UncleJim

Would a vote for an insane person be evidence of insanity?

Then you are a statist!!! <snip> Are you paid to troll this forum? Shayne Cute trap. There is no such thing a free nation - or not. There are only individuals. And by their nature, individuals are free to do whatever they choose. The issue of freedom is whether another's freedom to do whatever they choose is impinged by the actions of the first.

Objectivism makes no such assumptions. The world is either what it is, or it is-not that. A=A is the starting point of the Objectivist Philosophy. When another says the world is different from what it is, this is where the Objectivist Philosophy seems to make an attack; but does not. The Objectivist Philosophy is based only on what is. Since what the world is-not, does not exist, then Objectivism is unable to comment on that.

Ayn Rand said that life is the 'standard-of-value.' This is not the same as saying that life is the 'ultimate' value. Her meaning here is that life is used to determine value; not that it, itself, is value. Ayn Rand also said "value is that which one seeks to gain or keep." This is not saying that life can be either gained or kept. Either its existence exists or it does not. To act to the benefit of life is not the same as acting to keep it. To keep something means to prevent someone else from taking it for their own benefit. One person cannot take the life of another and then use it to their benefit. The issue of value is whether choice is involved. Choice is the volitional selection of one thing over the other by use of reason. The reason for choosing the one and not the other - is called value. Since one must be alive to apply reason; then, ones life is the standard used to determine ones reasons for choosing.

What is a "two"?

The General Theory of Relativity which is a theory of gravitation correctly predicts the bending of light around a massive body, the redshift of light in a strong gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of planets, non of which which predicted by Newtonian Gravitation correctly. Newton predicted light bending, but was off a factor of two. His gravitation law did not predict the perihelion precession of Mercury correctly. This was not known until sufficiently accurate telescopes were developed. By the middle of the 19th century, Fraunhoffer developed telescopes that were able to detect an anomalous precession of Mercury that could not be accounted for by the gravitational actions of the sun and other planets (particularly Jupiter, which is the most massive planet). Newton was not aware of spectral shift for a number of reasons, not the least of which was his particulate theory of light and the crudeness of his prisms. The success of Einstein's theory in making these predictions showed why Newton's laws didn't work. 1. Newton assumed instantaneous gravitational interaction between massive bodies. 2. Newton assumed physical space is "flat" and is properly described by Euclidean geometry. This is not the case. Mass alters the curvature of the space-time manifold. 3. Newton assumed both space and time were absolute. The observed rate at which clocks "tick" depends are on their relative velocity wtr to an observer and the strength of the gravitational field in which the move. Clocks "tick" slower in stronger gravitational fields. This last is the basis for the clock corrections which enable the GPS to give positions correct to within ten meters. Given the anomalies of rotations curves of stars in galaxies (the move faster than one might normally expect) one of two things is true. 1. General Relativity is off for strong gravitational fields or 2. There is unseen matter surrounding galaxies, the so-called Dark Matter (or non baryon matter). or perhaps something else. The matter is being studied, even as we speak. Classical physics is very close for weak gravitational fields and regimes where velocities are small compared to the speed of light. Which is why it took so long to detect the failure of Newtonian mechanics. For "normal" conditions (i.e. low speeds, low mass) classical physics is still close enough for government work. The trajectories of space probes to the outer solar system are reckoned using classical orbital mechanics and the orbits of binary stars are still estimated well enough using Kepler's laws. On the other hand the behavior of clocks is best reckoned using the theory of relativity. Ba'al Chatzaf Theory is developed from observation. Since we are unable to observe everything then theory, by its nature, is limited in its ability to accurately predict that which has not; yet, been observed. This being the case then is it helpful to say that Newton's theories are wrong? I don't think so! Isn't it more accurate to say that Newton's theories have been adjusted to more closely describe what has been observed since his theories were offered for consideration?

Precisely correct. And that is what the problem of universals deals with, i.e. "in virtue of what can the same thing be predicated of these concretes?" I am not denying existence or the idea that things have specific natures and I never did. It is that things specific nature; i.e., its reality, that determines what can be said about it. As I said previously. Which is an Ayn Rand quote. "reality is the final arbiter."

Is Ron Paul the best candidate? Well........ Is he the most rational candidate?

The only law that applies is the natural law. If someone is unable to remain alive then it is right that they die. If a child is unable to remain alive but there is a medical solution then so be it; i.e, the solution exists. If that child's parents 'choose' to withhold medical treatment (for whatever reason) then THEIR child is going to die. Is it a proper function of other's (pronounce 'government' here) to intervene here? No! The parents are 'fucking' insane; but that cannot be legislated against any more than rationality can be legislated for.

