Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Jose

Ayn Rand's Popcorn-tradiction.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jose said:

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.

Damn. I wanted to know what the "or" was going to be.

Jose, it's very hard to take you seriously when you misspell "physics" twice the same exact way. Do you have a spell checker? What's going on, dude? If you pay this little attention to your public writing, I fear for your ability to focus on something as complex as relativity and quantum mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Jose, it's very hard to take you seriously when you misspell "physics" twice the same exact way. Do you have a spell mchecker? What's going on, dude? If you pay this little attention to your public writing, I fear for your ability to focus on something as complex as relativity and quantum mechanics.

My spelling is irrelevant to the fact that the physicist agree that it is a contradiction that we need to deal with in real life and that contradicts one of the principles of Objectivism, but you are using my spelling as an excuse to do not engage on the real issue.

BTW I'm still waiting for answers from StrictlyLogical and dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jose said:

the physicist agree that it is a contradiction

No, they don't. You haven't offered one article or paper supporting your assertion. And you ignored the link I provided to a reasonable explanation of quantum entanglement. Also, there is a difference between disproving a theory (nothing can travel faster than light) and proving a contradiction (FTL travel is both possible and impossible). You can find physicists who believe in FTL travel, but they typically argue that Einstein was wrong (or some physical law is wrong), not that they've discovered a contradiction in nature.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Well, what’s wrong with what I ACTUALLY said?

I understand it that under Objectivism you cannot have contradiction. And you said

 

On 7/9/2019 at 4:19 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

Contradictions are possible 

AND

RAND IS RIGHT that “contradictions are impossible”

I do not understand what you mean so I'm just asking what you mean. Because what you said is that contradictions are possible and impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quantum

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

No, they don't. You haven't offered one article or paper supporting your assertion. And you ignored the link I provided to a reasonable explanation of quantum entanglement. Also, there is a difference between disproving a theory (nothing can travel faster than light) and proving a contradiction (FTL travel is both possible and impossible). You can find physicists who believe in FTL travel, but they typically argue that Einstein was wrong (or some physical law is wrong), not that they've discovered a contradiction in nature.

Here is your link https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427174/einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-paradox-older-than-thought/ The link you provide talks about quantum  hidden variables. This and your comment that you having no idea what "spooky action at distant" advertise your knowledge of physics. Here is a link for hidden variables http://www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol-2/Do-hidden-variables-exist-for-quantum-systems.html

Based on this definition of contradiction what I point is a contradiction https://www.dictionary.com/browse/contradiction More of physicists can think that FTL is possible but if they cannot provide a theory of how it is done it is just an idea, not a part of the physical knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jose said:

This and your comment that you having no idea what "spooky action at distant"

That's not what I said. I asked you how it was a contradiction. Then you admitted that it wasn't. So now you're trying to put words in my mouth, which is yet another annoying problem you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jose said:

I do not understand what you mean so I'm just asking what you mean. Because what you said is that contradictions are possible and impossible.

It sounded like he meant that contradictions are possible (within one's mind as ideas) and that Rand is right that contradictions are impossible (in reality outside of your mind).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

It sounded like he meant that contradictions are possible (within one's mind as ideas) and that Rand is right that contradictions are impossible (in reality outside of your mind).

 

No Louie, I'm sensing something here and wish to investigate...

 

 

TO JOSE:

I'm making a proposition that the following statements A and B are BOTH true.

 

A. Contradictions in reality are possible.

AND

B. RAND was RIGHT that “contradictions in reality are impossible”

 

Do you agree that the proposition that A and B are BOTH true is a possible state of the universe?  YES or NO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

That's not what I said. I asked you how it was a contradiction. Then you admitted that it wasn't. So now you're trying to put words in my mouth, which is yet another annoying problem you have.

 

On 7/9/2019 at 9:56 PM, MisterSwig said:

How is action at a distance a contradiction?

If you said that the spooky action as a distance what is spooky with distance, it said that you are not acquainted with the most famous paradox on physics right now.

On 7/9/2019 at 10:09 PM, 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'm quoting what I said ... I'm curious how do you interpret what I said as meaning that it wasn't. Also can you point on an instance where I put words in your mouth? I agree that it is very annoying and I try to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 9:10 PM, Jose said:

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

Then your telling me there is nothing to see here. Let's pack up our popcorn and go home.

You have "may be's" and "might be's" and "actually do not know's" and "uncertainly's" (presumably its a typo, which you will find in the Guidelines you agreed to signing up for this forum:

Improper grammar, spelling, punctuation, and style

Participants agree to respect the reader by following the rules of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and style. An egregious example is failure to capitalize proper names -- for instance, writing "objectivism" when referring to Ayn Rand's philosophy; the correct form is "Objectivism." 1

and other than demonstrate that an epistemological housecleaning may be in order, what did you sign up for? Maid service? Are you offering to help?

