Does Objectivism integrate philosophy and science well?

[Eiuol]

Spacetime is a mathematical model, i.e. conceptual.
 

for there cannot be existence without the context of spacetime.

Why? Spacetime exists insofar as you form the concept based on relations between things that exist...

[Ilya Startsev]

Spacetime is a mathematical model, i.e. conceptual.

 

Why? Spacetime exists insofar as you form the concept based on relations between things that exist...

Or between that which exists and does not exist. And if there is Existence, then you have a 1-place relationship with Nonexistence, correct? That's the minimum, inherent relationship that is so easily ignored.

 

Here is more from ITOE (52):

"The concept “existence” does not indicate what existents it subsumes: it merely underscores the primary fact that they exist."

What or who "they" exist? This makes no sense. They exist in spacetime --that's the only way "they" would exist in reality. Even in your mind they exist in mental spacetime. Only because you ignore this mental spacetime does not mean that there is no such spacetime.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

Here is a picture to help you in visualization:

 

Let the black be Non(in)existence. Let the white be Existence.

[Ilya Startsev]

I never claimed that the heart doesn't have neurons!

Why do you need neurons in your heart? Can you feel it?

[dream_weaver]

I never read those books, although it is well known that Newton was an occultist. White's reasoning seems similar to mine. Why should we tolerate critiques that are not rational or scientific?

Let me clarify my statement. The "Why should I tolerate critiques (about the Optiks) that are not rational or scientific" was Newton's tone about his critiques. White only reported this fact in his book about Newton. If it were so "well known" that Newton was an occultist, then White should have been able to make a better case for it. I found Whites case for Newton being an occultist less than compelling.

[Ilya Startsev]

My view of controversial issues in science is in the category of novelty and a recognition of the differences between fact and theory. Try again?

I am interested where you fit the theory and evidence of: biological evolution, quantum mechanics, and special/general relativity.

 

Let me clarify my statement. The "Why should I tolerate critiques (about the Optiks) that are not rational or scientific" was Newton's tone about his critiques. White only reported this fact in his book about Newton. If it were so "well known" that Newton was an occultist, then White should have been able to make a better case for it. I found Whites case for Newton being an occultist less than compelling.

You ignore Newton's alchemical and religious work and views that were intrinsically related to his scientific research and theorization.

[dream_weaver]

 

You ignore Newton's alchemical and religious work and views that were intrinsically related to his scientific research and theorization.

Have I? You've read my comments elsewhere on this forum regarding Michael White's book?

[Ilya Startsev]

Have I? You've read my comments elsewhere on this forum regarding Michael White's book?

No, but I am interested. Would you give me a link, please?

[dream_weaver]

No, but I am interested. Would you give me a link, please?

I think I found it here, on the tip of my spoon.

[Eiuol]

They exist in spacetime --that's the only way "they" would exist in reality.

 

they = existents

Spacetime is not a literal space. It is mathematical. Grasping reality is first, then its possible to develop mathematical concepts like spacetime.

[Ilya Startsev]

they = existents

Spacetime is not a literal space. It is mathematical. Grasping reality is first, then its possible to develop mathematical concepts like spacetime.

Mathematical spacetime would be "absolute nothing" metaphysically speaking. However, when you apply spacetime to physical reality, it becomes literal. For example, a photon (quantum/wave/an electromagnetic particle) is a spacetime. We can see this from the formula of special relativity that refers to physical in this particular case, not metaphysical/mathematical reality: v = d/t = c (where v is speed, d is distance, t is time, and c is the speed of light, represented by a photon). When we talk about planets, for example, we also imply physical spacetime, but now by the formula of general relativity (applicable to astronomical bodies): E = mc^₂ (where E is energy, m is mass, and c² is the speed of light squared, or a field of light).

[Eiuol]

Mathematical spacetime would be "absolute nothing" metaphysically speaking. However, when you apply spacetime to physical reality, it becomes literal.