Not in and of itself. Things are experienced in a particular way. They have a specific nature, but our classifications of their natures requires comparative, ordinal measurement of things against eachother. The idea that things fit into categories by virtue of their natures and natures alone (i.e. in a mind-independent fashion) is moderate realism, which Rand rejects in ITOE. If the thing does not determine what can be said about it - then what does? God, you, me or them? Absolutely not. I'm not saying this is what you are implying but what you are implying is very unclear. Yes Ayn Rand uses the idea of standard-of-comparison but that does not deny the physical existence of a real object is whatever it is. When describing what its existence is, is where the standard-of-comparison comes into play.

No, that's not possible, that would be Lamarckism. Studying and playing music doesn't create more musical genes. That can't be true. Experiences do alter generic structure. This is the basic principle underlying evolutionary change.

The concept of existence does not denote a 'something' in the way the concept of coffee-cup does. Existence denotes the existence of an idea. It denotes the idea which subsumes the existence of everything. On the other hand: Non-existence is the idea which subsumes the existence of nothing. By this construct; the definition of existence is considered to have been rationally constructed where the definition of non-existence is considered to have been absurdly constructed. Coffee-cup is a metaphysical concept where existence is an epistemological concept and where non-existence is a mystical concept. Coffee-cup denotes a physical existent where existence denotes intelligence and where non-existence denotes ignorance. The consequence resulting from acting metaphysically is called survival. The consequence resulting from acting intelligently is called happiness. The consequence resulting from acting mystically is called death. Beasts survive by acting instinctively. Humans earn happiness by acting properly. Terrorists deserve death by acting evilly

No. The 'jiggling' physical universe is rigid and Newtonian enough for my purposes. A few half-microns one way or the other doesn't bother me or Intel or anyone else who has to build, grow food, fly aircraft, keep the lights on -- and you know it. Argument from intimidation doesn't work on Objectivists. Newtonian Physics is not correct. It is Galilean Invariant and this has been empirically falsified. Newtonian Physics works when velocities and speeds are small compared to that of light and masses are not great. Newtonian Physics is fine for building bridges and sending probes to the outer parts of the solar system. Newtonian physics is false for describing atoms, does not address electromagnetic fields and does not correctly describe and predict gravitation. The falsification of Newtonian physics is not intimidation. It is Fact. Ba'al Chatzaf It's also irrelevant to the health and wellbeing of human-beings. Just because mathematicians are unable to describe what it is and how it operagtes that does not change anything about what it is and how it operates.

What do you mean by "proving"? There have been plenty of scientific theories which were supported by some facts, but later on were shown to be defective or deficient. For example, Newtonian Mechanics aka Classical Physics. This has been thoroughly falsified by scientific observation which is why we now have quantum physics and relativity theory. Evidence indicating Newtons Law of Gravitation is not generally true was found in the middle of the 19th century. The anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury indicated a problem with Newtonian Gravitation. Einstein supplied the "fancy mathematics" which showed why Newtonian Gravitation fails. Ba'al Chatzaf To prove something means to demonstrate its existence in reality. When a math statement describes natural phenomenon that natural phenomenon is the proof that the math statement actually describes it. The issue with Newtonian Gravitation seems to be that it didn't actually describe what it was proposed to describe. Did Newton lie? No, he just did have all the data. With out all the data its impossible to describe it. Did Einstein use fancy math. Well..... you seem to think he did! You are claiming that Einstein's math has no basis in reality and yet you are using it to refute "Newtonian Gravitation"? You're confusing me.

Yes, mathematics is another language but it is very different language - one in which we speak about ideals that have no existence outside our nervous system. Math is not about what man observes, it is about what man imagines. We can, however, apply math with great success to what we can observe. When man observes reality he is observing individual units of it. Under the language of math this is denoted by the audio/visual symbol '1'. In this way math is used to describe what man observes. He may also denote the same thing with the audio/visual symbol 'man' or 'self' or 'I'. When language is used to describe what is imagined this gets into a discussion of the theoretical rather that the real. This is OK as long as that is understood to be what is happening. The trouble we get into is when we attempt to substitute the theoretical into the place where reality is as if it one and the same. The theoretical needs to be proved before it can be understood; the real does not. The real only needs to be observed to be understood. As has been discussed; understanding the real may be very difficult. But proving a theory which has no basis in reality is impossible. The offering of such proofs; anyway, is what I term "fancy math tricks."

There is nothing "merely" about mathematics. It is not an easy discipline to master. Rand certainly did not master it. She dismissed it. Most people do not have the knack for it since it is a system of abstractions generally far removed from everyday experience. It isn't everyday that one meets a one sided closed surface (Klein Bottle) but there it is. Fortunately for most people, it can be practiced by a relative few with no great loss to the public. The public is largely innumerate. They are also generally clueless when it comes to abstraction. Most people cannot understand why there is basically no difference between something shaped like a teacup and something shaped like an anchor ring. (I am referring to the shapes, not the materials). One can be continuously deformed into the other. Ba'al Chatzaf This is much the same way the Pope looks at how people, more normal than he, view religion. Under Objectivism if the language being used does not describe what is know to exist then it is of little value. This is the way Ayn Rand referred to mathematics. She was not a trained mathematician nor did she ever pretend to be. The Pope's religion goes on at considerable length talking about how a dead man, after three days of rotting, got up, walked about, spoke to his friends and then ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of his true father; the God of all that is and will ever be. This nonsense has little value to the more normal persons of the earth. Its the same with mathematics. If you can show me the one-sided closed surface of which you speak then I can at least consider whether its a value or not. Otherwise I'm not much interested.

