Objectivism

[Birkeland]

...how do you undo the brainwashing of the two or three living generations of scientists that have been subjected to this rubbish?

You don't. It's a waste of time.

[Plasmatic]

Steven, can you please illustrate entity-less motion? This will clench your position for me. Or perhaps a verbal description of motion that involves no entity concepts ....

Edit: The concepts "Entity", and "One" come from and are derived from multiplicity,not the other way around.

[StevenO]

I'm not sure how I proved she was right, but if somebody is right then other people must be wrong. That's a moment of sadness.

Why is that? It's not a competition. Reality just is. Reality is non-contradictory. If we encounter contradictions, our premises are wrong. Identifying errors should make us happy. It makes us able to understand more of reality.

It was you who brought the label "right" into the discussion. I was just referring to the teachings of Tao that state that victory should be celebrated like a funeral. We don't have to understand more of reality since it already is. We only have to "understand" reality if we want to subject it to our ego.

One can start labelling other people not following your line of thought backward but that does not change the facts. The fact is that it is'nt consciousness that forms the main separator, but self-consciousness: we can only perceive the world if we are aware of ourself as different from the world around us, ergo we observe.

True or false?

• If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

I would say "true" though these sentences contain mostly redundant words. I think it intends to say the same I did. Consciousness is the awareness of a separation of self from the world. How can one be aware of itself without an external world?

Should I conclude now that labeling an object is the act of giving it existence?

No, you should draw a distinction between existence (identity) and identification.

This confuses me, how can existing objects have "identity" without a human doing the identification? One cannot tailor the universe to the human brain without a human brain.

It seems to me the discussion is starting to slide off into ad homs.

There is a distinction between a person and a persons statements.

So the statement "you don't even know the meaning of the concepts you are using" is directed at my words? Too bad they can't listen.

That is only if you assume language, reason and logic are prior to "motion" or "exists".

There is a distinction between the symbols in themselves (letters, words, numbers) and what these symbols represents. What these symbols represents, reality, is prior to any symbolic translation of reality. Metaphysics is prior to epistemology. That which exists is more fundamental than motion as the latter requires something moving.

Maybe it is easier to understand if we use the word "change" instead of motion. In a universe without change nothing but unity exists.

The argument I tried to show argues that space and time come before existence as two aspects of motion that cannot be separated. Everything else is way beyond that.

Time is a conceptualization of relative motion between concretes. Space and time are relational concept. Space is there where no thing is. Would it be possible to form a concept of no thing without the existence of some thing? As a thought experiment we could of course imagine nothing at all, but only in relation to a contrasting something:

• Non-existence is not a fact, it is the absence of a fact, it is a derivative concept pertaining to a relationship, i.e., a concept which can be formed or grasped only in relation to some existent that has ceased to exist. (One can arrive at the concept “absence” starting from the concept “presence,” in regard to some particular existent(s); one cannot arrive at the concept “presence” starting from the concept “absence,” with the absence including everything.) Non-existence as such is a zero with no sequence of numbers to follow it, it is the nothing, the total blank.

Nothing can't move. Nothing is not. Time is conceptualization of relative motion between some entities. Without identity there is nothing.

That is too easy. We have to show how things/entities/objects come into being in the universe. Posing they just "exist" is IMHO recursive and meaningless.

In addition:

• A vulgar variant of concept stealing, prevalent among avowed mystics and irrationalists, is a fallacy I call the Reification of the Zero

I hope you have already noticed that oneness is not the same as nothingness.

Everything that exists is defined by its motion.

Is it? What is a car? Is it just motion at z speed between x and y?

Would you claim that photons or atoms are not in continuous motion? You would claim they just "exist", like "existence exists"?

I assume you say that because you have'nt actually read them but had your prejudices take over the best of you.

The fundamental laws of logic can't be broken. It's easy to identify nonsense by means of logic.

There are many languages of logic and logic cannot be applied without premises. I would say that "all physical entities can be deduced from space and time ratios(motion)" needs less axioms than "existence exists", which poses that everything is already there as by magic.

Proofs always come after the fact.

You're making a false distinction. A fact is proof in itself.

