The law of casualty of course … But what if all things can potentially “jump out of existence”? The things’ future will then be “random”.
What is the objectivist respons?
Entities cannot existentially ‘jump out of existence’. That is supernatural nonsense.
Futhermore consider what you are saying. It is utter contradiction. You suggest that the entity’s future is then random, but you just said that it has ‘jumped out of existence’. So which is it? It exists or it doesn’t. An entity that doesn’t exist cannot have a future, it doesn’t exist! It has no identity. It isn’t there.
1 Like
Entities cannot existentially ‘jump out of existence’. That is supernatural nonsense.
I don’t know much about physics but isn’t such “jumping” observed in the field of quantum physics?
Futhermore consider what you are saying. It is utter contradiction. You suggest that the entity’s future is then random, but you just said that it has ‘jumped out of existence’. So which is it? It exists or it doesn’t. An entity that doesn’t exist cannot have a future, it doesn’t exist! It has no identity. It isn’t there.
Thanks!
I don’t know much about physics but isn’t such “jumping” observed in the field of quantum physics?
No. Even if a particle disappears from our ability to detect it, that is not existentially going out of existence. Current physics is corrupted by bad philosophy. There’s a lot on this kind of thing within the Objectivist community. David Harriman’s lectures and book are fantastic if you are interested. The key point is that observation requires rational interpretation. Evidence is crucial but without the mind it is just sense data. It is the mind that intergrates and understands what it means.
The law of casualty of course … But what if all things can potentially “jump out of existence”? The things’ future will then be “random”.
What is the objectivist respons?
What does “random” mean in this context? Does it mean something happens with no cause at all?
…Current physics is corrupted by bad philosophy. There’s a lot on this kind of thing within the Objectivist community…
Right! I forgot! Science and reality have to obey Objectivist philosophy, otherwise we just offhandedly dismiss the both of them as having a severe case of bad philosophy.
I don’t actually know anything about physics, but I tend to trust the statements of physicists over the statements of philosophers when it comes to physics. It itches me the wrong way that you’d suggest that physics is “corrupted by bad philosophy.” Physics is corrupted by the choice to use the evidence of reality. Sorry if it doesn’t fall in line with what your philosophy would have you believe.
Right! I forgot! Science and reality have to obey Objectivist philosophy, otherwise we just offhandedly dismiss the both of them as having a severe case of bad philosophy.
It’s more that conclusions made don’t really follow. Someone could say “big bang, therefore something came from nothing”. Well, no, you aren’t even able to make that conclusion since the theory is about the expansion of the universe and doesn’t literally describe the beginning of existence per se. Part of the reason is that “something from nothing” really is incoherent. There’s no evidence to say anything truly appears spontaneously, so to say physics is corrupted by bad philosophy is only to say that physicists make unwarranted conclusions that stem from philosophical errors. It doesn’t mean that the observations are false or bad science even. Of course, saying “it’s bad philosophy” might mean failing to understand the science.
Right! I forgot! Science and reality have to obey Objectivist philosophy, otherwise we just offhandedly dismiss the both of them as having a severe case of bad philosophy.
I don’t actually know anything about physics, but I tend to trust the statements of physicists over the statements of philosophers when it comes to physics. It itches me the wrong way that you’d suggest that physics is “corrupted by bad philosophy.” Physics is corrupted by the choice to use the evidence of reality. Sorry if it doesn’t fall in line with what your philosophy would have you believe.
Philosophy comes prior to science in the hierarchy of knowledge. A proper philosophy is required to interpret your observations. That’s all. No philosophy could invalidate observations but it will definitely affect what conclusions are drawn.
It’s more that conclusions made don’t really follow. Someone could say “big bang, therefore something came from nothing”. Well, no, you aren’t even able to make that conclusion since the theory is about the expansion of the universe and doesn’t literally describe the beginning of existence per se. Part of the reason is that “something from nothing” really is incoherent. There’s no evidence to say anything truly appears spontaneously, so to say physics is corrupted by bad philosophy is only to say that physicists make unwarranted conclusions that stem from philosophical errors. It doesn’t mean that the observations are false or bad science even. Of course, saying “it’s bad philosophy” might mean failing to understand the science.