That explains a lot of your misconception. It is true that a mathematical models are not any"thing", i.e. they are not material. That does not then make math unreal/illusory/invented/nothing, that just means it is a conceptual understanding. Instead of accepting that, you have just denied concepts as real. Yet, since you know as well as I do spacetime is a valid concept, somehow you say spacetime is a perceivable entity! You did the same thing when you argued that everything is conscious a while back. Remember, Objectivism says concepts disconnected from reality or not applied to reality are invalid, as floating abstractions. Floating abstractions would probably be "absolute nothings".

[Ilya Startsev]

I think I found it here, on the tip of my spoon.

Thank you.

 

On that thread, Harrison said: "Whatever he claimed (or perhaps thought) he believed, when Newton's attention was directed away from those beliefs they evaporated."

To me, this sounds like his consciousness that contained those beliefs became non-consciousness. However, we know that visualization that includes beliefs is in the right hemisphere of the brain, whereas conceptualization is in the left hemisphere. I think that in order to come up with all those diagrams and model physical phenomena, Newton and Descartes used their right hemispheres, and this means that beliefs and concepts were also inseparable from their visual thinking.

Ibid.: "He didn't pray, meditate or read the Bible to find truth.  He experimented.  And the fact that he did so, in the culture which he lived in, tells us quite a bit about what was actually going on in his head."

It simply confirms that they used both hemispheres, rather than just one - conceptual.

Ibid.: "That's exactly what I mean, though; he was probably far more rational (and far less faithful) than he ever let on. [...] we also know that his investigative methods directly contradict his stated beliefs."

These are speculations. I argue that their beliefs and scientific concepts complement in the whole beings of Newton and Descartes. You are forgetting that their mystical beliefs were also their (axiomatic) principles.

Devil's Advocate wrote: "The role of a heretic is to provide the light, even when others prefer the darkness... especially then."

Today, heretics are called "pseudoscientists."

You said: "The documents I was referring to were just the Opticks and the Principia."

Indeed, those were the most scientific among all of his works.

Devil's advocate: "the pursuit of knowledge requires knowing what you don't believe in as well"

How would you know it if you did not believe in it in the first place? What you are missing is that belief precedes knowledge. Once you tested a belief and proved it, it becomes your knowledge. Knowledge doesn't just appear out of nowhere in your head since you were a child. Other people's (scientific) convictions accepted without questioning are also beliefs.

Ibid.: "Issac Newton was an intelligent man of his day, with all the societal baggage that came with that day.  Perhaps today he'd be a scientologist, but the varacity of his work wouldn't be tainted by that association..."

Why not?

You said: "True enough, if one examined religion to discover its philosophic roots, one would find the cave in which it was they were ensconced. (Platonic reference.)"

You keep hating Plato, but Rand and many others used similar rhetorical devices as his Allegory of the Cave in order to support their thinking.

Ibid.: "It would appear that the force Newton envisioned as the invisible hand guiding the universe did not follow along the same trajectory that the entrenched view of the era gravitated toward."

This is interesting. I agree with Newton that God as the Source of the Universe and Jesus Christ as an incarnation of a divine entity are not the same.

Harrison: "Any Christian who applies that sort of intellectual integrity to their own convictions, sooner or later, can only arrive at one conclusion."

I was never a Christian, but I always believed in God. My views of God are not religious; they are systematic and logical. Check my Model (the updated version in this thread), especially the conceptual level 14.

Ibid.: "Religion, as such, is not the reason for all of mankind's past evils.  On that point you're correct."

I concur. But it is the reason for some of the worst evils, such as the Guanche genocide and the burning of the Library at Alexandria (as well as burning of ancient texts in general), for which I shall never forgive any religionists.

Ibid.: "The ideas which make religion conceivable, are."

Indeed. But the ideas which make the concept of God conceivable are the Universe (and its creation/expansion/appearance), physical vacuum, quantum fluctuations of energy and entanglement, consciousness, etc. I want to point out that many individuals believe in a spiritual entity of the Universe, such as God. In addition to Aristotle, Newton, Descartes, among them were Einstein and Tesla.

I can understand now that you think I am a mystic for two reasons:

1) I have only praised mystics and never criticized them;

2) I have not tested or proved their physical evidence.