 

1. "objectivist" versus "Objectivist".

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

Let's pack up our popcorn and go home.

Yes do. Life is full of uncertainty for you to handle ... As an example the Guidelines do not tell us where shall we find the grammar, spelling, punctuation and style ... shall we use USA or Britain or something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

No Louie, I'm sensing something here and wish to investigate...

 

 

TO JOSE:

I'm making a proposition that the following statements A and B are BOTH true.

 

A. Contradictions in reality are possible.

AND

B. RAND was RIGHT that “contradictions in reality are impossible”

 

Do you agree that the proposition that A and B are BOTH true is a possible state of the universe?  YES or NO?

Yes, I think that they are not possible, but you have to accept that reality is not an absolute. If you accept that contradictions are possible you have to accept that the context (the worldview) where preposition A and preposition B are different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jose said:

Also can you point on an instance where I put words in your mouth?

Nevermind. I think I understand what you meant to say.

7 hours ago, Jose said:

I'm curious how do you interpret what I said as meaning that it wasn't.

First you said that the contradiction was the "spooky action at a distance." Then you said it wasn't the distance, but the speed. I was trying to pinpoint what exactly you took to be the contradiction, because I've never heard a physicist call the spooky action a contradiction. They say it's a mystery, or offer some theory, but who actually says there is a real contradiction? Anyway, I'm going to say goodbye now. It's been interesting. Good luck with your proof!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

"spooky action at a distance."

I call it with this name because is the well known name. When it was first proposed was a paradox, it was state by Einstein to say that quantum physics was wrong. Good bye, and good luck on your logical bubble. BTW never look if inductive reasoning is resistant to contradictions or not. Nor try to look at first degree entailment logic.

Edited by Jose
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jose said:

Yes, I think that they are not possible, but you have to accept that reality is not an absolute. If you accept that contradictions are possible you have to accept that the context (the worldview) where preposition A and preposition B are different.

Whether or not you wish to call reality an absolute or non-absolute, the ULTIMATE context of A is the same as the ULTIMATE context of B, which is reality.

You said that you proved Rand was wrong, and you did so by making the claim that "contradictions are possible" thereby "refuting" the principle that contradictions are impossible.  This is exactly how you made your argument in the OP.

According to the logic of your so called proof, you cannot disprove the claim that A and B are BOTH true, which is why you are evading and avoiding directly addressing it.

Since you imagine a universe with multiple "contexts" let's TRY AGAIN:

 

1.  Rand is correct that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

AND

2.  Rand is incorrect that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

 

Do you agree that the proposition that 1 and 2 are BOTH true is a possible state of the universe?  YES or NO? and WHY?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Whether or not you wish to call reality an absolute or non-absolute, the ULTIMATE context of A is the same as the ULTIMATE context of B, which is reality.

You said that you proved Rand was wrong, and you did so by making the claim that "contradictions are possible" thereby "refuting" the principle that contradictions are impossible.  This is exactly how you made your argument in the OP.

According to the logic of your so called proof, you cannot disprove the claim that A and B are BOTH true, which is why you are evading and avoiding directly addressing it.

Since you imagine a universe with multiple "contexts" let's TRY AGAIN:

 

1.  Rand is correct that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

AND

2.  Rand is incorrect that in reality "contradictions are impossible"

 

Do you agree that the proposition that 1 and 2 are BOTH true is a possible state of the universe?  YES or NO? and WHY?

 

Yes they can be true but then you have to use some not traditional logic, like Catuskoti.  What answer are you looking for?  You seem to be very invested on me asking about 1 and 2.

I just prove that the premise "All contradictions are impossible" is false by finding an example of a contradiction.

My method is valid, if no how can you prove that "All contradictions are impossible" is false ... having a premise that cannot being prove wrong (by prove is having an experiment that can have a result that if so the premise is false, for example an experiment for gravity is that if I left something without forces interacting with it, it will float. This will never happen but it is a scientific fact because you can do the experiment) relying in infallible premise is a hallmark of pseudoscience ... in other words closer to healing crystals than to logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jose said:

I just prove that the premise "All contradictions are impossible" is false by finding an example of a contradiction.

How does "finding an example of a contradiction" constitute PROOF that "all contradictions are impossible" is FALSE? 

 

What if I say, SURE, I accept that you've found an example of a contradiction AND I claim "all contradictions are impossible" is STILL true.

Can you "prove" me wrong?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

How does "finding an example of a contradiction" constitute PROOF that "all contradictions are impossible" is FALSE? 

