Search the Community

I just now realized that the prompt in the upper right sign-in block raises some metaphysical questions. The prompt is not for "Registered User" or "Approved Customer." It asks if you are an Existing User. Is it not metaphysically impossible to be a non-existing user? And would it not be a logical contradiction to attempt to be an existing non-user if you were using the site at this moment, regardless of your contractual status? For one thing, you can view without signing in. I do that, sometimes, just to see what is happening. And the site software does allow you to log in anonymously, does it not? And if you just view the homepage and click off, you have still used, and are therefore an existing user (of low engagement).

I agree that causality is derived from entities and not linked by events (this mistake led to Hume's skepticism of causality). However, I disagree with what Peikoff said in OPAR: In other words, the possible number of actions of non-conscious entities—to not contradict Objectivism's tenet that human beings are capable of choice between multiple possible actions, I've taken the liberty to specify non-conscious entities—is necessarily one in any given circumstances. How is this validated? I would think that to know how many actions are possible for any entity, conscious or non-conscious, comes much later after discovering these basic axioms/corollaries; it requires study of that entity, and that study requires an accumulation of advanced knowledge. If we can't be certain of how many actions are possible for non-conscious entities in any given circumstances, are there any negative implications that would prevent us from later discovering the answer? An interesting rebuttal is that if there are multiple possible actions in any given circumstances, the entity must choose among these actions; thus, multiple possible actions are only available for conscious entities because it's consciousness that produces multiple possible actions. An example of such entities are human beings, but even I doubt that (see my thread on free will). However, such multiple actions of non-conscious entities can be explained by randomness (e.g. quantum randomness). I know it's said that randomness is actually a limitation in knowledge, but that presupposes that non-conscious entities are limited to one action in any given circumstances. So to maintain this in light of this presupposition is circular.