Measuring Existence?

[altonhare]

Recently Plasmatic directed me to a discussion of time by Ayn Rand in the "To Anyone Who Believes in Special Relativity's Time Travel" thread. The article by Ayn Rand is here:

http://www.quackgrass.com/time.html#intro

While I am largely in agreement with AR on the issue of time, on the other hand she asserts that time is a "measurement of existence":

We perceive a world of entities which come to be, move and change, and cease to be. These entities, changes and movements all exist, yet some exist, or last, or endure, more or less than others. Our identification of this more or less of existence—the "how long" of existence—is time.

- Ayn Rand

What does Ayn Rand mean when she says that an entity "ceases to exist"? What is her definition of "exist"? The definition I know is:

Exist: Physical Presence
Physical: Has shape, a contour, can be distinguished from its surroundings, can be distinguished from that which it is not, law of identity
Presence: Location

Therefore the computer in front of me exists, it has both shape and location, but the duck I am imagining does not. It has shape (I can distinguish it in my mind) but I cannot establish a distance between the duck in my mind and the computer in front of me.

Pursuant to this definition the statement "X ceases to exist" means that X either...

A) Loses shape, i.e. loses identity
B) Loses location, i.e. vanishes

Physically, losing shape means that an object has merged with another object. To state than any object can lose shape is to state that it was not an object to begin with. Claiming "A" is equivalent to saying there is no truly discrete object in the universe. In such a universe there is no such thing as "touch" pursuant to the definition of touch:

Two surfaces cannot cross. Objects can only touch. Touch is defined as 0 distance between the surface of TWO objects (i.e. the surfaces remain distinct, though there is no space between them). Touch comprises two frames of the Universal Movie by definition. In frame one two objects are touching, in frame two they are separate. If they are not separate in frame two then there were not two objects in frame one, but rather a single object.

If you see a dumbbell-shaped object and it does not separate into two spheres, you conclude by definition that it is a dumbbell-shaped object. If instead the dumbbell separates into two spheres, you conclude by definition that the object was simply two spheres touching.

-altonhare in this thread http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... &sk=t&sd=a

An object that loses identity has crossed surfaces with another object.

On the other hand, losing location physically means that an object has simply vanished. In such a universe there is no first law of physics "The amount of matter in the universe is constant".

Ayn Rand also claims that entities can "come to be" which is to say that nothing can spontaneously acquire shape or that an object can suddenly appear (gain location). My primary question is, what is the definition of "exist" that Ayn Rand is using that does not lead to these paradoxical conclusions?

[Plasmatic]

Hey Alton, Im a little pressed at the moment but I will answer your questions by tommorrow evening. I wanted to quickly let you know the quote you cited was Michael Millers not Rands.

[Plasmatic]

First let me say out of respect for the forum and out of consistency of action for myself,this is probably a discussion that should take place off forum simply because it doesnt pertain to the forums intended function. If a moderator chooses to remove this thread Ill understand .

Alton,

The full answer to your question is contained in the book INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY by Ayn Rand. To illustrate Millers point it is simply necessary to ask yourself does the conceptual unit 'duck' you are introspecting upon have shape and location.How long did you think /visualize it for? Was this thought preceeded by a different conceptual unit? If so did it cease to exist as a conceptual unit when it was no longer being introspected upon? Can you 'establish a distance[or standard of measurement] between the duck in [your] mind [and the moment you where focusing on it until you focused on] the [physical]computer.

In other words it existed as a mental entity not as a physical entity. We can use a chosen standard to measure the time you where introspecting to the time you where observing the computer visually. So we can say 'Time is a comparison of one thing's existence to another's' as Miller asserted.

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition.
The units involved may be any aspect of reality: entities, attributes, actions, qualities, relationships, etc.; they may be perceptual concretes or other, earlier-formed concepts. The act of isolation involved is a process of abstraction: i.e., a selective mental focus that takes out or separates a certain aspect of reality from all others (e.g., isolates a certain attribute from the entities possessing it, or a certain action from the entities performing it, etc.). The uniting involved is not a mere sum, but an integration, i.e., a blending of the units into a single, new mental entity which is used thereafter as a single unit of thought (but which can be broken into its component units whenever required).
In order to be used as a single unit, the enormous sum integrated by a concept has to be given the form of a single, specific, perceptual concrete, which will differentiate it from all other concretes and from all other concepts. This is the function performed by language.Language is a code of visual-auditory symbols that serves the psycho-epistemological function of convening concepts into the mental equivalent of concretes. Language is the exclusive domain and tool of concepts. Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e., that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind...... The above is a general description of the nature of concepts as products of a certain mental process. But the question of epistemology is: what precisely is the nature of that process? To what precisely do concepts refer in reality?

