Does Objectivism integrate philosophy and science well?

[Ilya Startsev]

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. 

I want you to read the following passage from ITOE (1990:110) very carefully:

"the measurements omitted here [about God and infinity] are all measurements and all reality. [...] The concept “nothing” is not possible except in relation to “something.” Therefore, to have the concept “nothing,” you mentally specify—in parenthesis, in effect—the absence of a something, and you conceive of “nothing” only in relation to concretes which no longer exist or which do not exist at present."

 

Do the parenthesis and the effect exist at present? Can we use such an example? Now, think of "Existence exists" as a line of text. How is it a line? How does it appear? If there is no space, it would be like this "E" or "Existenceexists" or " " or "." In other words, it would be incomprehensible. Similarly, if you had no time to read it or understand it or sense it or whatever, it would have no effect; it would not exist. If there is no time to understand (and no effect), it would be like this "E" or "." These are just examples, omitting just some aspects, but omitting spacetime is like omitting everything and nothing. Notice that I don't have "spacetime" in my Model, nor do I have "nothing" or "Nonexistence" there. The reason is that it is inseparable from the Model and you won't be able to see, identify, and comprehend it without space time. Also, the contexts in my Model show you specific spacetimes.

 

P.S. "There is literally nothing more than everything" BINGO--You said it!

Edited June 30, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[dream_weaver]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Yes, I was responding to you. If I were to summarize what I am thinking, it would be captured best in the bold italicized portion modification of my original quote to you. This presumes on my behalf that you are trying to organize the material available to your senses.

 

When you state: "And, just so you know, "Existence exists" is your metaphysical God." would it be correct to infer that you are implying Objectivism is akin to a religion?

[Spiral Architect]

I want you to read the following passage from ITOE (1990:110) very carefully:

"the measurements omitted here [about God and infinity] are all measurements and all reality. [...] The concept “nothing” is not possible except in relation to “something.” Therefore, to have the concept “nothing,” you mentally specify—in parenthesis, in effect—the absence of a something, and you conceive of “nothing” only in relation to concretes which no longer exist or which do not exist at present."

 

Do the parenthesis and the effect exist at present? Can we use such an example? Now, think of "Existence exists" as a line of text. How is it a line? How does it appear? If there is no space, it would be like this "E" or "Existenceexists" or " " or "." In other words, it would be incomprehensible. Similarly, if you had no time to read it or understand it or sense it or whatever, it would have no effect; it would not exist. If there is no time to understand (and no effect), it would be like this "E" or "." These are just examples, omitting just some aspects, but omitting spacetime is like omitting everything and nothing. Notice that I don't have "spacetime" in my Model, nor do I have "nothing" or "Nonexistence" there. The reason is that it is inseparable from the Model and you won't be able to see, identify, and comprehend it without space time. Also, the contexts in my Model show you specific spacetimes.

 

P.S. "There is literally nothing more than everything" BINGO--You said it!

 

All the quote means nothing is nothing - You cannot step outside of "everything" to see "everything" and "somthing else" which you postulate as nothing.  If it exists, then it is something.  If it doesn't exist, it is a fantasy you constructed since it does not exist. 

 

I have no idea what space or time has to do with it and honestly it is non important to my my original question.  Existence exists is a complete summation of everything. It is impossible to "incomplete" unless you postulate a fantasy realm the exists but doesn't. 

 

You are creating a giant elaberation.  The more interesting question is what is the purpose. 

[Ilya Startsev]

Yes, I was responding to you. If I were to summarize what I am thinking, it would be captured best in the bold italicized portion modification of my original quote to you. This presumes on my behalf that you are trying to organize the material available to your senses.

 

When you state: "And, just so you know, "Existence exists" is your metaphysical God." would it be correct to infer that you are implying Objectivism is akin to a religion?

 

"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."

 

To comment specifically on what you said self-critically: I have discovered the principle. It is Object and Context. My "hap-hazardness" is that I try to integrate concepts that have never been integrated before. Yes, it is hard, and yes, I need to know a whole lot. But think of what can be done if my mind is united with your minds and with the minds of the whole world. Everything will be possible.

 

I really hope that Objectivism is not a religion. However, I do think that you do not understand your metaphysical reality. Your reality cannot be possible unless "Existence exists in spacetime." I call "Existence exists in spacetime" APEIRON, and all your principles are included in it as well. You may use the concept of APEIRON instead of "Existence exists in spacetime" for efficiency. I would have no problem with that. In fact, then our concepts will match.