...so you agree with me then?

How could something come after itself? That makes no sense at all. It's like saying: I walked in the door and arrived ten minutes later when I understood that I was home. Reality don't lag in relation to our understanding of it. It doesn't wait to let us catch up with it. It is here and now, constantly changing.

But you are not in your home before you walked through that door.

I'm serious. I think leaving the belief system undescribed is a serious distortion of the scientific method.

It's irrelevant. Beliefs brought about our current problems. Popper's deductive method even starts with a hypothesis - what is believed to be true. Listen to Eric J. Lerner at the start of this video - however: starting with existence is not "backwardish", it's the other way around. Science starts with reality.

What problems do you refer too?

If things are believed instead of facts that should be explicit. Do you have proof beyond doubt that black holes or massless photons are a fact or do you believe it?

I don't believe in catholic big bang cosmology.

But you do believe that "existence exists". What's the difference?

[Birkeland]

It was you who brought the label "right" into the discussion.

Yes.

I was just referring to the teachings of Tao that state that victory should be celebrated like a funeral.

Is this a war with casualties?

We don't have to understand more of reality since it already is. We only have to "understand" reality if we want to subject it to our ego.

Really? That makes no sense. Knowledge is essential to human survival and evolution.

Consciousness is the awareness of a separation of self from the world.

Yes, consciousness is being aware of existence, identifying it.

How can one be aware of itself without an external world?

That's impossible.

This confuses me, how can existing objects have "identity" without a human doing the identification?

That which exist is what it is regardless of being identified or not. Non-identity is nothing.

One cannot tailor the universe to the human brain without a human brain.

One cannot identify existence without a consciousness.

So the statement "you don't even know the meaning of the concepts you are using" is directed at my words?

The meaning.

Too bad they can't listen.

Let's hope they can read.

Maybe it is easier to understand if we use the word "change" instead of motion. In a universe without change nothing but unity exists.

Stealing a different concept presupposing the law of identity won't allow you to evade it:

• They proclaim that there is no law of identity, that nothing exists but change, and blank out the fact that change presupposes the concepts of what changes, from what and to what, that without the law of identity no such concept as “change” is possible - “Stolen Concept”

It's impossible to violate the law of identity. It can't be done.

We have to show how things/entities/objects come into being in the universe.

We have to prove creation? I don't think that the laws of logic allows creatio ex nihilo, and didn't you previously state that, quote:

We don't have to understand more of reality since it already is.

You can't hold two contradictory positions in a debate without loosing intellectual credibility.

Posing they just "exist" is IMHO recursive and meaningless.

That's the metaphysically given. Epistemologically speaking we identify by means of reason and logic.

Would you claim that photons or atoms are not in continuous motion?

No.

You would claim they just "exist", like "existence exists"?

That's the metaphysically given. What they are is an epistemological question.

There are many languages of logic and logic cannot be applied without premises.

Correct.

I would say that "all physical entities can be deduced from space and time ratios(motion)" needs less axioms than "existence exists", which poses that everything is already there as by magic.

Magic? Like everything just popping out of nothing? Logic, as correctly stated, rests on premises, that which is. The concepts of space and time are not axioms. They are relational concepts - the relationship between existing entities possessing identity.

Proofs always come after the fact.

You're making a false distinction. A fact is proof in itself.

...so you agree with me then?

How could something come after itself? That makes no sense at all. It's like saying: I walked in the door and arrived ten minutes later when I understood that I was home. Reality don't lag in relation to our understanding of it. It doesn't wait to let us catch up with it. It is here and now, constantly changing.

But you are not in your home before you walked through that door.

Correct. Nor are you not home after you arrived at home. You are home when you are home. This is a factual proof in itself.

I'm serious. I think leaving the belief system undescribed is a serious distortion of the scientific method.

It's irrelevant. Beliefs brought about our current problems. Popper's deductive method even starts with a hypothesis - what is believed to be true. Listen to Eric J. Lerner at the start of this video - however: starting with existence is not "backwardish", it's the other way around. Science starts with reality.

What problems do you refer too?

Are you unfamiliar with the contradictions in big bang cosmology?

