Another View of Ayn Rand

[Darrell Hougen]

Then how is it possible that something that does not exist has 3 dimensions?

Darrell,

I'm with Dragonfly here. Space is the ultimate background. Time too. Or does time, in your view, not exist either?

Even according to Objectivist metaphysics (which I find vastly oversimplified), everything in the universe is interconnected. Interconnection does not allow for singularities.

Michael

The existence of time is certainly problematic for relativity theory. If time existed independently of objects or events, then how would it be possible for clocks in different reference frames to run at different apparent rates? Or, do infinitely many times exist all at the same time? <-- Note internal contradiction.

Extension and duration are properties of objects and events, not qualities that exist independently.

I'm not sure I understand the notion of interconnectedness to which you refer.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Even according to Objectivist metaphysics (which I find vastly oversimplified), everything in the universe is interconnected. Interconnection does not allow for singularities.

There is no such thing as an object in perfect isolation - at the very least there must be an observer.

A thing (an object or event) does not require an observer to exist. Existence is primary.

Darrell

[BaalChatzaf]

A thing (an object or event) does not require an observer to exist. Existence is primary.

Darrell

However in order for a physical effect to take place at least two entities have to interact. What we call the observer is actually the physical process by which he observes. For example to see something you either have to shine a light on it (some form of electromagnetic radiation, or the entity must eminate a field, or the entity must be the subject of a coulomb interaction with another entity). It is the interaction of entities or entities and fields that produce the effect that is observed.

To put it in somewhat over simplified terms, to see something you have to shine a light on it. What you observe is the interaction between the photons you cause to be emitted and the object observed. There is not such thing as purely passive observation. To be observed is to be acted upon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

Does it? What evidence do you have that space has three dimensions?

Try to construct more than three independent position vectors in space.

[Darrell Hougen]

A thing (an object or event) does not require an observer to exist. Existence is primary.

Darrell

However in order for a physical effect to take place at least two entities have to interact. What we call the observer is actually the physical process by which he observes. For example to see something you either have to shine a light on it (some form of electromagnetic radiation, or the entity must eminate a field, or the entity must be the subject of a coulomb interaction with another entity). It is the interaction of entities or entities and fields that produce the effect that is observed.

To put it in somewhat over simplified terms, to see something you have to shine a light on it. What you observe is the interaction between the photons you cause to be emitted and the object observed. There is not such thing as purely passive observation. To be observed is to be acted upon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

In order for a thing to be observed, there must be an observer, of course, but its mere existence does not require an observer.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Does it? What evidence do you have that space has three dimensions?

Try to construct more than three independent position vectors in space.

You're speaking the language of mathematics, I'm not sure I know how to construct even a single position vector in reality.

Darrell

[Dragonfly]

You're speaking the language of mathematics, I'm not sure I know how to construct even a single position vector in reality.

You can just point them out. Here is the origin, there is vector 1.. etc.

[Darrell Hougen]

You're speaking the language of mathematics, I'm not sure I know how to construct even a single position vector in reality.

You can just point them out. Here is the origin, there is vector 1.. etc.

Ok. So, assuming a suitable test for orthogonality exists, you will have proven that your arms are three dimensional or have three independent degrees of freedom, but my challenge was to provide evidence that space has three dimensions.

BTW, assuming you can provide a suitable test of orthogonality, you will have disproven one of Kant's primary points in his Critique of Pure Reason, namely the notion that the reason objects appear to be three dimensional is just a bias of perception. Instead, the three-dimensional nature of reality is a fact that can be established by observation and reason. So much for the Critique of Pure Reason.

Darrell

[Dragonfly]

Ok. So, assuming a suitable test for orthogonality exists, you will have proven that your arms are three dimensional or have three independent degrees of freedom, but my challenge was to provide evidence that space has three dimensions.

It has nothing to do with my arms, just one point at the tip of my finger will do, you can use any pointer or marker. The fact that we never find more than three independent vectors and that we can use geometry with a metric is the same as saying that physical space is 3-dimensional, it can be mapped by a 3-dimensional mathematical space.

[BaalChatzaf]

Ok. So, assuming a suitable test for orthogonality exists, you will have proven that your arms are three dimensional or have three independent degrees of freedom, but my challenge was to provide evidence that space has three dimensions.

It has nothing to do with my arms, just one point at the tip of my finger will do, you can use any pointer or marker. The fact that we never find more than three independent vectors and that we can use geometry with a metric is the same as saying that physical space is 3-dimensional, it can be mapped by a 3-dimensional mathematical space.

It is not -space-. It is -spacetime-. Four numbers will do the trick

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Darrell, first you said this;

It is exactly the quality of distinguishability that makes such an entity an entity in the first place. If some region cannot be distinguished, then no entity exists as such. The substance from which such entities could be composed exists, but the existence of entities as such depends upon the organization of the substance into distinguishable areas or regions.

Then this

A thing (an object or event) does not require an observer to exist. Existence is primary.

Darrell

It seems to me these statements contradict each other. You say "distinguishability" is required for existence and so it must be an observer who distinguishes, yet then you say no observer is required for existence??

[tjohnson]

If we accept current science, what we call 'objects' are actually abstractions produced in our nervous system from energies around us. We are immersed in a "sea of stimuli" from which we use our senses to manufacture "objects" in our brains. Here is a diagram I made on another forum that illustrates the situation. This could represent 3 individuals and how they relate to each other but it could be generalized to to all people who use language.

[Darrell Hougen]

Ok. So, assuming a suitable test for orthogonality exists, you will have proven that your arms are three dimensional or have three independent degrees of freedom, but my challenge was to provide evidence that space has three dimensions.

