BaalChatzaf

Happy Birth Year to the astronomical telescope

Recommended Posts

He spoke truth to power which remains an inspiration to this day.

I appreciate your sentiment Gulch, but he did not speak truth, he spoke an alternative theory which fits the fact better. Unqualified "truth" is a figment of man's imagination.

What is your statement's qualification?

--Brant

If you try to apply a statement to itself it leads to contradictions. If I say "all my statement are lies" then it cannot apply to that statement as well. That is my qualification.

It seems to me then that it has no actual qualification. I think you are trying to have your epistemology and eat it too. You semanticists seem to be stuck in epistemology-land going around in circles with your suppositions.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All generalizations are false, including this one. See? Contradiction. All generalizations are false, except this one. No contradiction. It's simply Russell's Theory of Types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Russell's own response to the paradox was his aptly named theory of types. Recognizing that self-reference lies at the heart of the paradox, Russell's basic idea is that we can avoid commitment to R (the set of all sets that are not members of themselves) by arranging all sentences (or, equivalently, all propositional functions) into a hierarchy. The lowest level of this hierarchy will consist of sentences about individuals. The next lowest level will consist of sentences about sets of individuals. The next lowest level will consist of sentences about sets of sets of individuals, and so on. It is then possible to refer to all objects for which a given condition (or predicate) holds only if they are all at the same level or of the same "type."

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He spoke truth to power which remains an inspiration to this day.

I appreciate your sentiment Gulch, but he did not speak truth, he spoke an alternative theory which fits the fact better. Unqualified "truth" is a figment of man's imagination.

GenSem,

Ayn Rand said that truth is an identification of a fact of reality.

Ayn Rand also said that Existence exists and that Consciousness is conscious.

Please share with us just how you would "qualify" those axiomatic concepts?

gulch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All generalizations are false, including this one. See? Contradiction. All generalizations are false, except this one. No contradiction. It's simply Russell's Theory of Types.

"All generalizations are false" is a false statement. The second statement needs impossible empirical verification. You are trying to make a false statement a true statement with what you call a "qualification." This is only epistemological perpetual motion with the finger tickling the pendulum every now and then.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often wonder how relevant it is to judge religion by historical analysis. Over the years, I have negatively judged religion numerous times based on historical evidence, but... Religion changes as culture changes. The more developmentally advanced the practitioners, the more religion moves away from dogma and incorporates the advanced values of culture (human rights, etc.).

The goal of religion is really an experience. isn't it? Through experience, a greater clarity and wisdom is gained? I think religion just tries to define a path to achieve that experience, and the path is often limited by the predominant beliefs of the society. For example, Confucious had some wacky ideas, but we can see from his writing that he had massive amounts of wisdom that excelled beyond the scope of his peers.

I am wary of taking a pro-religious stance, but I just thought I'd throw some thoughts out there.

Christopher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am wary of taking a pro-religious stance, but I just thought I'd throw some thoughts out there.

Christopher

Religion was Mankind's first attempt to make sense out of the buzzing blooming confusion that the world appears to be. It is only because of the growth of naturalistic thinking (as opposed to magical and superstitious) thinking that we take for granted that the world makes sense. Religion and superstition was a necessary first step on the path to reason.

Even in today's "scientific age" there are many issues that are non-quantifiable and not susceptible to scientific treatment. There is the question of justice. The question of what is right and what is wrong (in the moral and ethical sense). These are not scientific questions, yet we must use reason to deal with them. How do we cope with forces in nature beyond our control? How do we keep our heads in times of war and disaster? These are not scientific questions. Even so, most of us grow up with the conviction that reason is necessary to survival and is sometimes sufficient to overcome great difficulties.

Where religion rendered one of its greater services happened in the Nazi death camps. In Sobibor, for example, the Jews worked out a way of keeping sane in the bowels of one of the greatest horrors ever inflicted on anyone. The worked out a way of holding on to there persona and would not give up on the belief that someday all of the horror wojuld cease and the world would go on. Hardly a scientific conclusion, yet such a belief helped the victims remain human even though most did not survive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GS,

One day you should look up "stolen concept" and you might see what I see in your statement about applying a statement to itself leading to contradictions.

On a word level, you can get away with this since you can switch meanings in mid-sentence and the same word works like a smokescreen for the switch. On a conceptual level, this is gobbledygook.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GS,

One day you should look up "stolen concept" and you might see what I see in your statement about applying a statement to itself leading to contradictions.

On a word level, you can get away with this since you can switch meanings in mid-sentence and the same word works like a smokescreen for the switch. On a conceptual level, this is gobbledygook.

Michael

I guess the theory of types is beyond you and Brant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GenSem,

Ayn Rand said that truth is an identification of a fact of reality.

Ayn Rand also said that Existence exists and that Consciousness is conscious.

Please share with us just how you would "qualify" those axiomatic concepts?

gulch

An axiom is nothing but an assumption or premise that one accepts as undefinable or irreducible. I have the feeling that you somehow think these axioms are true but it's not a question of whether they are true or not, it's a question of whether or not you accept them as the basis of a system, which I do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GS,

One day you should look up "stolen concept" and you might see what I see in your statement about applying a statement to itself leading to contradictions.

