Let's talk about existence in this thread ^_^
Toy philosophy for the rich and bored. Ego-stroking for the self-important. Laughing stock of anyone with a modicrum of insight. That about sums it up.
Wouldn't that describe all philosophy? >> <<
Existence is.
That page leaves out "Global warming is not true, and also it's not caused by man, and also it's not dangerous anyway". For some mysterious reason, this seems to be part of the libertarian political platform.
>Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]
>Ayn Rand: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
>>7
Even Ayn Rand doesn't like them? Wow.
Okay, Libertarianism is related, but it's not the same as Objectivism. This thread is here in Science not Politics because the topic was intended to be about... not politics. The other things. Like metaphysics and epistemology.
Ah, and have a look at this, you might like it:
To Shrug: the alternative lifestyle for an individualist
http://ebtx.com/dking/t14.htm
This is appealing to me :)
Looks like mr. >>1 is confused on the meaning of the word "science".
>Science @4-ch
>All things science, philosophy, natural sciences, sociology and other related academic topics are all talked about.
>>11
Doesn't even qualify as philosophy.
This is a nice introductory site
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/
I don't agree with it all~
This is worth reading too: "Why I am not an Objectivist"
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm#1
>>12
What is philosophy, then?
> http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm#1
Now, I do agree that Objectivism is a bigpile of nonsense, but I'm really having trouble with some of these arguments. The author makes far too much of a priori knowledge and universals, for one.
He makes some obviously wrong claims about a priori knowledge, for one:
There are other questionable ones, such as "If A and B have different heights, then either A is taller than B or B is taller than A" and "'Inside' is a transitive relation" which seem to be simply derived statements from definitions of terms and mathematics and physics, and certainly should not be considered a priori.
On the subject of universals, we have:
> The philosophical questions about universals are
> (1) Do universals (as defined above) exist?
> (2) If not, why does it seem as if they do? (i.e., why do we have all these words and ideas apparently referring to them and knowledge apparently about them?)
> ...
> The people who answer #1 "Yes" are called "realists", and those who answer #1 "No" are called "nominalists".
> ...
> I am not going to try to refute nominalism here, because it is just obviously false.
I don't see how answering these as "No" and "Because that is a simplification applied by our brains to categorize and process sensory input" is "just obviously false".
( ﾟ ヮﾟ) Bonus points for the use of mitten-based arguments, though!
>>14
axioms are a priori by definition.
I don't think a mathematician would agree. To a mathematician, an axiom does not really represent knowledge at all. It is merely an arbitary assumption. And to a physicist, a mathematical or physical axiom is an assumption that by empirical observation happens to represent reality well.
>Quantum fluctuations are literally "something being created out of nothing", and they may well be the most common event in the universe.
This must be a mistake based on a faulty idea of 'nothingness'. Nothing can't produce anything. 'Nothing' is not an entity or a phenomenon, it is a concept that refers to the negation of any existing thing.
Why "must" it? Isn't that just your own prejudice getting in the way? If you have a better definition of "nothing" than the absolutely empty vacuum, I'd like to hear it.
>>20
As already stated, 'nothing' is a concept referring to the negation of existence. This is a useful concept, no? When I say there is 'nothing' in my fridge, I'm not saying there's a vacuum there. I'm saying it's NOT the case that it contains things. In this context, 'things' refer to food. (Pedants who say 'ah, but there's still air in there!' are being silly and everyone can see that).
We already have a perfectly good word for the absolutely empty vacuum: 'vacuum'.
This makes sense:
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Nothing.html
Are you then saying that a vacuum doesn't fall under the definition of "nothing"?
Of course, a physicist would agree, because he'd know that quantum fluctuations make any "vacuum" seethe with activity. However, that activity is literally "something created from nothing", as it both exists - it is "something" - and it is not created from any other thing - "nothing".
And how does "it is not possible for something to be created out of nothing" apply to my fridge, in which there is "nothing", yet it still kind of smells?