If things are believed instead of facts that should be explicit. Do you have proof beyond doubt that black holes or massless photons are a fact or do you believe it?

I don't believe in catholic big bang cosmology.

But you do believe that "existence exists". What's the difference?

That's not a belief, but an undisputable fact - an axiom.

[StevenO]

Steven, can you please illustrate entity-less motion? This will clench your position for me. Or perhaps a verbal description of motion that involves no entity concepts ....

Edit: The concepts "Entity", and "One" come from and are derived from multiplicity,not the other way around.

If "oneness" consists of uniform motion, then deviations of that uniform motion would become observable entities, e.g. a photon. Dewey Larson postulates this uniform motion as scalar motion at lightspeed.

Please explain how oneness and entity are derived from multiplicity. I would agree that "one" and "many" are a dichotomy, but I hold that "oneness" alone is not.

[StevenO]

Is this a war with casualties?

Not yet, but you started to proclaim your Ayn Rand philosophy "right" (implying me "wrong") in an open discussion, turning it into competition.

We don't have to understand more of reality since it already is. We only have to "understand" reality if we want to subject it to our ego.

Really? That makes no sense. Knowledge is essential to human survival and evolution.

That depends where one thinks nurture ends and acquisition of knowledge starts.

This confuses me, how can existing objects have "identity" without a human doing the identification?

That which exist is what it is regardless of being identified or not. Non-identity is nothing.

That is contradictory again. You state that something is without identification and that non-identity is nothing. Which of the two is it?

So the statement "you don't even know the meaning of the concepts you are using" is directed at my words?

The meaning.

So you imply that induction and deduction have nothing to do with regression or recursion? That there are no repetitive steps in either methods of reasoning?

Maybe it is easier to understand if we use the word "change" instead of motion. In a universe without change nothing but unity exists.

Stealing a different concept presupposing the law of identity won't allow you to evade it:

• They proclaim that there is no law of identity, that nothing exists but change, and blank out the fact that change presupposes the concepts of what changes, from what and to what, that without the law of identity no such concept as “change” is possible - “Stolen Concept”

It's impossible to violate the law of identity. It can't be done.

Nonsense. There is no form of language or law that rules or is prior to the universe. Language and laws are a product of the self, they are not physical. This "law" of "identification" is skipping the process of matter coming into existence. It's like reading the book of Genesis from the 6th day only.

We have to show how things/entities/objects come into being in the universe.

We have to prove creation? I don't think that the laws of logic allows creatio ex nihilo, and didn't you previously state that, quote:

We don't have to understand more of reality since it already is.

You can't hold two contradictory positions in a debate without loosing intellectual credibility.

Posing they just "exist" is IMHO recursive and meaningless.

That's the metaphysically given. Epistemologically speaking we identify by means of reason and logic.

1. The universe is not created by "laws of logic", it is created through recursive change
2. You are creating a strawman of my sentence "reality already is". This means that observing reality is not the same as understanding it. We only have to develop understanding (reason,logic,competition) if we want to manipulate it. A tree does not need logic since it is fully nurtured. Why do humans need such big ego's?

Magic? Like everything just popping out of nothing? Logic, as correctly stated, rests on premises, that which is. The concepts of space and time are not axioms. They are relational concepts - the relationship between existing entities possessing identity.

I'm not sure I can follow you here. What do you mean by space and time "entities"?

Are you unfamiliar with the contradictions in big bang cosmology?
<...>
I don't believe in catholic big bang cosmology.

But you do believe that "existence exists". What's the difference?

That's not a belief, but an undisputable fact - an axiom.

I'm getting more and more confused by your statements. As I understand it you accept the universe that exists as a given (fact) and do not want to study the question of how everything comes into being at all? Your or Ayn Rands reasoning is just a human philosophy that has nothing to do with physics then?

[Plasmatic]

That is contradictory again. You state that something is without identification and that non-identity is nothing. Which of the two is it?

In other words everything is something particular,has a specific nature,A is A, what is, is. Something without identity does not exist.

Nonsense. There is no form of language or law that rules or is prior to the universe. Language and laws are a product of the self, they are not physical. This "law" of "identification" is skipping the process of matter coming into existence. It's like reading the book of Genesis from the 6th day only.