In other words the duck existed ,had shape ,and location [in your mind]and had a duration as a concept . The only thing we need to do here is to identify what context of exist we are speaking of . Conceptually abstract entity[epistemelogical] or perceptually concrete entity[metaphysical].

To claim otherwise is to deny the most essential charachteristic of our identity as the rational animal . To do so would be to maintain that you did not actually think of a duck nor could think of anything abstract for any duration whatsoever. Its simply a matter of context .Reification only happens when we fail to differentiate the context .

So ask yourself does your consciousness exist?

As I wrote in For the New Intellectual: "To negate man's mind, it is the conceptual level of his consciousness that has to be invalidated. Under all the tortuous complexities, contradictions, equivocations, rationalizations of the post-Renaissance philosophy—the one consistent line, the fundamental that explains the rest, is: a concerted attack on man's conceptual faculty. Most philosophers did not intend to invalidate conceptual knowledge, but its defenders did more to destroy it than did its enemies. They were unable to offer a solution to the 'problem of universals,' that is: to define the nature and source of abstractions, to determine the relationship of concepts to perceptual data—and to prove the validity of scientific induction .... The philosophers were unable to refute the Witch Doctor's claim that their concepts were as arbitrary as his whims and that their scientific knowledge had no greater metaphysical validity than his revelations."

You see the conflict you are trying to resolve is a philosophical one.

Lets continue off list I dont want to take any more bandwidth from the intended use of the forum.

[soulsurvivor]

Remove conscious thought from the formula?

Perhaps the "time" of smashing clocks and calendars is upon us?

How will we "measure" immortality?

Would the importance of "measuring" become extinct?

If we think we're a clock, then a clock we shall be.

[bdw000]

My "nonprofessional opinion" is that the IDEA of time suffers from a massive switching back and forth between different meanings or usages of the word "time."

the literary use of the word "time" is simply very different from what some scientists try to cram into their own pet, manufactured, arbitrary definition of the word.

And just about any time that someone tries to define the word time "scientifically," they almost always jump around between common literary usage and one of many different scientific usages.

There are so many unspoken assumptions with the word, and just about everyone assumes that their off-the-cuff remarks must be the final truth of the matter, that ACTUAL THINKING almost never occurs in the discussion.

The answer is there if you sit down and think about it. If all you do is try to force reality or experience to fit this theory about time, or that idea about time, no progress will be made.

[Birkeland]

...what is the definition of "exist" that Ayn Rand is using that does not lead to these paradoxical conclusions?

The Ayn Rand Lexicon - a great resource.

To state than any object can lose shape is to state that it was not an object to begin with.

A block of steel. It sure is an object. One could reshape the block of steel and make a bowl. The block of steel was an object to begin with. I don't see the paradox.

A is A

[kevin]

Altonhare,
Answering You is akin to jumping into a pond full of aligators, at teatime.
This is not a critism or non-respectfull , but you do demand precision, provable quantifiable data.
I would ask you to think back to when you were ten, replay the scene, then wonder why it didn't take you the relative so called time to replay that scene that exists between you now and when you were ten?
All this talk of time, fixed to a so called speed of light, garbage, total garbage.
And just what may I ask is a fixed point?
fixed to what/where?
I do not percieve of time, I do not percieve of my thoughts and memory been in my head, I see my head as a machine that accesses the sea of energy that everything of all so called time exists in, what is, has been, will be are all there at once, the relative condition of what we percieve as now, is a condition of multiple variants of inputs/outputs, reset any of those to match a condition relative to anywhere any time, and there you will be.
I do not percieve of anything existing except as a balance of the inputs/outputs remaing relatively constant, and if those inputs suddenly altered that everything, including the planet, could blink out into no-thing.
I can percieve of other dimensions of existance existing in the same space at the same time , without interferance between the dimensions, and given the correct alteration about an area, that a switch between those dimensions could be achieved.
A bus is a bus as long as you exist in the same condition that the bus exists in, so it will interact with you if it hits you, but change the condition about the bus or you, and they may simply appear to pass through each other.