[Ilya Startsev]

All the quote means nothing is nothing - You cannot step outside of "everything" to see "everything" and "somthing else" which you postulate as nothing.  If it exists, then it is something.  If it doesn't exist, it is a fantasy you constructed since it does not exist. 

 

I have no idea what space or time has to do with it and honestly it is non important to my my original question.  Existence exists is a complete summation of everything. It is impossible to "incomplete" unless you postulate a fantasy realm the exists but doesn't. 

 

You are creating a giant elaberation.  The more interesting question is what is the purpose. 

In APEIRON, "nothing" is not "something." Let us concentrate purely on the metaphysical reality. Indeed, you cannot look outside of Existence, but you can look within Existence and apply it to all of Existence. That will be the same as absolute nothing.

 

"If it exists, then it is something."

Only within the physical realities, which are limited. Please, keep within the metaphysical reality. Do not switch contexts. Stop switching realphysical and metaphysical.

 

"The more interesting question is what is the purpose."

So I can construct a Model of concepts, and you cannot.

 

P.S. Content of Existence exists in spacetime. It is not outside but within the Existence. It is right at the spot of Existence. Think this way: You are a part of Your Context. You are literally standing on a spot of Context. If you leave the spot, You see it as Context, but you have just been there! Through spacetime. If the Context is absolute everything (i.e., Existence), then so will there be absolute nothing (i.e., Nonexistence) where Existence is. Correction to ITOE (111):

"Non-existence as such—particularly in the same generalized sense in which I use the term “existence” in saying “existence exists,” that is, as the widest abstraction without yet specifying any content, or applying to all content—you cannot have the concept “non-existence” in that same fundamental way. In other words, you can’t say: this is something pertaining to the whole universe, to everything I know, and I don’t say what. In other words, without specifying content."

 

P.P.S. In other words, in APEIRON, Object = Context.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

Ibid., 113: "Prof. F: Okay, taking concepts, therefore, as entities: they do not have spatial location, do they?
AR: No, I have said they are mental entities."

 

There is physical and mental space. Again, switching contexts. If you are talking about a physical entity, it has a spatial location in the physical reality. If you are talking about a mental entity, it has a spatial location in the metaphysical reality that reflects physical reality. Otherwise, it does not reflect physical reality and is a mere belief.

 

P.S. Ibid.: "Prof. A: When you say a concept is a mental entity, you don’t mean “entity” in the sense that a man is an entity, do you?

AR: I mean it in the same sense in which I mean a thought, an emotion, or a memory is an entity, a mental entity—or put it this way: a phenomenon of consciousness."

 

Your thought, emotion, memory, consciousness are embodied in physical entities in physical space. Your thought and emotion are in Tissue, your memory is in Organ, your consciousness is in Body. Prove me wrong!

Edited June 30, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Eiuol]

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.

 

Spacetime is a relationship between two or more existents. Relationships are not physical. Spacetime is not physical.

A conceptual common denominator requires two or more existents or ideas. That means you basically said there is a conceptual common denominator between existence and... well, nothing at all. I don't mean the concept of nothing. I mean not even nothing. To summarize what you expressed: "The relationship between existence and is spacetime". Seriously, that's ungrammatical because what you're saying is incomprehensible.

Since you like formalisms:

X& ⊆ Y

Again, doesn't make sense.

[Spiral Architect]

In APEIRON, "nothing" is not "something." Let us concentrate purely on the metaphysical reality. Indeed, you cannot look outside of Existence, but you can look within Existence and apply it to all of Existence. That will be the same as absolute nothing.

 

 

Something exists - Nothing does not exist.  If you can identify it, then it exists. 

 

"If it exists, then it is something."

Only within the physical realities, which are limited. Please, keep within the metaphysical reality. Do not switch contexts. Stop switching realphysical and metaphysical.

 

There is nop such thing as real physical and metaphysical.  There is something that exists.  Metaphysics simply studies the broadest abstractions of what exists. 

 

"The more interesting question is what is the purpose."

So I can construct a Model of concepts, and you cannot.

Concepts are abstractions taken from data - I.E. Reality - Then integrated into concepts.

It is interesting that you say I, who imbraces reality for what it is cannot form concepts from it, but you who are postulating "realities" beyond existence, can.  I suspect mysticism here, which would tie into your desire to see existence incomplete.  I'll say it again, what are you trying to accomplish with this?  What is the end game result?