I am very critical of mystics, although maybe not as much as you, since I do like some of their fantasies and imaginative, unfalsifiable ideas. The second point is much more important. Indeed, I am not an empirical scientist, and hence do not have scientific grounds to support me here. This means that our discussion on mysticism cannot go on, correct? If this is so, we have to put the theory of emotional economy from Part II and III of Neo-objectivism on hold until I contact HeartMath and implement it. However, our philosophical discussions still stand.

[dream_weaver]

You ignore Newton's alchemical and religious work and views that were intrinsically related to his scientific research and theorization.

 

 

 

I can understand now that you think I am a mystic for two reasons:

1) I have only praised mystics and never criticized them;

2) I have not tested or proved their physical evidence.

I am very critical of mystics, although maybe not as much as you, since I do like some of their fantasies and imaginative, unfalsifiable ideas. The second point is much more important. Indeed, I am not an empirical scientist, and hence do not have scientific grounds to support me here. This means that our discussion on mysticism cannot go on, correct? If this is so, we have to put the theory of emotional economy from Part II and III of Neo-objectivism on hold until I contact HeartMath and implement it. However, our philosophical discussions still stand.

I provided that link to address your charge of my having ignored the role alchemy and religion played in Newton's induction's regarding light and gravity.

 

In return I get charged with thinking you're a mystic. Was this from pointing out how consensus can be the tool of mysticism, or is a link discussing Michael White's book somehow a covert way of stating it?

[Eiuol]

To me, this sounds like his consciousness that contained those beliefs became non-consciousness. However, we know that visualization that includes beliefs is in the right hemisphere of the brain, whereas conceptualization is in the left hemisphere.

 

No, we don't know that - thinking divided into hemispheres is not true, so visualization and conceptualization isn't distinctly separate. They occur together. Concepts are not separable from visual thinking. Whether it is literally visual is a separate question. Either way, get your science right before making claims. You seem to think Objectivism has an issue with visual thinking? It doesn't.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Eiuol

[Ilya Startsev]

Instead of accepting that, you have just denied concepts as real.

Yes, concepts are not as necessarily physically real as you seem to believe.

 

Yet, since you know as well as I do spacetime is a valid concept, somehow you say spacetime is a perceivable entity

 

Let me clarify. Spacetime is what helps us perceive because we won't be able to perceive (identify) anything without spacetime. Conceptually we also construct such spacetime(s), although you may not explicitly connect it to objects (i.e., it's easy to ignore), you still do so implicitly in the spacetime of your mind or consciousness. Only vague sense data would not be exact spacetime, although spacetime will still be implied. Put it simply, spacetime can never not be a part of what we perceive. Therefore, it can easily be said that we also perceive spacetime because we differentiate between physical objects, metaphysically it is implied as well but in just one object. So, I want to modify your main axiom to this: "Existence exists in spacetime."

 

You did the same thing when you argued that everything is conscious a while back.

Yes, but as different spacetimes, not the same as the spacetime of our consciousness.

 

Remember, Objectivism says concepts disconnected from reality or not applied to reality are invalid, as floating abstractions.

I apply all my concepts to actual things. See my Model (plus the theory of nested concepts).

 

Floating abstractions would probably be "absolute nothings".

That's right! You are getting it, Eiuol, if you truly consider what you wrote. Except then you won't differentiate between "absolute nothing"s, for the only way you would is to apply them to actual things.

[Ilya Startsev]

I provided that link to address your charge of my having ignored the role alchemy and religion played in Newton's induction's regarding light and gravity.

 

In return I get charged with thinking you're a mystic. Was this from pointing out how consensus can be the tool of mysticism, or is a link discussing Michael White's book somehow a covert way of stating it?

I apologize. I honestly thought that "you" (all Objectivists) think that I am a mystic. Anyway, I have shown that I am also critical of mystics as I am critical of everything, yes, even including Neo-objectivism.