First I define universe as all that exist, it is a word used as short hand so we don't have to enumerate all of existence. You have no proof the "self" is not physical. all manifestations of self are material caused/ are associated with matter. Matter does not "come into existence" and therefore neither can the "universe" which is everything that exist.
Are you actualy here claiming that there is something that exist that is both what it is and what it is not? This is what it means to reject identity as a law!

1. The universe is not created by "laws of logic", it is created through recursive change

The above is a claim that " the universe [all that exist] was created from non-existence."

Why do humans need such big ego's?

Its a good question for one to answer. Its the result of the particular physical identity we posses as living rational animals. It is the only way we can remain alive, that is to persue the goal of self preservation.

“Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness, ix.
To redeem both man and morality, it is the concept of “selfishness” that one has to redeem.

The first step is to assert man’s right to a moral existence—that is: to recognize his need of a moral code to guide the course and the fulfillment of his own life . . . .

The reasons why man needs a moral code will tell you that the purpose of morality is to define man’s proper values and interests, that concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence, and that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions.

Since all values have to be gained and/or kept by men’s actions, any breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral. Nothing could ever justify such a breach, and no one ever has.

The choice of the beneficiary of moral values is merely a preliminary or introductory issue in the field of morality. It is not a substitute for morality nor a criterion of moral value, as altruism has made it. Neither is it a moral primary: it has to be derived from and validated by the fundamental premises of a moral system.

The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.

This is said as a warning against the kind of “Nietzschean egoists” who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one’s own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims . . . .

A similar type of error is committed by the man who declares that since man must be guided by his own independent judgment, any action he chooses to take is moral if he chooses it. One’s own independent judgment is the means by which one must choose one’s actions, but it is not a moral criterion nor a moral validation: only reference to a demonstrable principle can validate one’s choices.

Just as man cannot survive by any random means, but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man’s self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness.

Since selfishness is “concern with one’s own interests,” the Objectivist ethics uses that concept in its exact and purest sense. It is not a concept that one can surrender to man’s enemies, nor to the unthinking misconceptions, distortions, prejudices and fears of the ignorant and the irrational. The attack on “selfishness” is an attack on man’s self-esteem; to surrender one, is to surrender the other.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html

I'm getting more and more confused by your statements. As I understand it you accept the universe that exists as a given (fact) and do not want to study the question of how everything comes into being at all? Your or Ayn Rands reasoning is just a human philosophy that has nothing to do with physics then?

No rational philosophy or physics asks the question "how does existence come from non-existence"

[Birkeland]

...you started to proclaim your Ayn Rand philosophy "right" (implying me "wrong") in an open discussion, turning it into competition.

I don't consider this to be a competition, but an exploration of fundamental philosophical ideas. I thanked you. For what? For making me able to prove the consistency of Objectivism.

We don't have to understand more of reality since it already is. We only have to "understand" reality if we want to subject it to our ego.

Really? That makes no sense. Knowledge is essential to human survival and evolution.

That depends where one thinks nurture ends and acquisition of knowledge starts.

The fact that knowledge is essential to human survival and evolution is not dependent on a distinction between "...where one thinks nurture ends and acquisition of knowledge starts". To a rational being, life is a continuous learning process.

This confuses me, how can existing objects have "identity" without a human doing the identification?

That which exist is what it is regardless of being identified or not. Non-identity is nothing.

That is contradictory again.

Again implies in addition ... to what prior contradiction? Please refrain from referring to non-existing prior fallacies in my reasoning.

You state that something is without identification and that non-identity is nothing. Which of the two is it?

Which of the two is what? Your confusion probably stems from failing to make a distinction between identity and identification and existence and consciousness, or in your own language: self and not-self. Remarkable given how much time and effort we've dedicated to such a simple task. Consciousness need something to be conscious of to exist. Existence doesn't need consciousness to exist. Existence will be what it is even if it's not identified. It doesn't come into existence because you stare at it. Its identity will remain the same whether you identify it or not. If no-man, then no concept of identity, but that won't change that which exists.