I don’t have a problem with pointing out flaws in science. But science has a specific method for dealing with errors, and that method works. Bringing your philosophy into it doesn’t help anything. As right as we all may think our philosophies are, there’s currently no great way for reassuring everyone that one particular philosophy is objectively better than all others, so basing scientific contentions on philosophical beliefs is not a very good way to do… well, anything.
I don’t have a problem with pointing out flaws in science. But science has a specific method for dealing with errors, and that method works. Bringing your philosophy into it doesn’t help anything. As right as we all may think our philosophies are, there’s currently no great way for reassuring everyone that one particular philosophy is objectively better than all others, so basing scientific contentions on philosophical beliefs is not a very good way to do… well, anything.
You say science has a specific method for dealing with errors. You are presumably defending the scientific method. If you believe in the scientific method (as I do), that is part of your philosophy, in particular your epistomology. You’re bringing your philosophy “into it” just as much as anyone else. That is because there can be no science without philosophy.
If Objectivism is correct, and at least it’s metaphysics certainly is, then yes, reality must agree with it. Other wise, Objectivism wouldn’t be correct. If science proves that things can contradict their identities, events can happen without cause, that consciousness is the creator of reality and that consciousness doesn’t exist, then Objectivism is wrong. The thing is, the scientific method and it’s practise requires that all of those things not be true. Any conclusion that contradicts the axioms of existence can automatically be dismissed since implicit in the practise of science is the acceptance of those basic axioms. The acceptance of the validity of science is philosophy. You can’t not bring philosophy into science without pulling the rug out from under it.
1 Like
What does “random” mean in this context? Does it mean something happens with no cause at all?
No. It means that if we could not say something about an objects future (because of it’s potentiall to “jump out of existence”), we will experience the object’s future as “random”.
No. It means that if we could not say something about an objects future (because of it’s potentiall to “jump out of existence”), we will experience the object’s future as “random”.
You answered “The law of casualty of course …” to your question of “why cannot the future be random”. The law of causality does not mean that all things are predictable. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, for example, does not violate the law of causality.
As right as we all may think our philosophies are, there’s currently no great way for reassuring everyone that one particular philosophy is objectively better than all others…
There’s no turnkey way for reassuring everyone about *anything*. Some conclusions will be more obvious than others, but all information of all kinds must be validated. Why should philosophy be exempt? Why does it matter how easy it is to “reassuring everyone”? And, to meander down this type of argument on a forum dedicated to a philosophy named after (and dedicated to) the very “reassurance” you’re denying…!
Newsflash, the future doesn’t exist…If the future were to “pop” into existence then it would be the present.
Iudicious, you have no idea what philosophy is…in particular to Oist.
Iudicious, you have no idea what philosophy is…in particular to Oist.
Why? What aspect do you think he gets wrong?
Why? What aspect do you think he gets wrong?
Everything. Nothing he said is consistent with a response based on understanding the foundational aspect of philosophy to any special science.
But science has a specific method for dealing with errors, and that method works. Bringing your philosophy into it doesn’t help anything.
Scientific claims are based on one’s understanding of reality. One’s understanding of reality is philosophy. By philosophy, I don’t mean simply mean random ideas, but philosophy as a field of thought and deeper than mere opinion on life. That makes the scientific method a philosophical belief which scientific contentions are based on. Sometimes bad science is simply bad observations. Other times, bad science is undermining the scientific method or undermining one’s basic observations.
I don’t have a problem with pointing out flaws in science. But science has a specific method for dealing with errors, and that method works. Bringing your philosophy into it doesn’t help anything. As right as we all may think our philosophies are, there’s currently no great way for reassuring everyone that one particular philosophy is objectively better than all others, so basing scientific contentions on philosophical beliefs is not a very good way to do… well, anything.
So why do you believe in science? (I assume you’ll say “because it works”, but how do you know that it works?)