[Ilya Startsev]

No, we don't know that - thinking divided into hemispheres is not true, so visualization and conceptualization isn't distinctly separate. They occur together. Concepts are not separable from visual thinking. Whether it is literally visual is a separate question. Either way, get your science right before making claims. You seem to think Objectivism has an issue with visual thinking? It doesn't.

How do you visualize metaphysical concepts without spacetime?

[Ilya Startsev]

From the end of chapter 3 (ITOE):

Two links between the conceptual and the mathematical fields are worth noting at this point, apart from the obvious fact that the concept “unit” is the base and start of both.
1. A concept is not formed by observing every concrete subsumed under it, and does not specify the number of such concretes. A concept is like an arithmetical sequence of specifically defined units, going off in both directions, open at both ends and including all units of that particular kind. For instance, the concept “man” includes all men who live at present, who have ever lived or will ever live. An arithmetical sequence extends into infinity, without implying that infinity actually exists; such extension means only that whatever number of units does exist, it is to be included in the same sequence. The same principle applies to concepts: the concept “man” does not (and need not) specify what number of men will ultimately have existed—it specifies only the characteristics of man, and means that any number of entities possessing these characteristics is to be identified as “men.”
2. The basic principle of concept-formation (which states that the omitted measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity) is the equivalent of the basic principle of algebra, which states that algebraic symbols must be given some numerical value, but may be given any value. In this sense and respect, perceptual awareness is the arithmetic, but conceptual awareness is the algebra of cognition."

-----------------

The omitted measurements of "man" do not reflect the visual spacetime of those who ever lived or will ever live.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Eiuol]

At no point did I say or imply that concepts are "physically real". When dealing with thought or concepts, they are not "physically real".
 

Conceptually we also construct such spacetime(s), although you may not explicitly connect it to objects (i.e., it's easy to ignore), you still do so implicitly in the spacetime of your mind or consciousness.

Stop reasoning from metaphors! You can say people use conceptual spaces (which I believe), but you've gone wild by reifying spacetime into something perceivable. You've taken a concept, misunderstood what the concept is, took the concept as applicable to thinking in a direct way, then took the fact it can be thought of to claim it is perceivable. Spacetime as a concept is dependent on first developing a concept like "existence" or "universe". Your errors are: reification, equivocation, stolen concept fallacy, weak analogy, and improper transposition (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html). I'd recommend stopping before the rabbit hole leads into another dimension. If you stop for one moment, then I can show you that all you've said is that one's understanding of reality is relational. No need for the gobbledy gook.

Edited June 29, 2014 by Eiuol

[dream_weaver]

I apologize. I honestly thought that "you" (all Objectivists) think that I am a mystic. Anyway, I have shown that I am also critical of mystics as I am critical of everything, yes, even including Neo-objectivism.

There is a difference between critical thinking skills and thinking skills consisting of being predominantly critical. Even mystics are capable of being critical of other mystics. This fact would be a large contributor to why consensus is required to try to nullify dissent.

 

Reasoning requires the organization of the material available to your senses according to principles that also have to be discovered.

 

Your hap-hazard approach to trying to accomplish such an undertaking at best will increase the amount of time required to reach the goal, at worse, will culminate in a failure to ever reach such a goal.

 

How do you visualize metaphysical concepts without spacetime?

This reminds me of  an exchange between a theist and a rational atheist.

 

The theist asked: "What would existence be like if there were no God?"

The rational atheist replied: "The same as it is now."

Edited June 30, 2014 by dream_weaver

[Plasmatic]

Illya said:

 

good mysticism tells you that the values in your life are not enough for the betterment of mankind. Hence you learn that whatever you valued will die with you, but the legacy that you built for humankind will live on. Hence, please differentiate between merely individual values and shared values............Transcendental philosophy. Mystics and scientists think about the progress of humankind and help attain it. I will give you an obvious example: Isaac Newton. Such progress throughout centuries is a transcendental advancement toward a higher goal. The goal is known but very hard to reach: it is Existence.

 

Oh boy, now we can add transcendence to the list of things that you need to define in a way that allows another to determine the facts that you differentiated from... Taking the above and your previous comments in blue, it appears you think mysticism is defined by altruistic-other directedness, and the ability to transcend....something unstated. What is your mystic transcending? You have several equivocations here by Oist standards.... 