So you imply that induction and deduction have nothing to do with regression or recursion?

Your statement:

Deduction or induction are just different forms of regression.

To which I replied: How do you intend to find out if you don't even know what logic is?

Now, you explicitly states that logic is just different forms of regression - some may find this to be a somewhat exotic definition.

True or false statement?

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

That there are no repetitive steps in either methods of reasoning?

I've not referred to any methods of reasoning - logic - where repetitions is a necessary and essential part. Is this even remotely connected to anything we've discussed so far?

There is no form of language or law that rules or is prior to the universe.

Of course not. There is no prior to the universe. The universe is the total of that which exists. The law of identity does not command existence to obey it. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

Language and laws are a product of the self, they are not physical.

Yes.

This "law" of "identification" is skipping the process of matter coming into existence.

The Law of Identity

• Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned. Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity. To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities. The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.[/list] [quote]It's like reading the bo ... sality[/b] absolutely forbids something coming from nothing:
  
  • Causality is the The Law of Identity applied over time. It is the identity of actions. An action requires an entity. It presupposes an entity. Without an entity, action is meaningless. There are no "floating" actions that aren't actions of an entity. Action is a change in the identity of an entity. Every action has a particular nature. The action is determined by the entities involved. The change of the entities occurs based on the identities. A marble, when dropped, falls towards the ground. Its position (part of its identity) changes. This change, though, is dependent on the nature of the objects involved. It is dependent on the Earth and the Earth's gravity. It is dependent on the friction of the air. A log that burns is also acting. Its identity is changing. In this case, its position stays the same, but its chemical structure is changing. It is changing into ash. It is releasing smoke into the air. The oxygen in the air is being combined with the carbon in the fire. Heat is being released. All of these changes are determined by the identity of the entities involved. As the entities change, so do their natures. With the altered identities, the actions change to match. This continual process of change is all determined by the initial identities. Causality is the term used to describe this dependence of an action on the identities of the entities involved. The changes in the identities of the objects are a result of their identities interacting. This interaction, which is an action, is based on the previous natures of the objects involved. In short, for something to change (which is an effect), it needs to be acted on (caused) by a previous action. This previous action, or change, is an effect as well. Every effect must have a cause. That cause, however, is an effect of a previous cause. Causality is the law that states that each cause has a specific effect, and that this effect is dependent on the identities of the agents involved.

  2. You are creating a strawman of my sentence "reality already is". This means that observing reality is not the same as understanding it. We only have to develop understanding (reason,logic,competition) if we want to manipulate it. A tree does not need logic since it is fully nurtured. Why do humans need such big ego's?

  Your question is invalid. We need to understand reality in order to survive and evolve. It's not a quest in search of a bigger ego.
  

  Magic? Like everything just popping out of nothing? Logic, as correctly stated, rests on premises, that which is. The concepts of space and time are not axioms. They are relational concepts - the relationship between existing entities possessing identity.

  I'm not sure I can follow you here. What do you mean by space and time "entities"?

  That the concepts of space and time could not be formed without reference to prior concretes - that which exists. As such, the theory of time, space, motion and change is invalid. Out the window it goes - it's a non-starter by definition.
  

  I'm getting more and more confused by your statements.

  I can tell, but I'm not intentionally trying to confuse you. It's impossible to establish a philosophical understanding just like that. It could take several years to a whole lifetime depending on how deep you're willing and able to go.
  

  As I understand it you accept the universe that exists as a given (fact) and do not want to study the question of how everything comes into being at all?

  I accept that the universe exists. This is self-evident. I'm studying it. There is no reason to think it came into being. Hannes Alfvén had logic on his side when he said:
  
  • "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time," Alfven explained. "It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."

  Your or Ayn Rands reasoning is just a human philosophy that has nothing to do with physics then?

  It has everything to do with physics. Are you non-human?

[StevenO]

Oops...now I have two Rand supporters on my tail

That is contradictory again. You state that something is without identification and that non-identity is nothing. Which of the two is it?

In other words everything is something particular,has a specific nature,A is A, what is, is. Something without identity does not exist.