[Ilya Startsev]

Spacetime is a relationship between two or more existents. Relationships are not physical. Spacetime is not physical.

A conceptual common denominator requires two or more existents or ideas. That means you basically said there is a conceptual common denominator between existence and... well, nothing at all. I don't mean the concept of nothing. I mean not even nothing. To summarize what you expressed: "The relationship between existence and is spacetime". Seriously, that's ungrammatical because what you're saying is incomprehensible.

Since you like formalisms:

X& ⊆ Y

Again, doesn't make sense.

Then you are talking about metaphysical relationships. However, there are no metaphysical relationships separate from metaphysical existents. All mental entities are space itself organized in your mind. If you have a single entity in your mind that is not your mind (which is absurd) or many entities in your mind that are not your mind (which is equally absurd) and call it "Existence exists," then you have no mind. However, if the many entities are your mind, then you should differentiate between them, and the way your differentiate and integrate them is through mental space.

 

I don't mean the concept of nothing. I mean not even nothing.

And I mean the concept of nothing. You misunderstand. You need to integrate photons to get to space as far as you can visualize or imagine. Then you will be able to say: existence is all that was, is, and ever will be. Otherwise, you cannot say this without being absurd.

 

The relationship between existence and is spacetime

False. Existence is a concept. Nonexistence is a concept. The relationship between Existence and Existence is spacetime. It is the same. Hence Existence and Nonexistence. Remember that we are in APEIRON. If we were in actual reality, relationships between existents will be parts of contexts. All relationships in a context can become the context (albeit new one).

 

Here is formalization:

X&X ≡ Y

Although this is hard to grasp. I would prefer X&Y ≡ APEIRON (i.e., Existence and Nonexistence is APEIRON). One concept with itself is a concept that includes its spacetime in the Model.

 

EDIT: I could not find anything on symbol "⊆" so I changed it to "≡".

Edited June 30, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

[...]There is something that exists.  Metaphysics simply studies the broadest abstractions of what exists. 

 

"The more interesting question is what is the purpose."

So I can construct a Model of concepts, and you cannot.

Concepts are abstractions taken from data - I.E. Reality - Then integrated into concepts.

It is interesting that you say I, who imbraces reality for what it is cannot form concepts from it, but you who are postulating "realities" beyond existence, can.  I suspect mysticism here, which would tie into your desire to see existence incomplete.  I'll say it again, what are you trying to accomplish with this?  What is the end game result?

How do you identify something? Where does it exist? When does it exist? How does it exist? You answer on none of these questions. You omit the concept of nothing. You never understood reality or the nature of sensation. How do you identify things in reality? I will tell you how. Photons from physical reality enter your retina and you can see! You literally see spacetime; photons are spacetime. The end result is so you can see.

[Ilya Startsev]

Ibid.:

Prof. A: When you say a concept is a mental entity, you don’t mean “entity” in the sense that a man is an entity, do you?

AR: I mean it in the same sense in which I mean a thought, an emotion, or a memory is an entity, a mental entity—or put it this way: a phenomenon of consciousness.

    Prof. A: Wouldn’t you say that consciousness is itself an attribute of man?

    AR: Right. A faculty of man.

 

He meant "man" as a mental entity.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Eiuol]

Here is formalization:

X&X ⊆ Y

Although this is hard to grasp. I would prefer X&Y ⊆ APEIRON (i.e., Existence and Nonexistence is APEIRON). One concept with itself is a concept that includes its spacetime in the Model.

Listen. You said conceptually common denominator. You used one term on the left when you need two terms. "Nonexistence" counts as a term, but you didn't use it as a term. You are missing a term! Fix it to say "The common denominator between existence and nonexistence is spacetime". That is then wrong because by existence we mean EVERYTHING AT ALL, even spacetime. You cannot have a set be a member of one of its own members.

 

A & ~A are a subset of A(s)? What? That's like saying mammals and birds are dogs.

[dream_weaver]

"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."

 

To comment specifically on what you said self-critically: I have discovered the principle. It is Object and Context. My "hap-hazardness" is that I try to integrate concepts that have never been integrated before. Yes, it is hard, and yes, I need to know a whole lot. But think of what can be done if my mind is united with your minds and with the minds of the whole world. Everything will be possible.

 

I really hope that Objectivism is not a religion. However, I do think that you do not understand your metaphysical reality. Your reality cannot be possible unless "Existence exists in spacetime." I call "Existence exists in spacetime" APEIRON, and all your principles are included in it as well. You may use the concept of APEIRON instead of "Existence exists in spacetime" for efficiency. I would have no problem with that. In fact, then our concepts will match.

