“You keep viewing space as bound locations . . .”
because isn’t that what it is?
If that is not what you are talking about, then we aren’t talking about the same thing when we say “space”.
“but space is a lot more than that.”
Go for it, what is the additional or other stuff you refer to when you say “space”?
“Einstein integrated Space and Time and now we have a spacetime continuum.”
Pretty sure that the claim is he discovered that they were already integrated, not that he integrated them.
“Also, what I meant by Environment is a dynamic relationship that you experience with it, not something that restricts you in any way.”
Could you give me an example or two of what you would consider to be “restricting you” and what this “dynamic relationship” would be like?
“space is not only a location but a distance traveled”
Wouldn’t that distance traveled still just be made of a bunch of locations?
“I am not breaking down the concept of identity.”
I didn’t say you were. In fact, I was saying it can’t be done. That it can’t be done makes it harder for me to try to deal with any misunderstandings of the concept of “identity” than dealing with misunderstanding of other concepts which can be broken down further into other concepts they are composed of.
“I never prohibited a freedom to risk your life at an intersection by ignoring the yellow light.”
Just to be clear, I started off mentioning a case where stopping would be more dangerous than speeding up when the yellow light came on. I wasn’t suggesting recklessness.
“I don’t understand what speed has to do with traffic lights.”
I thought you were interpreting “going slow” as the third option that the yellow light represented between green and red. Otherwise, I have no clue how you think yellow lights are neither/both “one may go” and “one may not go”. All the yellow light is is “one may go” with some additional information about when it will become “one may not go” in the future. That additional information about not going is not making the light somehow be “A” and “Not A” at the same time and in the same sense nor is it making it neither “A” nor “Not A”. Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to consider anything given in addition to “A” to become a new thing which is neither “A” nor “Not A” (or maybe both?), like if I had a teddy bear and a rubber ducky and a teddy bear with a blow torch in its hand I would have “A Teddy bear”, “Not A Teddy Bear”, and then something that is neither a Teddy Bear nor not a Teddy Bear/both a Teddy Bear and not a Teddy bear.
The definition of “greed” has still not been sufficiently clarified for me. I still need to know what standard something is being judged as “excessive” to. In excess of what?
“Taking by force and a desire to take by force is inherent in wealth,”
Oh really? So if I can come up with even one wealthy person that isn’t a thief or aspiring thief you would admit you were wrong? Or would you simply claim that you believe they secretly really wanted to be thieves in spite of having no evidence?
“Force does not have to be direct; it’s simply intended to take something from others.”
I’m already counting lying to trick somebody into buying something they otherwise would not have bought and making threats of coming along and violating a person’s rights if they don’t buy something under the things Objectivism does not support and which are not inherent to wealth and/or free trade. Now, if you mean something else, like calling anything at all that results in one or more people handing something over to another one or more people no matter what the reason they handed it over “force”, then we’ve got a problem. Your use of the term would include both things we already do not support (theft, fraud) and things we are not opposed to. We know why we oppose theft and fraud already, but you’d need to explain why you believe all those other things are bad too.
Yup, I’ll check that other thread out. This thread is still for discussing all the other stuff that has come up, right?
Here is a definition of space in Mathematics: “a system of objects with relations between the objects defined” (dictionary.com). In other words, space is not a point but at least a segment that consists of two points. Einstein discovered but also integrated spacetime in our minds. Besides, he discovered it by a thought experiment and was later proven correct by physical evidence. An immovable particle (think of a point) has a location but does not have space. Once there is a distance traveled we have space, and imagine how much of it is in our bodies.
Concerning dynamic relationships, Body takes in many things from its Environment. We consume liquids and solid food (whether minerals, nutrients, carbonaceous or some other organic compounds, etc), we breathe in air (oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, argon, etc.), we absorb reflected light (photons), and we share in electromagnetic fields and spacetime (including gravity). These are the types of interactions we have with our natural environments. Artificial environments restrict us because we are not getting the aforementioned interactions directly from our own natural environments. Hence the restrictions of civilization that ultimately will transform humankind into artificial transhumans.
The reason I say that yellow light is neither “go” nor “not go” is because under different conditions there are different answers. You started by saying that it is “go,” and my grandpa said that it is “not go.” Who is right? Neither one specifically, but both. You are correct in considering that anything in addition to “A,” if it’s inseparable from it, is also “not A.” But this logic breaks down in this area, so integrating it cannot be done by a black and white identity mechanic. It is grey because once you try to separate the colors, you get gibberish, like in your teddy bear example. Although the teddy bear example is taken to an extreme, let’s still try to solve it. I use identity associations. Here is how I look at it: you have a teddy bear, a rubber ducky, and another teddy bear with a blow torch, and they are all toys, but two teddy bears are more similar than a rubber ducky but they are different at the same time. There is no continuum here like in a color spectrum example, so there is nothing to integrate, just to see how things are the same and/or different at the same time. However, if the second teddy bear held a smaller rubber ducky, which we would give an equal importance as the other rubber ducky, we could then say that that teddy bear is both “A” and “not A,” but I don’t see a point in doing these types of examples unless to go insane.
Wealth divides people and thus divides the whole world. You cannot make wealth (energy) out of nothing. There is always someone who suffers for it because of your taking. The perpetuation of wealth (greed) only leads to more energetic imbalance worldwide. America is #1 not just because it is the best, but because it is the best at taking energy and resources (including humans) from other countries. It is a form of vampirism. The new thread on this topic is posted in Debate Forums: Integrating Wealth and Health. You can still use this thread for the other stuff, but I would advise against it, since discussions with me are somewhat taboo on these forums, and although you don’t get any of the negativity - I do, and all the repugnance directed against me does hurt me inside, so that I try sometimes to avoid your forums and wish that you would not reply, so I don’t have to. You see, I am as if cursed with all my opinions and beliefs because I know that people hate them, but I cannot let them go because that’s how I feel - I feel that they are right, and if I lose the feeling, I would be very unhappy.