Jose Posted July 7, 2019 Report Share Posted July 7, 2019 (edited) * * * * * Split from How Best to Attack Ayn Rand's System * * * * * It is even easier to prove And wrong ... in just three steps: 1 Made them agree that a system do not support having contradictions 2 Point to any contradiction in science. Like the one about entitlement and information traveling faster than light 3 Grab popcorn and enjoy watching them strogle Edited July 27, 2019 by dream_weaver Add split notification Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 7, 2019 Report Share Posted July 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Jose said: It is even easier to prove And wrong ... in just three steps: 1 Made them agree that a system do not support having contradictions 2 Point to any contradiction in science. Like the one about entitlement and information traveling faster than light 3 Grab popcorn and enjoy watching them strogle 0. Appear coherent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 7, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2019 47 minutes ago, softwareNerd said: 0. Appear coherent I love when people are as insightful in their comments. If there is something that you do not understand I am more than happy to explain, but if you base your comments in insults they are not helpful to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted July 8, 2019 Report Share Posted July 8, 2019 14 hours ago, Jose said: It is even easier to prove And [Rand] wrong ... in just three [two] steps: 1 Made [Make] them agree that a system do [does] not support having contradictions 2 Point to any contradiction in science. Like the one about entitlement and information traveling faster than light [being both a wave and a particle.] 3 Grab popcorn and enjoy watching them strogle [Edits by Swig] Sorry, I had to edit your post in order to make sense of it. There is still a problem. You haven't proven whether Rand or science is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted July 8, 2019 Report Share Posted July 8, 2019 Perhaps Jose meant to say "entanglement and information..." Jose's reasoning is as follows 1 Rand held that there are no contradictions in reality. 2 modern science proves contradictions are possible hence it is proved by contradiction, that Rand was wrong. Observe that Jose depends on the premise "no contradictions exist in reality" in order to form a proof by contradiction. any proof relying upon this technique presupposes no contradictions... that is how a contradiction proves one of the premises are false. So Jose's proof is relying on a premise he is at once refuting. As such he has to abandon "proof" Rand was wrong... and in fact abandon any kind of proof whatsoever. After all, if contradictions are possible Rand can also be right, in the same respect and at the same time... and no conclusion can be made with any certitude, and certainly not any relying upon a proof by contradiction. Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 8, 2019 Report Share Posted July 8, 2019 On 7/7/2019 at 5:54 PM, Jose said: I love when people are as insightful in their comments. If there is something that you do not understand I am more than happy to explain, but if you base your comments in insults they are not helpful to say the least. I've got my popcorn ready to see what crap you come up with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 13 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said: Jose's reasoning is as follows 1 Rand held that there are no contradictions in reality. 2 modern science proves contradictions are possible hence it is proved by contradiction, that Rand was wrong. A technical point: he did not say that science proves the possibility of contradictions. He said that there are contradictions in science, which I take as merely his interpretation of the science. Does that affect your position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 I did not that. I said that the systems can have contradictions and still be valid. Also I did not use contradiction on my proof. Using symbolic logic: (all) AB ..........(1) Where A is valid system B is does not have contradiction. So if is prove that exist one valid system that allow contradiction (1) is false. In other words if (exist) A~B is true then (1) is false. (exist) A~B is science and the contradiction is the spooky action at distance. So my prof does use contradiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 11 hours ago, Jose said: (exist) A~B is true then (1) is false. The only reason proof by counterexample is valid is that it is a contradiction for a claim to both be universally true and have counterexamples. Quote the contradiction is the spooky action at distance. If the law of non-contradiction is false, the scientists cannot know that spooky action at a distance exists. The experiments proving spooky action at a distance and the non-existence of spooky action at a distance could just be a true contradiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 2 hours ago, William O said: The only reason proof by counterexample is valid is that it is a contradiction for a claim to both be universally true and have counterexamples. If the law of non-contradiction is false, the scientists cannot know that spooky action at a distance exists. The experiments proving spooky action at a distance and the non-existence of spooky action at a distance could just be a true contradiction. My prof is not by contradiction, you need to review your logic. From Wikipedia "In logic and mathematics proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that assuming the proposition to be false leads to a contradiction." which is not what my prof does ... it shows the existence of just one example that it is not possible to exist for the statement. What you said on your second paragraph is what I wanted to said about fallibility ... it is not a valid position say "The opposite exist therefore the