 

What if I say, SURE, I accept that you've found an example of a contradiction AND I claim "all contradictions are impossible" is STILL true.

Can you "prove" me wrong?

 

That is the way traditional logic works ...  let me explain it to you. From your post 1=~2 if both are true you end up with true=false, we will have the same problem if both are false I let you to a Strict Logic decide what to do with it. This is true no matter the subject of 1 or 2. It can be about contradiction or color of cars, or anything else.

You are set that this is not the case because (1) and (2) are about contradiction. I ask you for the third time, if that is the case how can you prove that (1) is not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jose said:

That is the way traditional logic works ...  let me explain it to you. From your post 1=~2 if both are true you end up with true=false, we will have the same problem if both are false I let you to a Strict Logic decide what to do with it. This is true no matter the subject of 1 or 2. It can be about contradiction or color of cars, or anything else.

You are set that this is not the case because (1) and (2) are about contradiction. I ask you for the third time, if that is the case how can you prove that (1) is not true.

 

7 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What if I say, SURE, I accept that you've found an example of a contradiction AND I claim "all contradictions are impossible" is STILL true.

 Can you "prove" me wrong?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What if I say, SURE, I accept that you've found an example of a contradiction AND I claim "all contradictions are impossible" is STILL true.

 Can you "prove" me wrong?

Let me reword what you are saying and correct me if I'm not understanding you correctly: "What if I say SURE I accept your example that ~A is true AND I claim A is STILL true.

Can you "prove" me wrong?"

That is the reason I keep asking you what is the conditions that will satisfy you that "all contradictions are impossible" is false but you do not answer. What I fear is that the logical system that you are using is no falsifiable, which made it a pseudoscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jose said:

Let me reword what you are saying and correct me if I'm not understanding you correctly: "What if I say SURE I accept your example that ~A is true AND I claim A is STILL true.

Can you "prove" me wrong?"

That is the reason I keep asking you what is the conditions that will satisfy you that "all contradictions are impossible" is false but you do not answer. What I fear is that the logical system that you are using is no falsifiable, which made it a pseudoscience.

You claim to have a superior logical system to mine or at least you “fear” my logic is wrong... well here is your opportunity, teach me, teach us all. Please do, I’m asking you.

You say:

17 hours ago, Jose said:

I just prove that the premise "All contradictions are impossible" is false by finding an example of a contradiction

For the first lesson, explain how “finding an example of a contradiction” proves the premise “all contradictions are impossible” is false. Don’t worry about my inferior logic; please show us using your logic and keep it simple and clear so we can all follow and understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

You claim to have a superior logical system to mine or at least you “fear” my logic is wrong... well here is your opportunity, teach me, teach us all. Please do, I’m asking you.

Well, if tear that your logic leads to some premises that cannot be falsified. I fear this is the case for the premise "All contradictions are false" you do not have a way to prove wrong ... I'm not claiming that if the such prove is not possible  you will have what will happen with pseudoscience. The fact that you will not answer my question makes me thing that this is the case.

I said that my prove was a contradiction, but I was mirroring your speech. I just find an instance where the instance "All contradictions all false" is not true ... so it is not a contradiction.

The way it works is that the statement "All contradictions are X" implies that all contradictions are on a bucket called X, so if a contradiction is find outside X,which is what I did,

You seam that you are set in treating the statement different cause if is about contradiction. If that where true the statement "All proves are wrong" can not be prove wrong since it will rely on a prove that by what we want to prove false are wrong.

I ask you one more time, what should have to happened for the statement "All contradictions are impossible" to be false. I'm not asking for you to prove it wrong, that is why I have the example of gravity if something float then gravity can de wrong, but objects do not float.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jose said:

Well, if tear that your logic leads to some premises that cannot be falsified. I fear this is the case for the premise "All contradictions are false" you do not have a way to prove wrong ... I'm not claiming that if the such prove is not possible  you will have what will happen with pseudoscience. The fact that you will not answer my question makes me thing that this is the case.

I said that my prove was a contradiction, but I was mirroring your speech. I just find an instance where the instance "All contradictions all false" is not true ... so it is not a contradiction.

The way it works is that the statement "All contradictions are X" implies that all contradictions are on a bucket called X, so if a contradiction is find outside X,which is what I did,

You seam that you are set in treating the statement different cause if is about contradiction. If that where true the statement "All proves are wrong" can not be prove wrong since it will rely on a prove that by what we want to prove false are wrong.

I ask you one more time, what should have to happened for the statement "All contradictions are impossible" to be false. I'm not asking for you to prove it wrong, that is why I have the example of gravity if something float then gravity can de wrong, but objects do not float.

 

You

have

proven

nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...