tjohnson

Definitions are used to identify concepts. If the definition does not match the concept then one might say it is incorrect or false. This is all Rand is saying, IMO.

Very good article Stephen, showing the historical development of SR.

I believe this argument about "correct definitions" is based on a misunderstanding. If I observe animals with 4 legs (lets say horses) and I define 'horse' as an animal with 6 legs (and intend this to apply to said animals) then this is an incorrect definition. On the other hand, there are many correct ways to define a horse, depending on which attributes interest you the most.

It isn't just the medium for light transmission, it's also about a "static space" that is an absolute frame of reference for all to use. If this was the case, then the velocities would be additive and it would show up in experiments like M&M did. So we know space and time are not absolute regardless of whether or not there is "an ether".

It is not clear to me what Rand means here. My understanding is that many attempts were made to discover the ether and all failed. So it was not some "epistemological" process that lead scientists to deny the existence of the ether - it was experiments. Then, faced with no medium for light waves to travel in, physicists had to come up with some other explanation that accounted for the facts, ie. special relativity.

OK, a human is a 6 months or greater fetus. So if its less that 6 months old its not human and has no rights. Ok thank you general semanticist you have given me a place to start. Now why 6 months. is 6 arbitrary or is it an objective definition? if objective please explain why a fetus that is one day 182 days old is less Human than a fetus that is 183 days old? The problem is that you really have not given the definition (essence) of Human, you have said when but not why. Why? Because we have to draw the line somewhere, that's why. No "objective definition" is going to solve this problem. BTW, I use a definition of human from Korzybski which goes like this; A human is a creature that can pass on its knowledge from one generation to the next using in such a way that we enjoy exponential progress. Does a fetus satisfy this definition? Sadly no. In fact, most adult humans don't satisfy this definition.

My understanding of 'space-time' as opposed to 'space' and 'time' is this; The idea of absolute space and time means a universe in which one can set up a cartesian coordinate system with an origin and project the axis to indefinitely in all directions in absolute straight lines. In this system objects move according to some absolute time reference and all motion can be described by measurements relative to the absolute static coordinate system. This is not the universe we live in. There is no such thing as a straight line extended indefinitely as 'straight' loses meaning in the vastness of the universe. We know that even light bends and so it is impossible for anything to travel in a straight line. If this was possible we should eventually reach a boundary of some sort, assuming the universe is not infinite in size, and then the question immediately arises - what is on the other side of this boundary? In a 4-dimensional space-time continuum one can travel forever and never reach a boundary and yet the universe can be finite in size. I don't really understand this, GS, but how about light coming from the source--is this bent except by gravity? --Brant I believe you are asking me if light would travel in a straight line indefinitely if there was no material things in the universe? I suppose that might be true, in the same sense that an object would travel forever if there was absolutely no friction. But think of this; when you look at an extremely distant object, billions of lightyears away, whose to say exactly "where" that object is "right now". For all we know it could actually be behind you and the light could have bent in a full circle. We are not "seeing objects", we are seeing light.

My understanding of 'space-time' as opposed to 'space' and 'time' is this; The idea of absolute space and time means a universe in which one can set up a cartesian coordinate system with an origin and project the axis to indefinitely in all directions in absolute straight lines. In this system objects move according to some absolute time reference and all motion can be described by measurements relative to the absolute static coordinate system. This is not the universe we live in. There is no such thing as a straight line extended indefinitely as 'straight' loses meaning in the vastness of the universe. We know that even light bends and so it is impossible for anything to travel in a straight line. If this was possible we should eventually reach a boundary of some sort, assuming the universe is not infinite in size, and then the question immediately arises - what is on the other side of this boundary? In a 4-dimensional space-time continuum one can travel forever and never reach a boundary and yet the universe can be finite in size.

OK, a human is a 6 months or greater fetus. So if its less that 6 months old its not human and has no rights.

Whether the fetus is a human with rights or not is a matter of opinion and ultimately the laws of the land decide. You cannot "prove" this like some mathematical equation.

When I use the word 'image' I mean it in the broadest sense - very similar to what would be called a 'mental integration', which you use. I don't think we are very different here but I suspect we are quite different in out view about hierarchies. I get the feeling that you accept that hierarchies exist independent of the observer whereas I maintain that they coexist. This is not to say that they are arbitrary but yet they do depend on the observer to some extent.

But it is possible to learn words and not concepts. I can memorize a passage from a book on surgery but I would have little or no concept of what the surgery entails. If Objectivism insists that these are the same then you are going to have a great deal of trouble getting the majority of the population to understand you. If this is the case, what word to you use to represent the visual idea that words bring to mind when you read or hear them?

GS, So how do you account for the fact that chair, cadeira, chaise, stuhl, καρέκλα, szék, and so on all mean the same thing? After all, they are all different words. And how do you know it? After all, according to what you just said, they all must have "different" definitions. Is all this merely a gigantic coincidence--that they all mean the same thing? That would be a stretch, don't you think? How about, they all mean the same concept, which has the same definition in any language? Ta daa! Michael A concept is something you imagine, it is not a word. We use words to represent concepts and these words can be defined with other words which also represent concepts. It is important to make this distinction between words and what they represent. You may have a concept of a tree and I may have one also. Yours may look like a red oak and mine may look like a white pine but this has nothing to do with the definition of 'tree', which attempts to unify all the various concepts that are possible. The word 'tree' represents an abstraction from all the various concepts.