Ilya,  

As much as I enjoyed Star Trek growing up, I've always viewed the Vulcan mind-meld as the product of an overactive imagination, rather than part of the science-fiction.

In the meantime, I'm going to have to pass on this spacetime stuff until the onus of proof has been met.

[Ilya Startsev]

Listen. You said conceptually common denominator. You used one term on the left when you need two terms. "Nonexistence" counts as a term, but you didn't use it as a term. You are missing a term! Fix it to say "The common denominator between existence and nonexistence is spacetime". That is then wrong because by existence we mean EVERYTHING AT ALL, even spacetime. You cannot have a set be a member of one of its own members.

 

A & ~A are a subset of A(s)? What? That's like saying mammals and birds are dogs.

Ilya,  

As much as I enjoyed Star Trek growing up, I've always viewed the Vulcan mind-meld as the product of an overactive imagination, rather than part of the science-fiction.

In the meantime, I'm going to have to pass on this spacetime stuff until the onus of proof has been met.

Ok, Gentlemen, the onus of proof is on me. I think I got the problem. Let me be your conceptual doctor and heal the concepts in your mind. I have never done this before, so this is an experimental operation. Hopefully, it will work. Otherwise, since it won't kill you (I promise!), I will have to try again.

 

The problem is that you do not see Nonexistence (or absolute nothing) as a concept. However, you see Existence as a concept, so this makes things a lot easier.

 

My first operation will be the following:

I have mentioned in a reply to Eiuol the following formula: X & X ≡ Y, where X is Existence and Y is Nonexistence (or empty spacetime or absolute nothing). The formula cannot have "⊆" since there is no superset to Existence. Existence is the ultimate superset. Ok (my hands are shaking, hold on a sec.).

X & X ≡ Y becomes:

Existence and Existence is Nonexistence

Existence and itself is Nonexistence

Since there is no second Existence, the common conceptual denominator is the relationship of Existence to itself, so we take Existence to mean an action directed at itself, and we get:

Existence exists is Nonexistence

How can we interpret this? I interpret it that the fact that "Existence exists" is itself enough proof that it is also Nonexistence. I mentioned earlier that the context in this case will become the content (and vice versa), since there is nothing beyond Existence (literally). This means that Nonexistence can only be within Existence or be itself Nonexistence, since we cannot differentiate where exactly this Nonexistence is (i.e., everywhere). Existence is everywhere and Nonexistence is everywhere. With the help of the formula, we have to conclude that they are the same. However, what we have forgotten is that we have just formed a new concept, which is not mere Existence or Existence exists. I call this concept APEIRON.

 

My second operation:

To comprehend APEIRON, we have to first really comprehend Nonexistence (since you already comprehend Existence by itself sufficiently, I think). In order to understand how Nonexistence is a true concept, we need to look at the right, contextual side of the Model (notice that these are also all spacetimes, but they are specific and relative to specific existents). The concepts I am referring to are, in sequence and with some pertinent, additional information in parentheses: (subatomic) Void, (atomic) Field, (crystal) Structure, Cytoplasm, (cellular) Matrix, (bio) Pulse, (bio-field) Aura, Environment, Nature, World, (solar) System, Nebula, Cosmos, (universal) Vacuum, Ratium, Limits, and (Nonexistence).

 

I suppose that the two concepts to help you at least visually comprehend the conceptual nature of Nonexistence are: Void and Vacuum. I want to stress that these are not Nonexistence nor are they the most related concepts to it. In fact, these are merely two out of 16 contextual concepts that relate Nonexistence to Existence internally. I picked them for an illustration in hopes that they will suffice.

 

Operation three:

For simplicity, I will drop the concept of time from spacetime and will only concentrate on space. I want you to see how Void and Vacuum are differentiated. Void is the context of Particle. Virtual particles, bosons, and photons interact with or through Void. The area of Void is limited to Particle(s). It is a part of Vacuum on the subatomic scale. Now, expand the space in your mind and see in your mind how Vacuum is the space of the Universe, which had a source in Vacuum. Although both of the concepts--Void and Vacuum--are similar in terms of content, they are vastly different in terms of space. That's because they are relational concepts. Void relates particles, and Vacuum relates universes (imagine that there are many). Now think of all universes that existed, exist, or will ever exist. In such expansive context, we have absolute everything in Nonexistence.