It has nothing to do with my arms, just one point at the tip of my finger will do, you can use any pointer or marker. The fact that we never find more than three independent vectors and that we can use geometry with a metric is the same as saying that physical space is 3-dimensional, it can be mapped by a 3-dimensional mathematical space.

No its not. "Physical space" is an abstraction in which we place imaginary coordinate frames in order to help us describe the shape and/or motion of objects. The coordinate frames are imaginary and the space is imaginary too. If you take away the coordinate frames, what is space?

At any rate, it is irrelevant to the current discussion. Certain entities require a background in order to exist, such as a square on a checkerboard, because they are really part of that background entity. Other entities exist independently of any background. Independent entities are proper entities. The question was whether to call integral elements of the another entity an entity. I have no problem with calling them entities, but they are clearly entities of a fundamentally different kind.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Darrell, first you said this;

It is exactly the quality of distinguishability that makes such an entity an entity in the first place. If some region cannot be distinguished, then no entity exists as such. The substance from which such entities could be composed exists, but the existence of entities as such depends upon the organization of the substance into distinguishable areas or regions.

Then this

A thing (an object or event) does not require an observer to exist. Existence is primary.

Darrell

It seems to me these statements contradict each other. You say "distinguishability" is required for existence and so it must be an observer who distinguishes, yet then you say no observer is required for existence??

Perhaps "distinguishable" was not the best choice of words. The point is that the substance must be organized in some manner. If it is everywhere homogeneous (on the scale under consideration) then it makes no sense to talk about part of it as if it were a distinct entity.

Organization of a substance into distinct entities does not require an observer.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

If we accept current science, what we call 'objects' are actually abstractions produced in our nervous system from energies around us. We are immersed in a "sea of stimuli" from which we use our senses to manufacture "objects" in our brains. Here is a diagram I made on another forum that illustrates the situation. This could represent 3 individuals and how they relate to each other but it could be generalized to to all people who use language.

The problem with the metaphor, "sea of stimuli," is that it seems to imply that the stimuli are uniform (homogeneous and isotropic). But, in general, they're not. The stimuli reflect the organization of the world into objects, structures, events and actions. We do not "manufacture" objects in our brains. We see the objects, etc., that are present in the world.

Darrell

[tjohnson]

Organization of a substance into distinct entities does not require an observer.

I can agree with that though I would prefer "structure requires no observer". Yet identifying a certain structure as an object requires an observer, I think.

[Darrell Hougen]

Organization of a substance into distinct entities does not require an observer.

I can agree with that though I would prefer "structure requires no observer". Yet identifying a certain structure as an object requires an observer, I think.

In some cases, "structure" would probably be a better description than "entities," but we were discussing entities. And you are correct that the act of identification requires an observer to perform the identification.

Darrell

[Guyau]

“Rand's fundamental law of morality, that one is never justified in initiating the use of force against others . . . .”

writes Dr. Ross. What a weak representation of Rand’s ethical theory.

Concerning his own philosophy:

http://www.friesian.com/foundatn.htm#founda-3

The contents of consciousness exist by virtue of the existence of the subject. The subject, however, is not known as such by the contents of consciousness. The contents are spontaneously projected onto intended objects. Objects are known by means of the contents of consciousness. This divorces consciousness from the real existence either of subject or object: What exists in the subject is projected onto objects, divorcing us from the subject (the Knower). But we only know objects by those subjective contents, leaving us still divorced from the existence of external objects as such. . . .

The strangeness of consciousness enables us to [formulate] . . . a theory of the good. We can say that existence is value, being is the good, but that this identity and symmetry is broken by consciousness, which is the kind of existence that we possess. The asymmetry that results is the difference between subject and object on one side and between is and ought on the other. Consciousness divorces its contents from existence as such, either as subject or as object. That makes consciousness precarious: it makes death, the non-existence of consciousness, possible for us. The existence that we enjoy is a kind of reflection of existence proper. The reflection gives us matters of fact; but our real, direct perception of unreflected being is through matters of value: Value is the shadow that being casts into phenomena.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Stephen Boydstun

[Brant Gaede]

"Rand's fundamental law of morality, that one is never justified in initiating the use of force against others . . . ."

writes Dr. Ross. What a weak representation of Rand's ethical theory.

Concerning his own philosophy:

http://www.friesian.com/foundatn.htm#founda-3

The contents of consciousness exist by virtue of the existence of the subject. The subject, however, is not known as such by the contents of consciousness. The contents are spontaneously projected onto intended objects. Objects are known by means of the contents of consciousness. This divorces consciousness from the real existence either of subject or object: What exists in the subject is projected onto objects, divorcing us from the subject (the Knower). But we only know objects by those subjective contents, leaving us still divorced from the existence of external objects as such. . . .

The strangeness of consciousness enables us to [formulate] . . . a theory of the good. We can say that existence is value, being is the good, but that this identity and symmetry is broken by consciousness, which is the kind of existence that we possess. The asymmetry that results is the difference between subject and object on one side and between is and ought on the other. Consciousness divorces its contents from existence as such, either as subject or as object. That makes consciousness precarious: it makes death, the non-existence of consciousness, possible for us. The existence that we enjoy is a kind of reflection of existence proper. The reflection gives us matters of fact; but our real, direct perception of unreflected being is through matters of value: Value is the shadow that being casts into phenomena.

Assuming Rand's basic philosophical principles can be called laws, the above is not the basis of the Objectivist ethics but a strawman and more of politics than ethics.

Poor Ayn Rand, she never mastered the pretentious philosophical gobbledygook academics use to keep their profession going amongst themselves and befuddle generations of students.

--Brant