 

 

 

 

 

You ignore the units in the Model.

 

 

 

 

I have no idea what your referring to. Your "model" is incoherent gibberish to me.

 

 

Illya said:

 

If you have a model, I will be interested in seeing how you constructed your hierarchy. Maybe then I will understand how your statement "Truth is timeless" is related to the actual, physical reality where we live right now.

 

 

What type of model are you referring to?

 

 

Illya said:

 

 

Sure. You said that there is only one kind of evaluation, right? And then you said that (Objectivist) "consensus is simply a failure to evaluate on that issue." So, is there an Objectivist consensus or isn't there? Mind that you check your definition of "consensus."

 

Consensus is useless as a truth value Illya. You keep trying to learn Oism from everything but the source.

 

 

Illya said:

 

 

You do not state anything that's actually connected and continuous. Are they merely isolated words in a dictionary with multiple meanings?

 

I have no idea what you are asking me here....

 

 

Illya said:

 

 

So, you separate units from physical reality and plug them into metaphysical reality, in which you think you exist.

 

You have done this repeatedly. You can add metaphysical to the list of things you have a completely different meaning from Oism. There is only one reality and it is all metaphysical, which doesn't mean "spiritual-conceptual" as against physical-concrete. You equivocate metaphysical with epistemological....Consciousness is metaphysically real. (Searle has the clearest way of making this point IMO)

 

 

Illya said:

 

 

The following is Part IV of Neo-objectivism. The Theory of Nested Concepts.

 

 

I'm not interested in discussing philosophy in anything other than ordinary language. If you want to write in plain English words I'll read it.

 

 

Illya said:

 

There is indeed "nothing" out there. And nothing is a spacetime, and, in other words, a place. By the general relativity, we know that spacetime curves around matter. Such spacetime would curve around the Universe, as it is inherent to the Universe, which exists in spacetime. It should not be ignored, for without it we won't even have concepts of the Universe, not even speaking of the actual Universe

 

 

 

Its not widely understood that the above is commonly a point of contention for the scientist who bother studying the philosophy of physics. Most scientist just know the math and to hell with the sort of question that the scientific realism debate deals with....From an Oist standpoint, the idea that space and time is a thing that can bend and warp is pure nonsense.  All one needs to know is what space and time means to understand this. If you think that's what "space-time" is then your talking nonsense. Space-time is a mathematical formalism. The parts of Einstein's equations that refer to "beables" is a matter of debate for those who are active minded in the field.....

 

 

Illya said:

 

 

Indeed one can, if the absence includes everything.

 

 

There's not much one can do with this nonsense. Absence does not include anything, its the concept used to refer to the non-presence of a thing that could be there but isn't.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Harrison Danneskjold]

It is interesting that Ilya has chosen Neo-Objectivism as the term for his arguments against Objectivism.

 

If I were convinced that Marx was a hack whose books aren't worth the paper they're printed on then I would not refer to myself as a Neo-Marxist.  And if I did call myself a Neo-Marxist then it would be because I profoundly agreed with key points of the original philosophy.

 

For what purpose would one do otherwise?

[Ilya Startsev]

At no point did I say or imply that concepts are "physically real". When dealing with thought or concepts, they are not "physically real".

Only sensations on which concepts are based are physically real. And the sensations come from physical spacetime.

 

all you've said is that one's understanding of reality is relational

Yes, relational through spacetime. That's exactly what I said. The Conceptual Common Denominator of "existence exists" is spacetime. What you did is separate spacetime from existents and blamed it on me by saying that I have made various errors.

 

There is a difference between critical thinking skills and thinking skills consisting of being predominantly critical. Even mystics are capable of being critical of other mystics. This fact would be a large contributor to why consensus is required to try to nullify dissent.

 

Reasoning requires the organization of the material available to your senses according to principles that also have to be discovered.

 

Your hap-hazard approach to trying to accomplish such an undertaking at best will increase the amount of time required to reach the goal, at worse, will culminate in a failure to ever reach such a goal.