 

To summarize:

The concepts of the Model on the left side refer to existents that exist in contextual spacetime, which is formulated by the concepts on the right side of the Model. The left side is summed in Existence, the right side is summed in Nonexistence. The right side concepts help in integrating with the left side concepts to end up, with the ultimate integration, in APEIRON. Now you see how spacetime is also a "part" of absolute everything even though spacetime is not a "thing."

 

Do you have any questions, comments, concerns?

[dream_weaver]

Seeing existence as a concept is easy enough. One only need recognize the fact that Ayn Rand eloquently stated in ITOE 6:

The units of the concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist. 

 

The Conceptual Common Denominator, is Ayn Rand's designation (creation, if you will.). You might want to consider her input on the matter relating it to existence, also from ITOE 6:

Since axiomatic concepts are not formed by differentiating one group of existents from others, but represent an integration of all existents, they have no Conceptual Common Denominator with anything else.

 

As to not viewing nonexistence as a concept, have you considered how she identified how it might be derived from existence, also from ITOE 6:

It may be said that existence can be differentiated from non-existence; but non-existence is not a fact, it is the absence of a fact, it is a derivative concept pertaining to a relationship, i.e., a concept which can be formed or grasped only in relation to some existent that has ceased to exist.

 

Non-existence as such is a zero with no sequence of numbers to follow it, it is the nothing, the total blank.

 

Last I checked, proofs are based on facts, not non-facts. In the spirit Sgt. Joe Friday (Jack Webb, Dragnet) - Just the facts, please.

[Eiuol]

The formula cannot have "⊆" since there is no superset to Existence. Existence is the ultimate superset.

 

 

Yes, and stop there for now! Look at what you wrote here. Then see how it connects with what dream_weaver quoted from ITOE.

[Spiral Architect]

How do you identify something? Where does it exist? When does it exist? How does it exist? You answer on none of these questions. You omit the concept of nothing. You never understood reality or the nature of sensation. How do you identify things in reality? I will tell you how. Photons from physical reality enter your retina and you can see! You literally see spacetime; photons are spacetime. The end result is so you can see.

 

I’m not answering questions that do not need to be asked.  They come after you establish Existence exists, which you insisted is incomplete.

 

Again, I don’t care about Space Time.  I want to know why you think there is more to existence and that existence exists which you said is “incomplete”.

 

You did not perceive this assertion by photons from non-existence entering your retina so you could see nothing.

 

You developed this idea on your own.  What are you using Objectivist terminology to justify? 

 

You are going someplace with this argument and I want to know the end game. 

Edited July 1, 2014 by Spiral Architect

[Plasmatic]

Illya said:

n=n+1, where n is a level. Cn 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.

Is there anybody in this forum who can tell me WTF he just said? It sounds like he wants to say mystics transcend one "reality" for a "new" one.

Illya said:

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.

Dictionaries don't tell you how to use words in a semantically useful way..... Its you who have no idea how to speak meaningfully, about "space-time" or otherwise. I comprehend that you are talking nonsense about "nothing".

Illya said:

For you convenience (and in hope that you can understand concepts expressed in English language and using the spacetime of this post):

What is your string of symbols supposed to convey a model of?

Example :

Donkeys-caution

Love-quad

Intricate-motivated

Blink- innocent

Geography- absent

Shape-posterity

I just used a bunch of english words you can find in a dictionary.... Tell me what my model is about....

Illya said:

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

Context dropping irrelevant response.

Edit: because we all know "existence exist" wrote ITOE....

Illya said:

I don't know a physical reality where things exist independent from spacetime.

Question begging. Ive already told you that "space-time" is a mathematical model which doesn't even have an agreed upon interpretation by physicist. Whats more is almost none of the people actually discussing the relevant issue in this debate can tell how mathematics relates to reality.....

Illya said:

Until you prove otherwise, your metaphysical reality is as good as "spiritual-conceptual" of the theologists. Remember that they are also called metaphysicians.

By those who don't know what "metaphysical" means. For Oist it means "pertaining to objective reality-existence" theologians don't study objective existence they study fantasies of mystics.

Illya said:

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

Another example of you equivocating and imputing you confusion to someone else. Again you appear to mean epistemological by "metaphysical". This whole business seems to turn on you desire to promote a "non material"-spiritual ontology.....

Ilya said:

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.