As for >>22, it seems to be pretty much begging the question in relation to the statement "it is not possible for something to be created out of nothing" by saying that "nothing" does not exist. Furthermore, The concept "nothing" is a denial of the existence of a particular entity really does not seem to be describing the concept most people mean when they say "nothing". Making up new meanings for familiar words is not very clever or useful.
But ideas are getting confused here. I was not arguing against any objectivist definitions, I was arguing against that page linked earlier.
>Are you then saying that a vacuum doesn't fall under the definition of "nothing"?
Depends on context.
>Of course, a physicist would agree, because he'd know that quantum fluctuations make any "vacuum" seethe with activity. However, that activity is literally "something created from nothing", as it both exists - it is "something" - and it is not created from any other thing - "nothing".
This vacuum, then, is not nothing. Nothingness does not seethe with activity, it does bugger all.
>And how does "it is not possible for something to be created out of nothing" apply to my fridge, in which there is "nothing", yet it still kind of smells?
Your fridge contains filth, please clean it :)
> This vacuum, then, is not nothing. Nothingness does not seethe with activity, it does bugger all.
Still, if quantum fluctuation particles are not created from nothing, surely they must be created from something. What is this something?
My somewhat long-winded point here was that there are a lot of intuitive concept we take for granted that turn out to simply not be the case, once you really look at how the world works. Your concept of "nothingness" is one. Another is "simultaneity", and related to that, the idea that space and time are unconnected.
>Still, if quantum fluctuation particles are not created from nothing, surely they must be created from something. What is this something?
I donno lol
>My somewhat long-winded point here was that there are a lot of intuitive concept we take for granted that turn out to simply not be the case, once you really look at how the world works. Your concept of "nothingness" is one. Another is "simultaneity", and related to that, the idea that space and time are unconnected.
My concept of nothingness is useful for the purpose it exists for and I don't need to go to physicists to validate it. Simultaneity is another useful concept that I'll continue to use it, thankyouverymuch.
The omnipotence of god is a useful concept for explaining any number of things too, but that doesn't make it true.
Surely you agree that if you want to argue about the real world, you should know how the real world actually works?
>>28
'Nothing' is a word. We invented it for a purpose.
And?
>>32
stuff
>>26, >>24>>23 law of conservation of mass
A field with an average energy of 0 can have fluctuations within some locales on the positive or negative, creating things like electron/positron pairs. When they are created, they exist, when they collide, they are recycled to their previous state: energy with no charge.
That's not what quantum fluctuations are. They fluctuate entirely in the positive. Electrons and positrons both have positive energy.
>>35
But opposite charges. U FAIL IT, LURK MOAR
I exist. Really, I do.
Oh look, I missed this when it was posted.
Yes, they have opposite charge. And no, that is totally irrelevant. We are discussing energy, not charge.
Instead of "lurking moar" I suggest you actually learn some physics, if you're going to be making arguments about it.
>>38
How to make something out of "nothing", and then back again.
Large amount of massless energy ==> small amount of mass
Particle/antiparticle collision ==> return to original state.
It's not like He (or bigger) atoms are popping up randomly, it's opposing pairs of small particles and their antiparticles who only make something positive or negative when permanently separated from each other (like if one gets sucked into a black hole or something)
What, did I chase everyone away?
>Surely you agree that if you want to argue about the real world, you should know how the real world actually works?
Don't hold your breath on that one.
All we have is science, and science can only be based on observation, which means (at least I believe) that science will always arc toward truth but never be able to grant or contain it in totality.
Science will always be good at providing us just enough information to make some shiny new predictive models that are good enough for now, but that is about the extent of it. Theoretical science, on the other hand, is the art of turning observations into elaborate fairy tales.
so...
No mortal human being will truly know how the world actually works, ever.
There is no obvious reason why your statement should be true. Just because it's taken some time, doesn't mean that science will never find the absolute basic principles of reality. It hasn't yet, and it might never, but there is no proof that it will not, given enough time.
Proving that the model that science has found really is the basic principle of the universe may also be impossible, but there exist statements which are true and unprovable.
It's not like I am not well aware of how this works. What was your point?