On a word level, you can get away with this since you can switch meanings in mid-sentence and the same word works like a smokescreen for the switch. On a conceptual level, this is gobbledygook.

Michael

I guess the theory of types is beyond you and Brant.

There is no real paradox so his theory is worthless except for palaver. I didn't try too hard to understand the explanation therefore. Just an example of how trite you can be in philosophy and get away with it. Having your contradiction and eating it too is a doorway to insanity or inanity or some combination of both. Why don't scientists worry about the "paradox"? No use in scientific methodology save when it appears then it must be struck down before getting on with business. And speaking of business, do they go over this in business school? I say and have said you cannot get this thing out of epistemology-land, where it was created. There are no observations and no data.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GenSem,

Ayn Rand said that truth is an identification of a fact of reality.

Ayn Rand also said that Existence exists and that Consciousness is conscious.

Please share with us just how you would "qualify" those axiomatic concepts?

gulch

An axiom is nothing but an assumption or premise that one accepts as undefinable or irreducible. I have the feeling that you somehow think these axioms are true but it's not a question of whether they are true or not, it's a question of whether or not you accept them as the basis of a system, which I do not.

GenSem,

Let me get this straight, when you say "which I do not" are you saying that you do not accept the axioms: "Existence exists" and "Consciousness is conscious" as being true or that you do not accept them as the basis of a system?

Do you acknowledge that they are true? Do you consider that Existence does not exist or that Consciousness is not conscious?

Does existence exist independently of our awareness of it and independent of the words we use to name it?

While we debate this Obama has said today he will participate in the 100 Trillion dollar bailout of emerging nations!

Obama will succeed in taking something which has a certain value, or once did, and render it worthless by creating so many more of them, paper dollar bills.

www.campaignforliberty.com 2Apr 5PM 132996, 6PM 133002, 8PM 133048

gulch

Edited by galtgulch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just an example of how trite you can be in philosophy and get away with it.

Yeah, Russell wasn't really a philosopher, he was working on the foundations of mathematics when he made this discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you acknowledge that they are true?

See, axioms are assumptions. If you accept them then you assume they are true and go from there. That's how the axiomatic method works. You can build different systems from different axioms. What makes an axiom an axiom is that it is considered fundamental and not dependent on any other premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GS,

The thing with fundamental axioms is that you have to presume them in order to question them. You have to exist in order to question whether existence exits. You have to be conscious in order to question whether consciousness exists. You have to be an individual before you can question the law of identity.

This is more than assumption. This is primary identification. Once again, it would be useful if you read ITOE before making such claims as you do.

Also, here is one for you. If you claim that nothing you say can be true, then why should anyone ever believe you? People might be willing to take you at your word.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just an example of how trite you can be in philosophy and get away with it.

Yeah, Russell wasn't really a philosopher, he was working on the foundations of mathematics when he made this discovery.

If you can apply it to mathematics, fine. I am mildly curious why mathematics didn't already have foundations. Was he making new ones or correcting old ones? I can't deal with this from the math perspective, but I don't see how his work here well traveled from math to philosophy.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to exist in order to question whether existence exists.

It depends what you mean by 'exist'. Maybe there is supernatural being who questions whether or not 'existence exists', does he exist?

Also, here is one for you. If you claim that nothing you say can be true, then why should anyone ever believe you? People might be willing to take you at your word.

I said there was no such thing as unqualified Truth with a capital 'T' - there is only "to the best of our knowledge right now".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends what you mean by 'exist'.

GS,

No it doesn't. But for the record, I mean exist as opposed to not be.

Maybe there is supernatural being who questions whether or not 'existence exists', does he exist?

This is a stolen concept. I did not say "maybe" and I did not say "supernatural being."

Let's take this to the personal level: You (GS) have to exist in order to question whether existence exits.

If you (GS) don't exist, you can't say anything, much less question something specific. That is where existence an axiomatic concept instead of an assumption.

I do agree that your "maybe" and your "supernatural being" are assumptions. I do not agree that your existence is an assumption, at least not so long as you post here. :)

... there is only "to the best of our knowledge right now"

In relation to what? What determines best and worst? What standard do you use to make this measurement?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where religion rendered one of its greater services happened in the Nazi death camps. In Sobibor, for example, the Jews worked out a way of keeping sane in the bowels of one of the greatest horrors ever inflicted on anyone. The worked out a way of holding on to there persona and would not give up on the belief that someday all of the horror wojuld cease and the world would go on. Hardly a scientific conclusion, yet such a belief helped the victims remain human even though most did not survive.

This is a very beautiful way to view religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My mistake. Forgot I'd posted it. So here I am, probabaly in the late '90s, with the rest of the family!

elhscope3-close.jpg

Ed,

I procrastinated and the price of the 14 inch Celestron inflated out of reach so I have the 8 inch and enjoy it.

Have you watched any of Jupiters moons distinctly observed superimposed on Jupiter itself?

I wonder what other dee sky objects you have been able to find. Or just what is your interest up there?

www.campaignforliberty.com 10Apr 141241

gulch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice collection of scopes, Ed!

-Ross Barlow.

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...