understanding of existence (everything is something), to my division of realities through the Model, which you cannot understand, since you can't find yourselves in it, and also to my earlier discussion of perception and conception:

I am still not clear how concretes that are beyond adequate perception, such as the Universe and the stars, can be conceptualized. By adequate perception I mean concretes that can be in our field of awareness versus those whose means of perception are available (their form) but not the whole of their substance. I believe that analyzing concretes beyond our field of awareness, such as particles and stars, leads to the mistake of taking sensations as actually separate concretes versus them being differentiated through conceptualization only.

[dream_weaver]

In my theory of relations, "man" matches with "body" and the rest match with "consciousness." The remainder is whether you choose to be your relationships or not. So far, Oists ignore the nature of their relationships and are thus on level 2 of the theory.

So what you are saying is that your 'theory of relations', clashes with, i.e., cannot be integrated into the framework of Objectivism, so therefore, Objectivism must be holding the contradiction(s).

 

What makes this dubious is that you don't appear to have grasped the basis for identifying, much less recognizing contradictions. 

 

From Peikoff's presentation on Logic:

Lecture 1: "If you hold a contradiction, you deny identity to the subject matter that you are discussing. A contradiction is the violation of identity."

 

[What Ilya misses the points on:]

What about the new identity that is created? If it has no identity, it is nothing. Why can't identities change from one thing to another (e.g., from tissues to organs, or bodies to groups)?

Law of contradiction: "nothing can be A and non-A."

How come everything can be (the sum of) everything and something "at the same time"?

You advocate the premise of existence, but at the same time you say you cannot know all of reality. What really happens in your logic is that you irrationally know the Truth and are somehow not omniscient. The entirety of the premises of Objectivism are self-contradictory. The only time when you may be consistent is when you do not deal with your premises.

Did Peikoff say a new identity is created? No.

If something has no identity, then it is nothing. True.

The concept of change presupposes identity - For A to become B, A is A prior (hence presupposes) to any change (causal processes taking place).

How come everything can be (the sum of) everything and something "at the same time"? Are you implying that (the sum of everything) is not something?

 

Your group of statements, after the line break, is poorly worded to me, at best.

[Ilya Startsev]

So what you are saying is that your 'theory of relations', clashes with, i.e., cannot be integrated into the framework of Objectivism, so therefore, Objectivism must be holding the contradiction(s).

 

What makes this dubious is that you don't appear to have grasped the basis for identifying, much less recognizing contradictions. 

 

Did Peikoff say a new identity is created? No.

If something has no identity, then it is nothing. True.

The concept of change presupposes identity - For A to become B, A is A prior (hence presupposes) to any change (causal processes taking place).

How come everything can be (the sum of) everything and something "at the same time"? Are you implying that (the sum of everything) is not something?

 

Your group of statements, after the line break, is poorly worded to me, at best.

I wouldn't put it that Objectivism is holding contradictions in consciousness and that's why you clash with my theory. No. I meant that you choose to be at stage 2, even though there is evidence that you ignore that would put you at stage 3. What's missing is the change, as you correctly identified in my other comment. Your self starts with a relationship to your body ("A prior") besides making and/or breaking relationships with others. The overall concepts do not change existentially, but your specific contents do. For example, your body ages and thus changes, and your mood may change about yourself. One day you may be happy with yourself, and at another day - upset. This is still an identity - your relationship fundamental to yourself, and it changes not existentially but content-wise. Remember that existence is not content, but a form, an "essential" quality that for you metaphysically overshadows any specifics (your identifying process of what exists and does not contradict its own existence). I deem that Objectivism describes the first two stages of my theory, and so there is no conflict there. My theory simply adds a new stage that is essentially ignored by Objectivism. This stage not only retains the integration of body and consciousness, but also adds a contextual relationship to other bodies/consciousness whom you value. Is it an essential stage of human development? You decide. I cannot decide for you, so my job simply amounts to persuasion.

 

As Harrison has shown with his argument, the sum of everything is not every thing, which means that the sum of everything is not some thing. If the sum of everything is taken as something specific, then "all existents are existence" is true, but it's false in this interpretation. So, Rand implied, when she said that existence is existent, that the existent is an indivisible entity. This is only possible when it is an abstract, metaphysical sum of concepts (as seen in her definition of existent), but not an actually specific sum, since a real sum is composed of separable things. The question remains: what makes the sum possible? Again, there is nothing on the topic of contextual relationships that I have so far found in Objectivism.

 

P.S. Concerning the Universe, it should be clear that it is not definite or specific. It exists, but noone yet knows about the Universe as a specific, identifiable whole. Thus, the Universe is really an incomplete concept.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Eiuol]

The above is a statement about propositions themselves.... Of course if one is concrete bound by symbols it is difficult to see this because there is no sign saying "no proposition is exhaustive".....

Not all knowledge is propositional. Do you really think it is possible to state everything that can be stated? Answer without quoting ITOE.

Stop saying things with little explanation as though we should understand what your point is. I only see poor reading comprehension, or a really foggy and vague argument.

[Plasmatic]

Louie said:

Not all knowledge is propositional. Do you really think it is possible to state everything that can be stated? Answer without quoting ITOE.

Stop saying things with little explanation as though we should understand what your point is. I only see poor reading comprehension, or a really foggy and vague argument.

I said no such thing and even when I clarify things you keep repeating the opposite of what I say. You make so many false claims about Oism that you should be required to quote a source just to prevent you from shooting from the hip and missing so often. Ever think maybe reading comprehension might help when reading the opposite of what you claim so often?

Louie, your responses are not even wrong and are constantly missing the point entirely while projecting your errors on to other people. I've already told you unless I'm breaking a rule to keep your little commandments to yourself. There is a vanishingly small segment of people on this planet who could make me do anything, so quit the pretense. Keep your word and ignore my post so we can stop this merry go round.

[Eiuol]

I said no such thing and even when I clarify things you keep repeating the opposite of what I say. You make so many false claims about Oism that you should be required to quote a source just to prevent you from shooting from the hip and missing so often. Ever think maybe reading comprehension might help when reading the opposite of what you claim so often?

Clarify what? I asked you a question to clarify things. You didn't reply. Generally I don't understand your posts, and I admit it - I have no reading comprehension of what you are getting at. So I usually your posts as some sort of jumping off point. Interestingly, quotes you provide tend to support what I say. A lot of your posts consist of saying "you're wrong, ITOE says so" without saying how a quote contradicts. Anyway, if you don't answer my clarifying question, there's nothing more to say.