I really don't understand what this has to do with science and philosophy? Man is a species of the genus animal. In this context mans body is a species of the genus attribute... Civilization and industry are a species of several genus... And thats one thing you miss. What context are we referring to?

Illya said:

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.

Nowhere did I claim "space-time" does not exist! Mathematical expressions exist like any other epistemelogical tool of method.... But you obviously want them to be a platonic form of transcendent ideals.....

Stop ignoring the actual debate over the ontology of mind....it would help if you didn't fill every response strawmen....

Illya said:

Spacetime is a concept that you are unable to integrate.

You are unable to integrate the fact that we have two different views of concepts and particularly concepts of mathematics-method.... Edited July 1, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

Illya said:

He meant "man" as a mental entity.

No, he meant man as a metaphysical entity....Rand retracted the use of "entity" to refer to mental existents... Edited July 1, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

ITOE said:

When you have formed the

concept of "concept," that is a mental

something; it isn't a nothing. But anything

pertaining to the content of a mind always

has to be treated metaphysically not as a

separate existent, but only with this

precondition, in effect: that it is a mental

state, a mental concrete, a mental something.

Actually, "mental something" is the nearest

to an exact identification. Because "entity"

does imply a physical thing. Nevertheless,

since "something" is too vague a term, one

can use the word "entity," but only to say that

it is a mental something as distinguished

from other mental somethings (or from

nothing). But it isn't an entity in the primary,

Aristotelian sense in which a primary

substance exists.

[Plasmatic]

I said:

For you convenience (and in hope that you can understand concepts expressed in English language and using the spacetime of this post):

What is your string of symbols supposed to convey a model of?

Example :

Donkeys-caution

Love-quad

Intricate-motivated

Blink- innocent

Geography- absent

Shape-posterity

I just used a bunch of english words you can find in a dictionary.... Tell me what my model is about....

Before I got to post # 139. I responded to the post the quotes came from (where I left off with him) before continuing in the thread.

Now I see he made a post attempting to clarify his "model" and what the sides of the model are supposed to be...given that the "model" demonstrates that he has no idea that a CCD doesn't apply to axioms, etc. its only more obvious that his model is nonsense.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Ilya Startsev]

I have already reviewed on this thread and corrected those passages from ITOE that all of you mentioned. For even more, you can check 54 comments (so far and more is coming) on specific passages from ITOE here: https://www.facebook.com/ilya.startsev/posts/10203282585578883.

I have shown the conceptual nature of APEIRON along with the nonlinear formulas, but I have not shown how it can be viewed logically. The issue of your non/misunderstanding is that you linearize the formulas incorrectly. You know the two-valued logic, but here we are dealing with the infinity-valued logic. In other words, it is a logic that has infinitely many logical values (and what I mean by infinite is not merely unbounded, but a true mathematical infinity). Either all of them are true and it's the absolute truth and objectivity, or all of them are false and it's the absolute relativity and subjectivity. Since you already saw the conceptual grounds of my Model and how all concepts relate contextually, I would rather keep you in the first than have you fall off at the second. Before we go on, let me have a purview of your logic.

Ayn Rand wrote in ITOE (1990:120): "whether it is concepts of outside existents or of one’s own consciousness, the concepts always refer to some facts which one is conceptualizing, and never to one’s method or process." Your "method or process" is your two-valued logic with its main law "A is A." It is honestly surprising and unbelievable that you could reach the fact of Existence or, more so, "Existence exists" with your logic. Although there are many black holes and other various singularities that you ignored (or even created) along the way, you indeed reached your end, and the means justified it. Kudos to the genius and perseverance of Ayn Rand. Yes, I have shown that you can go beyond Existence, without merely repeating it an infinite amount of times (Existence exists, exists, exists, etc.). However, for the new feat, you need another, more complex logic. After all, I am showing you a logical way, not some drunken trickery.

Let us return to the formula then. In the infinity-valued logic, it can be viewed in the following two ways:
1) Existence is infinitely and eternally the same as Nonexistence. To linearize this properly into the two-valued logic, we will have: A is A. Remember that this is APEIRON, and that you cannot see the two sides around it. They are absolutely the same when you are looking at APEIRON from outside of APEIRON. APEIRON never changes and can never be corrected.
2) Existence is infinitely and eternally distinct from Nonexistence. To linearize this properly into the two-valued logic, we will have A is not ~A. This is when you look inside APEIRON, that is, when you look specifically in the Model. All you see then are various absolute differences that can be changed or corrected if needed.