I believe it is nonsensical to speak about "definitions of concepts". You can only define words, you cannot define a concept.

First of all, physicists don't use the word 'space' and 'time' by themselves anymore, they use 'space-time'. They still use "space" and "time" in contexts more like standard parlance (though I hope "standard parlance" doesn't, as George indicated he thinks of the standard meaning of "space," generally mean what's left when there's "nothing"). They speak of "space," "time," and "space-time." That, in my experience of knowing and reading physicists, I'd say is true. I don't know of any physicists consulting the verdict of philosophers before starting to use terminology in a particular way. (E.g., Faraday and the meaning of "field," which might cause even more troubles for non-physicists' understanding the physics meaning than "space-time.") Ellen I think this all gets back to the idea that there is a "correct" definition for each of our words, which causes interminable confusion and arguments. When a farmer talks about his field of corn he obviously doesn't think its the same kind of field as the electromagnetic one around the power lines. The fact is there are phenomena "out there", whether its the space between your teeth or the space-time continuum, and whats really important is what we can learn about these phenomena, not what we call them. Language has its own evolution and there's not much we can do about that, unless we want to start over and create a synthetic language. The term 'heat' appears to represent a substance and so alot of time and energy was put into isolating this 'substance', which turned out not to be a substance at all. In fact, even the word 'matter' is ambiguous on some level since by virtue of E=mc^2, matter is simply energy somehow "knit" together. All of these words are merely placeholders for some phenomena which we learn more about as "time" goes on.

Indeed they do and they define their usage with ultra precision. Which is why physics succeeds and philosophy fails (among other reasons). Ba'al Chatzaf Okay, so give us an ultra precise definition of "space" and an ultra precise definition of "time." If by "space" and "time" physicists mean something different than what people mean in ordinary discourse, then why do physicists use those words? Why didn't physicists choose other words, such as "ham" and "eggs," and redefine those words instead? Then they could explain, with ultra precision, the details of the ham and eggs manifold. If you are going to use stipulative definitions to change the meaning of words, then what difference does it make which words you use? Ghs First of all, physicists don't use the word 'space' and 'time' by themselves anymore, they use 'space-time'. Secondly, it's not that they have an "ultra precise" definition of space-time, its just that they know quite a bit about it. Scientists are not very concerned with definitions, they are more interested in phenomena.

Dennis, Oh. In that case, the Number One All-Time Nightmare for an Objectivist--one that I liked--would have to go to Koyaanisqatsi. For standard Objectivist aesthetics, this is akin to liking James Joyce or Gertrude Stein. But then again, I saw this film back in my drug days. I saw it right when it came out. I went to a theater with a great sound system and I was bombed out of my skull on a super-dose of some royally righteous weed. I have very fond memories of that one... (All right... all right... I probably would not like it today if I saw it again... ) Michael LMAO I will confess that I was wrecked when I first saw Blazing Saddles around '74 and I started laughing from the first joke and never stopped till the end. I don't think all the blatant racist jokes would go over too well in this day and age. I loved Slim Pickens as the racist, flunky right hand man of Harvey Korman. One of the most memorable lines; "That's when we go a ridin' into town, a whuppin' and a thrashin' every livin' thing within an inch of its life. Except for the women a course, we rape the shit out of them" In the words of Seinfeld, "nothing is sacred".

Haven't watched many movies more than a couple times, here are some of my favorites; Ordinary People Terminator 1 and 2 Blade Runner Monsters Inc. Toy Story 1 and 2 Austin Powers 1,2 and 3 Blazing Saddles Every episode of Seinfeld at least twice, some many more.

I think its true that older generations tend to frown on younger ones and often its because they KNOW its wrong because they did it too. Still things do change and things happen now that never happened before, for example, random mass shooting incidents. There is a limit to how much stress the human nervous system can take and we have created a very stressful environment in many cases. Who would have thought it was stressful for a child to be left alone after school to brood on things and become so delusional that it seemed a good idea to grab some firearms and go on a shooting spree at school?

I like Clark's Rendevous with Rama idea. A huge rotating cylinder that would simulate gravity on the "wall". You could have a community that could live for generations while travelling in space.

Because in several billion years the sun may expand and become a red giant and absorb the nearest planets. We have to get ready!

Looks like there is a web bot taking random passages from previous posts and adding a link at the bottom. NOTE FROM MSK: GS, Correct. This is a spammer. All gone...

Hey we have a tourist attraction in New Brunswick called Magnetic Hill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_Hill_%28Canada%29

Several clergy members in various denominations might fit the profile. ;) I wonder, because it doesn't seem to me that clergy members don't know that "sex is good". LOL

Very interesting and I agree. Getting social "science" to be more scientific (mathematical) is of the utmost importance to mankind, IMO. This was the goal of Korzybski, beginning with the science of sanity, and for a while there was a fair bit of interest in general semantics but it seems to have been taken over by the "communications" faculties in the few places it was taught and so is getting away from it's scientific roots.