 

This reminds me of  an exchange between a theist and a rational atheist.

 

The theist asked: "What would existence be like if there were no God?"

The rational atheist replied: "The same as it is now."

I don't know if you said all this directed at me. If you think that I am merely critical and do not create any new ideas, you are ignoring everything I have written on this entire forum. And, just so you know, "Existence exists" is your metaphysical God.

 

What is your mystic transcending?

n=n+1, where n is a level. C_n is a conceptual level. But it would not be considered mystic for you then. It's pretty mystic to me, though, since it is extremely hard to understand how we integrate concepts that create a new reality and have a physically real basis.

 

Your "model" is incoherent gibberish to me.

Wow. You must not have a dictionary, and you have no idea about spacetime to actually perceive the different concepts of my Model. I would honestly think that this is not my failure. And that you are unable to use your theory of concepts to integrate enough concepts to comprehend my 32-word Model of everything and nothing.

 

What type of model are you referring to?

Conceptual model that is based on physically real things and their contexts. For you convenience (and in hope that you can understand concepts expressed in English language and using the spacetime of this post):

1) Particle and Void

2) Atom and Field

3) Molecule and Structure

4) Organelle and Cytoplasm

5) Cell and Matrix

6) Tissue and Pulse

7) Organ and Aura

8) Body and Environment

9) Society and Nature

10) Race and World

11) Sphere and System

12) Star and Nebula

13) Hole and Cosmos

14) Source and Vacuum

15) Multiverse and Ratium

16) Omniverse and Limits

APEIRON (Existence and Nonexistence, absolute everything and absolute nothing, etc.)

 

You keep trying to learn Oism from everything but the source.

Your source is "Existence exists," and it is flawed because it is incomplete.

 

There is only one reality and it is all metaphysical, which doesn't mean "spiritual-conceptual" as against physical-concrete.

I don't know a physical reality where things exist independent from spacetime. Until you prove otherwise, your metaphysical reality is as good as "spiritual-conceptual" of the theologists. Remember that they are also called metaphysicians.

 

You equivocate metaphysical with epistemological...

Because I differentiate them? I want to point out that you unconsciously switch between physical and metaphysical spacetimes, ignoring them both.

 

I'm not interested in discussing philosophy in anything other than ordinary language. If you want to write in plain English words I'll read it.

I have written my Model in plain English words, but you cannot read that either. Do you understand what Body is? Or Environment? Or that they are both concepts in my Model explained by the positions and relationships to other concepts in the model? Now, you explain to me how your concept of "man" relates to my concept of "Body." Mind as well help me with your differentiation and relationship of "civilization" and "industry" concepts, since to me they are all under the concept of Society.

 

From an Oist standpoint, the idea that space and time is a thing that can bend and warp is pure nonsense.

Ok, imagine that it does not bend and warp (and it is not a "thing"), if that's easier for you. It does not imply that there is no spacetime. There is spacetime and existence. Both, at the same time, in the same place, infinitely and eternally inseparable. Stop ignoring it.

 

All one needs to know is what space and time means to understand this. If you think that's what "space-time" is then your talking nonsense. Space-time is a mathematical formalism.

Spacetime is a concept that you are unable to integrate.

 

It is interesting that Ilya has chosen Neo-Objectivism as the term for his arguments against Objectivism.

 

If I were convinced that Marx was a hack whose books aren't worth the paper they're printed on then I would not refer to myself as a Neo-Marxist.  And if I did call myself a Neo-Marxist then it would be because I profoundly agreed with key points of the original philosophy.

 

For what purpose would one do otherwise?

Yes, I agree that there is a concept of Society including Marxist concepts. Yes, I agree that there is a concept of "Existence exists," and I wish to complete it by integrating it with the concept of "spacetime," which to me is the concept of "absolute nothing," as related to everything.

[Spiral Architect]

Your source is "Existence exists," and it is flawed because it is incomplete.

 

I hate to ask, but how is this flawed and incomplete. 

 

There is literally nothing more than everything, or the fact it is real.  You cannot get more complete than that.