Really? How do you know how long your bookshelf is? Answer: You measure it. How do you know how much money there is in your wallet? Answer: You look in your wallet and count what is there. Look/feel , measure, compare, contrast. That is how we come to know stuff. We also learn from listening, tasting and smelling but vision/touch are the major senses. Ba'al Chatzaf Can you measure the length of your bookshelf if you don't know that it has a length which can be measured? No! You must first know that something exists prior to being able to measure what it is.

What I'm saying is that if something exists that determines what it is. To say that something exists but that I don't know what it is, is just fine with me. But to say that something exists but that I'm unable to know that; just doesn't make sense. When I say that something exists then that requires that I know it. To say that something exists but is so small that being able to know what it is is going very difficult - is one thing. But to say its so small that knowing what it is, is impossible, is an intellectual cop-out. If it can be known to exist then what it is, is knowable; i.e., its known characteristics are (by definition) measurable.

What do you mean by "error"? How do we know when an "error" has occurred? When what we say contradicts reality! It's not the "cross checking" which eliminates errors - it's reality. Reality is the final arbiter. To measure is to know. How do you think we know anything about the world? We look. We measure. Let me guess. You do NOT do any kind of scientific work for a living. Did I get that right? Ba'al Chatzaf Why does being characterized as a 'scientist' matter? I'm a degreed mechanical engineer from MSU and retired from GMC dept. of manufacturing engineering. You have it backward. To know is to be able to measure. Whether or not the measurement is of any value, is another issue. The value of the measurement is determined by that which is known to exist; not by the method used to do the measuring. If the resultant of a measurement is wrong; then used anyway, one will experience unexpected consequences.

Stephen, I think you are right about replacing verifying with validating. But "validationism" has two obvious problems. One is that there is no inductive validation without valid argument forms in inductive logic. And neither Ayn Rand nor Leonard Peikoff have supplied such argument forms. In fact, Rand admitted not having a "philosophy of scientific induction" and being in need of one. The second is that instead of a primary distinction between truth and falsity, validationism is in danger of substituting a distinction between validated (and therefore true) versus arbitrary (and therefore meaningless). In OPAR, Dr. Peikoff declares that the distinction between arbitrary and non-arbitrary is fundamental. He also contrasts the validated with the unvalidatable (the arbitrary) in such a way that falsehood becomes an afterthought or, in places, drops out of the discussion. Robert Campbell It seems to me that when Ayn Rand said "Reality is the final arbiter" that that answers the issue. Reality validates whether a claim is a valid (or an intellectual) representation of what it [reality] is.

Ayn Rand would ask for evidence.

Under Objectivism mathematics is merely 'another' language. It is a resultant of mans need to explain what his observes. Man needs to explain what he observes because his continued survival is dependent on his understanding of what it is that he is able to observe. In other words: Under Objectivism, mans survival depends on what he understands about his-self, where he lives and what these say about how he must act to remain what he is where he is living.

Yes. Man is the 'rational' animal. When man acts contrary to his nature he cannot be considered a properly functioning human-being.

What do you mean by "error"? How do we know when an "error" has occurred? When what we say contradicts reality! It's not the "cross checking" which eliminates errors - it's reality. Reality is the final arbiter.

But you just forced your principle to say in advance of what you then go on to prove what it says. Then find another way to do it. If you're technique is faulty; stop using it. The failure of the technique does not prove anything. The principle is not a fact about the world - it's a principle. As such; if it is not based on fact, then it can be (and probably is) wrong. This is the issue of science trying to make the world into what it says it is rather than science finding ways to discover what the world is. This is not "just the way things are." If the measuring technique is faulty - change it. This is not the "Axiom of Identity." Sorry but; its a cop-out. Identity says that what is, is what it is. This cannot be denied. To measure the smallest thing requires another thing which is smaller than what it is, which is used to measure what the smallest thing is. This is a contradiction on what it means to be the smallest thing. This contradiction does not require that the precision of what we do measure has an upper bound. As we move toward measuring the smallest thing what we are using to measure things with is also getting smaller. When we reach the smallest thing there is no longer a requirement to measure it. It (the smallest thing) becomes the standard for all measurements. The standard exists absolutely. Meaning its ability to measure things is universal. The whole idea of what it means to measure things may have radically changed by this time. Measuring what exists may become the same as knowing what exists. Which simply means ones brain is being consciously stimulated by the smallest physical thing.