You are still talking contradictions. You are claiming that a human action: giving something a label (an identity) is applicable to everything that is, also the things that have not been observed by humans. It's illogical megalomania.

Nonsense. There is no form of language or law that rules or is prior to the universe. Language and laws are a product of the self, they are not physical. This "law" of "identification" is skipping the process of matter coming into existence. It's like reading the book of Genesis from the 6th day only.

First I define universe as all that exist, it is a word used as short hand so we don't have to enumerate all of existence. You have no proof the "self" is not physical. all manifestations of self are material caused/ are associated with matter. Matter does not "come into existence" and therefore neither can the "universe" which is everything that exist.
Are you actualy here claiming that there is something that exist that is both what it is and what it is not? This is what it means to reject identity as a law!

If you define the universe as "all that exists" you are done, is'nt it? Applies to everything, so the rest of the statements are just tautologies. Why would we enumerate photons and electrons and atoms and molecules, it's all the same thing anyway. (Apologies for being sarcastic, but you are driving me nuts with this "law of identity". How does this "law" explain the conversion of matter into radiation or the other way around? Or the growing of a plant from a seed?).

My definition of self is not tied to anything physical in particular, but to our position as an "observer" of the universe.

1. The universe is not created by "laws of logic", it is created through recursive change

The above is a claim that " the universe [all that exist] was created from non-existence."

No strawmans please. Change starts as a deviation from oneness (or uniform motion).

Why do humans need such big ego's?

Its a good question for one to answer. Its the result of the particular physical identity we posses as living rational animals. It is the only way we can remain alive, that is to persue the goal of self preservation.

“Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness, ix.
<...>

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html

Fine. But I prefer the idea of a growing human ego being tamed and balanced by a growing human conscience. That idea is also way older than Rand's.

I'm getting more and more confused by your statements. As I understand it you accept the universe that exists as a given (fact) and do not want to study the question of how everything comes into being at all? Your or Ayn Rands reasoning is just a human philosophy that has nothing to do with physics then?

No rational philosophy or physics asks the question "how does existence come from non-existence"

Nonsense. You are confusing "oneness" with "non-existence" again. And why do you claim that physics would not be interested in how to create anything? Did'nt somebody invent the electric motor? Or did it already exist in your philosophy since it claims the whole universe in one sweep?

[StevenO]

I don't consider this to be a competition, but an exploration of fundamental philosophical ideas. I thanked you. For what? For making me able to prove the consistency of Objectivism.

Thanks for the explanation. Objectivism might be consistent, but it is simply incomplete.

The fact that knowledge is essential to human survival and evolution is not dependent on a distinction between "...where one thinks nurture ends and acquisition of knowledge starts". To a rational being, life is a continuous learning process.

I think we overestimate the importance of our conscious brain. Most of our life is controlled from the subconscious.

You state that something is without identification and that non-identity is nothing. Which of the two is it?

Which of the two is what? Your confusion probably stems from failing to make a distinction between identity and identification and existence and consciousness, or in your own language: self and not-self. Remarkable given how much time and effort we've dedicated to such a simple task. Consciousness need something to be conscious of to exist. Existence doesn't need consciousness to exist. Existence will be what it is even if it's not identified. It doesn't come into existence because you stare at it. Its identity will remain the same whether you identify it or not. If no-man, then no concept of identity, but that won't change that which exists.

It is what it is that it is, is'nt it? Unless it is non-identity since then it is nothing.

So you imply that induction and deduction have nothing to do with regression or recursion?

Your statement:

Deduction or induction are just different forms of regression.

To which I replied: How do you intend to find out if you don't even know what logic is?

Now, you explicitly states that logic is just different forms of regression - some may find this to be a somewhat exotic definition.

True or false statement?

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

That sentence conveys no meaning to me as I have explained earlier. And I did not mention logic, but induction and deduction.

That there are no repetitive steps in either methods of reasoning?

I've not referred to any methods of reasoning - logic - where repetitions is a necessary and essential part. Is this even remotely connected to anything we've discussed so far?

For me consciousness, logic, reason, regression, etc. are all humans concepts to make some sense of the universe. All these concepts have one thing in common: they position the self as an observer of this universe. That position implies an infinite regression that we most directly perceive as time, but all logic, reason, language, mathematics,etc. suffer from this same infinite regression.