I think like this because of experience, I can enter a sort of state where I dream across time, the physical body remains ticking over, but something else has a wander.
I am afraid I cannot obtain concrete evidence to prove this, in your concrete provable way, so I accept your rejection of such, and as I existed for 55 so called years in that concrete world, I fully understand.
But do not term me insane sir, you belittle yourself, and I recognise the talent you have that is above such.
Kevin

[Grey Cloud]

To state than any object can lose shape is to state that it was not an object to begin with.

Torak's teeth and nails. I don't know who came up with this but it is risible.
What about a cloud that changes its shape then disappears? What about an ice-cube which melts and then evaporates?

Full marks to the man from the White Rose county. Here's the man from the Red Rose county's take on time: Remember those old westerns where you had the cowboy sat on a stuffed horse, pretending to gallop while the scenery behind him flew by?
There is only the Eternal Now.

P.S. to Birkland or Plasmatic:
Why does Rand need a lexicon, can she not write in plain English? Laotsu translated into English doesn't need a lexicon; Plato translated into English doesn't need a lexicon; Nietzsche translated into English doesn't need a lexicon. The woman's a muppet (Apologies to Jim Henson). That's my objective opinion. Relative, of course, to my cultural background, age, mood, background, diet, etc. ad nauseum.

[junglelord]

Ayn Rand the Muppet.


Thats perfect.

[Grey Cloud]

Altonhare wrote:

Exist: Physical Presence
Physical: Has shape, a contour, can be distinguished from its surroundings, can be distinguished from that which it is not, law of identity
Presence: Location

Where did you get this from, a fortune-cookie?
Do my emotions not exist? They have a presence but it is not physical; they have no shape nor contour; they cannot be distinguished from their surroundings; they cannot be distinguished form what is not because nobody has yet been able to distinguish anything which is not. Law of identity? Is this something to do with Big Brother, anti-terrorism legislation and all that?
Please do not take any offence at the tone of this post as emotions don't exist in your world.

[Birkeland]

Why does Rand need a lexicon, can she not write in plain English?

To understand the full depth of her philosophy you need to know the definitions of her consepts. Without a clear understanding of the essence in her consepts you won't be able to gain more than a superficial understanding. A lexicon is a great and handy tool.

[soulsurvivor]

http://www.crichtonmiller.com/symbolism_2.htm
The Cycles of Time
The symbolism above represents the interweaving cycles of cause and effect, in other words, what we know as time, but what they understood as just change.
Time was not linear to our ancestors as it is to us today.
They considered memory to be an illusion and that everything that ever was and ever would be was here and now, not in the past.
The tilted cross seen in the middle is representative of the tilted earth which affects the seasons bringing death and rebirth for all life..

[altonhare]

I wanted to quickly let you know the quote you cited was Michael Millers not Rands.

-Plasmatic

Whoops. I seem to be awfully good at embarrassing myself when it comes to names *glances at Solar*

You see the conflict you are trying to resolve is a philosophical one.

- Plasmatic

Millers has put forth a claim, i.e. a hypothesis. This is a scientific issue. In particular Millers has made the hypothesis that objects can begin to exist and cease to exist. We are at the first stage of the scientific method, we are past first philosophy at this point. To analyze the claim we need definitions. Pursuant to the definition of "exist" I put forth, only concrete objects exist. The duck in my brain does not exist, ever. It never began to and it cannot cease to. This is a matter of using the definition of "exist" consistently. The duck does not have location.

If I measure the time I introspected on the duck and the time that I stared at the computer screen then that's exactly what I know. I know how long I (concrete object) introspected (verb) on the duck (abstract object) compared to how long I (CO) stared (v) at the computer (CO). The computer and I exist, the duck does not. The duck cannot run, jump, swim, introspect, or be stared at.

In other words the duck existed ,had shape ,and location [in your mind]and had a duration as a concept . The only thing we need to do here is to identify what context of exist we are speaking of . Conceptually abstract entity[epistemelogical] or perceptually concrete entity[metaphysical].

- Plasmatic

This is not an issue of context, but an issue of picking a single definition and using it consistently throughout one's theory/discussion. If you want to define exist as that which merely has shape, then the duck does exist. The leprechaun in my head exists too. I can establish a time that the leprechaun existed and didn't. If this is Miller's hypothesis then I must reject it.

So ask yourself does your consciousness exist?