To summarize:
What we have done is linearize the nonlinear, infinity-valued formula of APEIRON to show how concepts are related "of" the Model and in the Model.

 

EDIT: Then, APEIRON can be defined only in one of three ways: 1) absolute everything and absolute nothing (perceptual integration, along with "those other" concepts, directly into this new concept); 2) the Model (all the concepts in it, 32 total); 3) the final formula in the Theory of Nested Concepts.

 

What is your string of symbols supposed to convey a model of?

It conveys a model of concepts where concepts are not mere dictionary definitions but are actually conceptualized from their position in the Model and relation to other concepts in the Model.

 

Example :

Donkeys-caution

Love-quad

Intricate-motivated

Blink- innocent

Geography- absent

Shape-posterity

I just used a bunch of english words you can find in a dictionary.... Tell me what my model is about....

Let me state this fact: you are unable to create a model because you do not have a concept of "context" in your head. You merely have perceptions taken from a dictionary. Learn to grasp concepts. I always thought that that's what true Objectivism is about, but you don't get it.

 

"space-time" is a mathematical model which doesn't even have an agreed upon interpretation by physicist

Yes, it does. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity. Find a single instance when a beable is mentioned there. Therefore, do not confuse it with "beables," which are non-scientific. "Beables" would be context-dropping.

 

how mathematics relates to reality

It's not merely the issue of mathematics and Science here. You simply cannot use the method of visualization of mathematical geometrics in your mind. I suggest you work on imagination to be able to grasp what true math and Science are about (hint: it's not just numbers).

 

Man is a species of the genus animal. In this context mans body is a species of the genus attribute...

It's not so simple in today's (21st century) world anymore. Check on the interpretation of man with transhumanists and see whether your interpretations match. If they do, you are both wrong. You are missing one crucial organ: the heart. The perceptions of man, civilization, and industry are changing, we are getting more facts, more technologies to change our concepts. Therefore, you need to grasp that there are new perceptions and therefore reintegrate them to create new concepts. Every person needs to create his or her own concepts and not depend on concepts, or definitions, of others.

 

Civilization and industry are a species of several genus... And thats one thing you miss. What context are we referring to?

The context where civilization and industry exist, of course! What do you understand by context? Some "metaphysical" entity that has nothing to do with the actual reality of right now? Dictionary definitions are not real life. Of course, you can keep switching contexts all you want, and there is only nothing that can stop you.

 

You are unable to integrate the fact that we have two different views of concepts and particularly concepts of mathematics-method...

Do you even know mathematics? Have you studied it or just learned some numbers and formulas and then forgot them after exams?

 

Illya said:

No, he meant man as a metaphysical entity....Rand retracted the use of "entity" to refer to mental existents...

Hold here. Stop. Explain to me the difference between a mental entity in Objectivism and a metaphysical entity in Objectivism. I always thought they were the same, since they are both in a mind.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

he has no idea that a CCD doesn't apply to axioms

The Conceptual Common Denominator, is Ayn Rand's designation (creation, if you will.). You might want to consider her input on the matter relating it to existence, also from ITOE 6:

Since axiomatic concepts are not formed by differentiating one group of existents from others, but represent an integration of all existents, they have no Conceptual Common Denominator with anything else.

Nonexistence is not anything. It is absolute nothing. My treatment of CCD matches what Rand meant by it. I did not differentiate an existent from another existent. I differentiated the ultimate existent from itself.

[Plasmatic]

Illya said:

 

 

However, for the new feat, you need another, more complex logic. After all, I am showing you a logical way, not some drunken trickery.
 

 

 

Like I told you before you are wasting your time. Your whole model involves the irrationality of multi valued logic and the reification of the concept non existence. No sane Objectivist will accept these premises for discussion. In objectivism an invalid concept invalidate all of the things that are predicated on them.

 

 

Illya said:

 

 

It conveys a model of concepts where concepts are not mere dictionary definitions but are actually conceptualized from their position in the Model and relation to other concepts in the Model.

 

Concepts are to be reduced to their tie to perception, dictionary or otherwise. Your concepts are invalid and therefore your model.

 

 

Illya said:

 

 

Let me state this fact: you are unable to create a model because you do not have a concept of "context" in your head. You merely have perceptions taken from a dictionary. Learn to grasp concepts. I always thought that that's what true Objectivism is about, but you don't get it.

 

You are confused about what context is. You want it to mean the nothing that things are differentiated from. Context is always of existence, that is, of things, not no-things. The "space" between the letters in this post is filled with actual things of a different color.