There is no form of language or law that rules or is prior to the universe.

Of course not. There is no prior to the universe. The universe is the total of that which exists. The law of identity does not command existence to obey it. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

Yeah, since this law is just a tautology: "The universe exists".

This "law" of "identification" is skipping the process of matter coming into existence.

The Law of Identity <...>

It's like reading the book of Genesis from the 6th day only.

You would probably be better off studying philosophy. Aristotle and Ayn Rand to be more specific.

I take that as an indication that you are not prepared to give up your favorite beliefs no matter what will be discussed.

1. The universe is not created by "laws of logic", it is created through recursive change.

Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist, just as it cannot be created. The Law of Causality absolutely forbids something coming from nothing:

• Causality is the The Law of Identity applied over time. It is the identity of actions. An action requires an entity. <.snip.>

Just the fact that so many words are needed means that this rant cannot be very basic. How does it define time for instance? Is action coupled to time? And entity?

2. You are creating a strawman of my sentence "reality already is". This means that observing reality is not the same as understanding it. We only have to develop understanding (reason,logic,competition) if we want to manipulate it. A tree does not need logic since it is fully nurtured. Why do humans need such big ego's?

Your question is invalid. We need to understand reality in order to survive and evolve. It's not a quest in search of a bigger ego.

Why do assume we need to understand more than this tree does?

Magic? Like everything just popping out of nothing? Logic, as correctly stated, rests on premises, that which is. The concepts of space and time are not axioms. They are relational concepts - the relationship between existing entities possessing identity

I'm not sure I can follow you here. What do you mean by space and time "entities"?

That the concepts of space and time could not be formed without reference to prior concretes - that which exists. As such, the theory of time, space, motion and change is invalid. Out the window it goes - it's a non-starter by definition.

You are incurable. I have shown you that logic can prove that every physical property can be expressed in ratio's of space and time but you keep on denying. Should I give some links?

I'm getting more and more confused by your statements.

I can tell, but I'm not intentionally trying to confuse you. It's impossible to establish a philosophical understanding just like that. It could take several years to a whole lifetime depending on how deep you're willing and able to go.

As I understand it you accept the universe that exists as a given (fact) and do not want to study the question of how everything comes into being at all?

I accept that the universe exists. This is self-evident. I'm studying it. There is no reason to think it came into being. Hannes Alfvén had logic on his side when he said:

• "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time," Alfven explained. "It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."

Well, the universe is as old as the universe is. But how does your immensely deep law of identification explain that we can prove that the protons on earth are 15 Billion years old assuming lightspeed is constant?

Your or Ayn Rands reasoning is just a human philosophy that has nothing to do with physics then?

It has everything to do with physics. Are you non-human?

Please show me how to derive any physical prediction from this universal law of non-contradictory identification then.

[Plasmatic]

Plasmatic wrote:
StevenO wrote:
That is contradictory again. You state that something is without identification and that non-identity is nothing. Which of the two is it?

In other words everything is something particular,has a specific nature,A is A, what is, is. Something without identity does not exist.
You are still talking contradictions. You are claiming that a human action: giving something a label (an identity) is applicable to everything that is, also the things that have not been observed by humans. It's illogical megalomania.

Your confusion is with equivocating "identification", an epistemological process with "identity", a metaphysical reality. To reject identity is to claim what is , is nothing particular. Now if there was only "one" thing instead of multiplicity then this would be irrelevant because one and zero are metaphysically in the same boat without the context of more than "one"! In essence your arguing that we may one day find a square-circle.

If you define the universe as "all that exists" you are done, is'nt it?

Done with the metaphysical task as pertains to that concept. Science with its specific non ubiquitous identifications is built upon this foundation.

Applies to everything, so the rest of the statements are just tautologies. Why would we enumerate photons and electrons and atoms and molecules, it's all the same thing anyway.

Axioms are self referent because they are inescapable. "photons and molecules are "done" as regards their metaphysical status [which is the province of philosophy] i.e they are considered existents. Either mental, physical or both. This tells us nothing about their specific aspects/characteristics. That is the job of science!