- Plasmatic

The hypothesis here is either:

A) My consciousness exists

or

B) My consciousnes doesn't exist

To evaluate this hypothesis we need two definitions, exist and consciousness. Using my aforementioned definition of exist, it now depends on how I define consciousness. If I define it as a brain and I plop one down before you, then it exists. If I define it as certain molecules I call neurotransmitters, which I show you models of and name, then it exists. If I define it as the abstract objects in my head then it does not exist. Etc.

My "nonprofessional opinion" is that the IDEA of time suffers from a massive switching back and forth between different meanings or usages of the word "time."

-bdw

This is indeed a problem. The only consistent definition of time I have been able to use is in terms of causality. Time is cause/effect and before/after. If A happens THEN B happens. If this is true then we cannot have a scenario where B happens then A happens. The duck existed then it didn't exist. Before, the duck existed. After, it didn't exist. The quantitative (mathematical) definition of time, referencing light as the standard, has been explored at painstaking length in the special relativity thread.

A block of steel. It sure is an object. One could reshape the block of steel and make a bowl. The block of steel was an object to begin with. I don't see the paradox.

A is A

- birkeland

This is a straw-man argument and makes it evident you did not read carefully. I said the objected LOSES shape, not that it CHANGES shape. This is the difference between the block losing length, width, and height and the block simply bending.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon - a great resource.

- birkeland

The definition of exist there (existence in her lexicon) is a page long. Mine can be reduced to two words. For a definition to be precise it must be expressed in as few words as possible. That isn't to say a definition may not need to be long, but the definition in that lexicon is too filled with strategic (subjective) terms for me to make sense of. It rambles.

This is not a critism or non-respectfull , but you do demand precision, provable quantifiable data.

- kevin

Actually I couldn't care less about "data" or "proof". Proving is something mathematicians often try to do. Data is based on human perception and is subjective. I propose and evaluate hypotheses. I do not think it is much to ask of scientists to maintain absolute consistency and clarity in the communication of their claims and hypotheses. The reason I can replay a memory in shorter time than I experienced it is because my memory leaves out huge chunks of the story. It's as simple as that. Using light to measure time is just a reference standard, it is used for quantification (i.e. mathematics). It is only as good as our assumptions are (that light is countable and has the same velocity in any frame of reference). It has nothing to do with qualitative time (i.e. physics). I find the rest of your post... difficult. What is a "sea of energy"? What is energy? Other dimensions? What's a dimension to you? A bus either collides with you or doesn't. This is causality. A bus cannot both go through you and collide with you. This is contradictory. I think you need to slow down and think through your thoughts carefully.

Torak's teeth and nails. I don't know who came up with this but it is risible.
What about a cloud that changes its shape then disappears? What about an ice-cube which melts and then evaporates?

- Grey Cloud

This is easy. A cloud that "disappears" neither lost shape nor location. The light it emits has simply fallen out of the visible part of the spectrum. It's still there, in a more or less scattered form. Same for the ice cube. When it evaporates the light emitted by its atoms simply falls out of the visible spectrum. They are still there, they all still have shape and location. Objects do not cease to exist because I can no longer see them. "object permanence"

Where did you get this from, a fortune-cookie?
Do my emotions not exist? They have a presence but it is not physical; they have no shape nor contour; they cannot be distinguished from their surroundings; they cannot be distinguished form what is not because nobody has yet been able to distinguish anything which is not. Law of identity? Is this something to do with Big Brother, anti-terrorism legislation and all that?
Please do not take any offence at the tone of this post as emotions don't exist in your world.

This is not everyday chatter or casual speech. We are scientists. We absolutely must have a single definition for a word when we make a statement. This is the only way to be consistent and avoid paradox, duality, and contradiction. Emotions do not exist because they do not have location. I cannot establish a distance between my happiness and the wall. If I define happiness as the molecule endorphin, then happiness can be said to exist. This is a matter of definitions. You can use one definition of exit for your emotions and another definition for your cat if you want, but this is unscientific and inconsistent.

One good insult deserves another, GC. I think humans learn object permanence around 8 or 9 months, are you lagging a bit behind?

[Birkeland]

This is a straw-man argument and makes it evident you did not read carefully.

It could also indicate that you did not clearify the following:

I said the objected LOSES shape, not that it CHANGES shape.

But even this does not clearify what you mean: when a shape is changed from A to B it implies that shape A is lost - it's logical. What do you mean by loses then? Matter cannot cease to exist - it can only change form.

This is the difference between the block losing length, width, and height and the block simply bending.

Which dosen't make any sense since matter can't cease to exist.