original position is right" It is like setting up an experiment if the result is A then the theory stands and if it is B the theory does not stand. What you said is like saying because is B then the theory stands. Also to blow your mind there are some experiments proving the spooky action at distance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 20 minutes ago, Jose said: it shows the existence of just one example that it is not possible to exist for the statement. Contradictions ARE possible AND Rand IS right that "contradictions are impossible" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 47 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said: Contradictions ARE possible AND Rand IS right that "contradictions are impossible" So A and ~A are possible where A is saying that A and ~A con possible to coexist? I can see your logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Jose said: So A and ~A are possible where A is saying that A and ~A con possible to coexist? I can see your logic. Could you explain the logic you are seeing for those of us that may not see what you're seeing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 Yes no problem. One of the objectivist principles is that there can not be contradictions, and find a Contradiction just prove objectivist right. Can you explain what you mean that contradiction are possible and impossible? My previous post should say "can not" instead of con. 2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said: Contradictions ARE possible AND Rand IS right that "contradictions are impossible" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 @Jose What, precisely, is the wording of this principle to which you refer, and perhaps a source to aide in adding some context that might help in clarification? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 9, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 35 minutes ago, dream_weaver said: @Jose What, precisely, is the wording of this principle to which you refer, and perhaps a source to aide in adding some context that might help in clarification? Sure ... https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/what-is-objectivism/ look for the paragraph that starts with "Given the many values on which human life and happiness depend" http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/contradictions.html https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ayn_rand_163204 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 It appears that some premises may be in need of your scrupulous checking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted July 9, 2019 Report Share Posted July 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Jose said: Yes no problem. One of the objectivist principles is that there can not be contradictions, and find a Contradiction just prove objectivist right. Can you explain what you mean that contradiction are possible and impossible? My previous post should say "can not" instead of con. I did not say contradictions are possible and not possible I said Contradictions are possible AND RAND IS RIGHT that “contradictions are impossible” THAT is what I said. What is wrong with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, dream_weaver said: It appears that some premises may be in need of your scrupulous checking. That is exactly my point. It my be a premise missing, it might be a contradiction or the problem might be bad formulated. We actually do not know, we need a philosophy that can deal with the uncertainly of the real world, and Objectivism fails to do that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said: I did not say contradictions are possible and not possible I said Contradictions are possible AND RAND IS RIGHT that “contradictions are impossible” THAT is what I said. What is wrong with it? What is the difference from one and the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 23 hours ago, Jose said: (exist) A~B is true then (1) is false. (exist) A~B is science and the contradiction is the spooky action at distance. How is action at a distance a contradiction? If it's not a real contradiction, then your argument is invalid. You still need to prove the existence of a contradiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, MisterSwig said: How is action at a distance a contradiction? If it's not a real contradiction, then your argument is invalid. You still need to prove the existence of a contradiction. The contradiction is not the distance but the speed, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, based on general relativity. But it this case information propagates instantly from one corner of the universe to another ... I did not elaborate on the scenario, because its a very well know one. It was proposed by Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 41 minutes ago, Jose said: But it this case information propagates instantly from one corner of the universe to another I don't think so. How would you respond to this explanation on Reddit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted July 10, 2019 Report Share Posted July 10, 2019 18 hours ago, Jose said: The contradiction is not the distance but the speed, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, based on general relativity. But it this case information propagates instantly from one corner of the universe to another ... I did not elaborate on the scenario, because its a very well know one. It was proposed by Albert Einstein Entanglement does not transfer information in violation of relativity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted July 11, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, Grames said: Entanglement does not transfer information in violation of relativity. Einsten did not agree. I am I way worst at phisycs than he. And I can safely assume that you either claim to know more phisycs than he. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.