>No mortal human being will truly know how the world actually works, ever.
That sounds like a defeatist article of faith... Insha'Allah!
>Science has yet to predict everything ever, therefore, it never will!
thread looks dead, but i finally got around to starting looking through objectivism, and was almost instantly bothered by something:
at some point, she concludes that free will is self-evident and puts it in her pile of axioms, and insists that an argument for determinism necessarily assumes free will, and so is self-defeating. my problem with this is that i don't see how free will is self-evident, and i don't see where a determinist argument against free will assumes it. she also refuted determinists in general by saying, if determinism were true, youd have no choice over whether you were right or wrong, blah blah something something, so you can't even be considered reliable. so, at this point, i stared at my ceiling for a good 40 minutes or so trying to see what i might have missed to no avail.
i'm also not sure about her derivation of causality as a corollary of identity/existence. essentially she says that things can only be what they are, to be otherwise is a contradiction, and i agree with that much, so i permit that as an assumption/axiom. she then posits that the actions an object does are determined by the object, and i agree in the sense that an object can not do an action that is not within its structure to do under the present circumstances. but if an object exists as it does necessarily, and it necessarily acts in a certain way, this seems to me to show that actions happen necessarily. now applied to human volition, it seems to me that, since choice is an action, it is necessitated. but this would contradict the supposed self-evident free will.
now uh, i realize that was incredibly long, so
tl;dr: why shouldnt free will be self evident. why doesn't free will contradict the causality she derives from identity. how does she figure any argument has to assume free will?
and on the topic of a priori knowledge. i take it to mean necessary truths derived from definitions. i'm a math major who has done up to some graduate level work, i don't know if you'd qualify me as a mathematician though. so while an assumption wouldn't be necessarily true, and an axiom is essentially an arbitrary assumption, an implication from that assumption would be. i usually think of things that are entirely definitional.
>>48
Greetings, q! Being the OP of this thread, I'd be delighted to participate in its resurrection.
I have, I think, the same issue with that aspect of Ayn Rand's system. A time ago I, being a materialist/physicalist, decided that determinism was inescapable. That was before I started (casually)studying Objectivism. I no longer self-identify as a materialist (and I am now unsure if 'physicalism' really means anything), but still see every reason to believe in a determined universe. Mostly.
>at some point, she concludes that free will is self-evident and puts it in her pile of axioms
I think this was a mistake of Rand. I don't think free will is evident at all. But I think volition, i.e. will, is self-evident. You just need to notice your own conscious inclination towards the actions you choose. From where I'm sitting, it's obviously there, but there's no immediate way to tell whether or not it is free.
I think Rand made the mistake of assuming that will subsumes freedom. One of her fundamental claims is that reasoning is a volitional process. If this is accepted, and you accept that volition = free will, then to reason to a conclusion of determinism is clearly self-refuting.
The other argument. It contains similar premises. If determinism is true, then you have come to your conclusions via a determined process. This process, whatever it is, cannot be a rational (and therefore trustworthy) one, because reason requires volition, which implies freedom (and thus indeterminism).
>i'm also not sure about her derivation of causality as a corollary of identity/existence.
This is my favourite part of Objectivism! Well... not really. But it's one point I happen to agree with. An entity must be itself, and its actions must be what they are. I think we agree about the implications this has for human free will. A certain man in a given situation has the particular nature he has, and so will perform some particular action in accordance with his nature. He'll choose one action out of the numerous seeming possibilities facing him. An Objectivist would say that he could have chosen an alternative action. But... how? How could, A being A, the end result of the decision not be inevitable? I can't see any room for libertarian free will here.
>and on the topic of a priori knowledge. i take it to mean necessary truths derived from definitions.
Sounds about right. Rand would say that all knowledge, including this type, ultimately derives from sense-perception.
>an axiom is essentially an arbitrary assumption
Not in philosophy, according to Ayn Rand. In Objectivism, the axioms are the most basic self-evident principles identified through direct perception of reality. And there are only three.
I hope I've helped, and I hope this discussion will continue :)