 

Illya said:

 

 

Yes, it does. See this: http://en.wikipedia....eral_relativity. Find a single instance when a beable is mentioned there. Therefore, do not confuse it with "beables," which are non-scientific. "Beables" would be context-dropping.

 

Ah yes, Wikipedia is the scientific repository of the "consensus"......

 

Guess you wont find the work of David Bohm, J.S. Bell: http://prac.us.edu.pl/~ztpce/QM/Bell_beables.pdf, or Travis Norsen; http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.4553 scientific... you can always just read the Wiki I guess.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tnorsen/Sandbox/Beables

 

Illya said:

 

It's not merely the issue of mathematics and Science here. You simply cannot use the method of visualization of mathematical geometrics in your mind. I suggest you work on imagination to be able to grasp what true math and Science are about (hint: it's not just numbers).

 

 

 

 I cannot imagine nothing and multivalued logic as metaphysical existents....Before you get to higher math you need to learn how to form a valid concept Illya....

 

 

Illya said:

 

 

It's not so simple in today's (21st century) world anymore. Check on the interpretation of man with transhumanists and see whether your interpretations match. If they do, you are both wrong. You are missing one crucial organ: the heart. The perceptions of man, civilization, and industry are changing, we are getting more facts, more technologies to change our concepts. Therefore, you need to grasp that there are new perceptions and therefore reintegrate them to create new concepts. Every person needs to create his or her own concepts and not depend on concepts, or definitions, of others

 

Yes because in the 20th century everyone just knew man didn't have a heart........lol

 

Illya said:

 

 

Do you even know mathematics? Have you studied it or just learned some numbers and formulas and then forgot them after exams?

 

Im talking about the epistemology involved in the cognition of mathematics, not field equations and metric tensors.

 

Illya said:

 

 

 

What do you understand by context? Some "metaphysical" entity that has nothing to do with the actual reality of right now? Dictionary definitions are not real life. Of course, you can keep switching contexts all you want, and there is only nothing that can stop you.......Hold here. Stop. Explain to me the difference between a mental entity in Objectivism and a metaphysical entity in Objectivism. I always thought they were the same, since they are both in a mind.

 

 

Finally you catch up! Metaphysical does not mean "in the mind" I have already explained this to you. The section in Borders called "metaphysics" is filled with mystical new age garbage because of the effect the Positivist left on philosophy of saying anything that wasn't "observation language"( perceptual) was meaningless. This made "metaphysics" a pejorative categorization of concepts of consciousness as unscientific to them.

 

This is not what the rest of the philosophical world means by metaphysics. You mean by "metaphysical" what Oism means by epistemological.(pertaining to and dependent on consciousness)

 

Searle makes the more clear distinction of "ontologically objective" and "ontologically subjective", "epistemically subjective" and "ontologically subjective"...see Mind, Language and Society...

 

     The pain in my toe is ontologically subjective, but the statement
     "JRS now has a pain in his toe" is not epistemically subjective. It
     is a simple matter of (epistemically) objective fact, not a matter
     of (epistemically) subjective opinion. So the fact that
     consciousness has a subjective mode of existence does not prevent
     us from having an objective science of consciousness.

 

 

Illya said:

 

 

Nonexistence is not anything. It is absolute nothing. My treatment of CCD matches what Rand meant by it. I did not differentiate an existent from another existent. I differentiated the ultimate existent from itself.

 

Yeah because existence is not just, not similar to itself, it is actually different enough from itself to provide its own context for differentiation.... This is an example of "rationalism at the ridiculous stage"..... I'm starting to consider that you are more than just confused.

 

 

In summary, unless you repudiate the invalid concepts of reified "non existence", multivalued logic, metaphysical singularities, generally equivocating just about all the main concepts that would form the topic of you thread with other concepts, there really isn't much common ground to share for the premise of this discussion.

 

 

Edit I'm curious, if I told you I have a model based on Oism for the creation of round cubes from -20 amount of 5 sided triangles, how would you respond?

Edited July 1, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

I differentiated the ultimate existent from itself.

Differentiation REQUIRES two or more entities, or terms if you want to be picky. It is at least BINARY operation! You can't compare something to ITSELF. What's bigger: an elephant or an elephant? Formally, can X be bigger than X? This is basic logic here, this isn't even about Objectivism. Comparisons are NOT unary operations by definition. 

 

Caps for emphasis. If that doesn't clear it up, you really need a course on logic.