The definition of exist there (existence in her lexicon) is a page long. Mine can be reduced to two words.

You didn't read it did you? The definition is simple and axiomatic (self-evident - and cannot be reduced any further): Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification.

For a definition to be precise it must be expressed in as few words as possible.

I would say not beyond necessity.

That isn't to say a definition may not need to be long, but the definition in that lexicon is too filled with strategic (subjective) terms for me to make sense of. It rambles.

No it does not. It clearifies, and you missed the essence.

[Grey Cloud]

Hail A.H.,
You wrote:

A cloud that "disappears" neither lost shape nor location.

Okay, so if I look out of my window next midsummer, at a clear blue sky, all the clouds that I can see in today's autumnal sky will still be there it's just that I cannot see them?
Are you saying that clouds do not move through the sky? Are you saying that water molecules do not move about in the atmosphere? Are you saying that there is only the Eternal Now? Even by my, well-known low opinion of science (as in the academic discipline of) your statements are not anywhere near 'scientific'.
And,

Same for the ice cube. When it evaporates the light emitted by its atoms simply falls out of the visible spectrum. They are still there, they all still have shape and location.

Here we go with definitions again but, surely if it has evaporated, it is no longer 'ice'? The puddle of water in its liquid form on the table will not have the same shape as the water in its solid state (assuming it's not a flash-frozen puddle). Nor will the evaporated water in its gaseous state (doesn't volume increase as it changes state or summat?). The evaporated water will also presumably rise, i.e. up and away from the table.
You, however, appear to be saying that if I place my newspaper on the table after (I think) the ice cube has long since evaporated, I will get a damp patch in the middle of my paper. Somewhat akin to the opening shot of the old tv show 'Bonanza', except with soggy newsprint rather than a burning map.
And,

Objects do not cease to exist because I can no longer see them.

You appear to be able to see them even where they are not.
And,

We are scientists.

No we are not. We are users on a forum. Wearing a white coat while posting on forums does not one a scientist make. [One moment while I adjust my Spiderman costume]
And,

We absolutely must have a single definition for a word when we make a statement.

Is that not why we have dictionairies? This was the point of my comment to Plasmatic and Birkland. Why do the likes of Rand and scientists have to keep altering the meaning of words?
And,

Emotions do not exist because they do not have location.

Right. So all the world has had it wrong for all this time? Wow. It puts the Iliad, which I am currently re-reading, into a different perspective. Wow.
And,

You can use one definition of exit for your emotions and another definition for your cat if you want, but this is unscientific and inconsistent.

I do not use a different definition of exist for my emotions and my cat and, as far as I'm aware, I didn't offer any definition. I merely use a different definition of exist than you do. I, for instance, differentiate between existence and being. There is only existence; you cannot conceive of non-existence. And I mean non-existence itself, i.e. the state of non-existence, not the non-existence of a 'thing' such as a brontosaurus, for example. Everything you can think of has existence because your thought gives it existence (I personally believe that it pre-exists your thought but that is another topic).
According to the Ancient Egyptians a thing had being if it had volume. Sounds good to me, so my emotions exist, as does my cat. My cat also has being but my emotions do not. My emotions can manifest in something that has being, such as shaking someone by the hand or throat but that is not the emotion itself; not its 'essence' as Socrates would have said.
In this way, unicorns exist. They exist in books and films, for example. We could all sit here and discuss unicorns: their role in myth; the likelihood of there ever being such as creature; the etymology of the word. etc, etc. We cannot discuss the non-existent. And, just for the record, the picture of the unicorn in the book has being, not the unicorn.
And,

One good insult deserves another, GC

Definitions again. I didn't consider mine to be good and your's certainly wasn't. Mine wasn't even intended as an insult, merely throwaway sarcasm - a smart-ass one-liner, so to speak. I wouldn't bother trying to insult me, I have a hide like a rhino - it's below the visible light spectrum, but it's there. I don't mind a bit of robust badinage though.
And,

I think humans learn object permanence around 8 or 9 months, are you lagging a bit behind?

Does 'object permanence' exist? Does it have shape, location etc? In any case, the concept of object permanence in infants pertains to the ability to retain an image of the object, it has nothing to do with the permanence of the object per se. And the use here of the word 'permanence' is relative to how well the infant retained images prior to the age of 9 months. It is not implying 'permanent' in the absolute sense of the word, to either the image or the object. The meaning of a word can alter according to its context; it is not just a question of definition.