My definition of self is not tied to anything physical in particular, but to our position as an "observer" of the universe.

Youve just conceded a subject,object distinction.

The above is a claim that " the universe [all that exist] was created from non-existence."
No strawmans please. Change starts as a deviation from oneness (or uniform motion).

Yes I know your a proponent of non-material causation. You'd have to be because there are no plurality of entities in your construct.Concepts divorced from percepts.Anyway in your formulation "change" would not a part of the "universe", which is that which exist, so it would therefore not exist as such. The only non contradictory concept of "creation" is a rearrangement of that which is.

Fine. But I prefer the idea of a growing human ego being tamed and balanced by a growing human conscience. That idea is also way older than Rand's

Rand didn't claim to originate Egoism. Explain your divided conscience from ego please.

Nonsense. You are confusing "oneness" with "non-existence" again. And why do you claim that physics would not be interested in how to create anything? Did'nt somebody invent the electric motor? Or did it already exist in your philosophy since it claims the whole universe in one sweep?

Metaphysical oneness is non existent metaphysically and an illogicity! Your are confusing technology with physics. And I actually said " create something from nothing". The electric motor was invented from a collection of existent concrete entities.

[webolife]

Why am I back in this discussion........oh well, why not? This is about materialism, but hey...
At the fundamental level of the "material", what exactly is matter? Is it a rearrangement [or many] of basic relationships between charged fields, or "energy", or motion and time, or are there really little solid marbles connected with rods, or what.
Until you can prove that "material" is at it's very quintessential root made up of defined objects with shape and other relevant attributes of "stuff", you have no basis for claiming that the material cannot come from "immaterial", except by virtue of your own tautological definitions. At the very least, you must agree that the "visible" is composed of [and elicited to our perception by] the invisible. Beyond that, define the essential difference between energy and matter, without self-reference. I agree with StevenO, that "logic is the art of noncontradictory identification" is basically a meaningless tautology.

[Plasmatic]

Why am I back in this discussion........oh well, why not? This is about materialism, but hey...
At the fundamental level of the "material", what exactly is matter? Is it a rearrangement [or many] of basic relationships between charged fields, or "energy", or motion and time, or are there really little solid marbles connected with rods, or what.

This is a question for physics not philosophy per se... But i digress even from some of my philosophical companions on this one.... I dont currently find any use for the concept of "energy" as relates to metaphysical existence !
Its entities "all the way down" for me.! But Im not settled yet its still ongoing! I prefer Gennadys take in Rational Cosmology or something like Altons model. But not sold yet..

Anyway this is about defining "material" from observations not reified Mytho-history ala the Torah or the Flavian satire aka the New Testament!...[just playfully picking with you Web ]

Until you can prove that "material" is at it's very quintessential root made up of defined objects with shape and other relevant attributes of "stuff", you have no basis for claiming that the material cannot come from "immaterial", except by virtue of your own tautological definitions.

I dont have to prove it because "energy" was not introduced into any proposition by me. The onus is on those who claim its existence. It is the burden of those who maintain non material causation to "prove" the existence of "non material" by demonstration! Good luck with this. All observations are to the contrary!
By the way Oism rejects the Arbitrary :

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html

Can you define "stuff"? I suppose your definition has it as the opposite of "non-stuff" or "no-thing".....

Do you have a definition of existence that is not "tautalogical" as you mean it?[self referent]

" At the very least, you must agree that the "visible" is composed of [and elicited to our perception by] the invisible. "

Of course this does nothing for NMC theorist arguments however. I would add "invisible to unaided human preception"

"Beyond that, define the essential difference between energy and matter, without self-reference. "

See above comment on "energy".

"I agree with StevenO, that "logic is the art of noncontradictory identification" is basically a meaningless tautology."

What the hell is your definition of logic then? Meaningless to those who care not for "meaning" itself then. You cant have both!

I submit that you do not have an explicit criteria for definition. This is what makes equivocation so rampant for most.

[Birkeland]

Thanks for the explanation. Objectivism might be consistent, but it is simply incomplete.

Objectivism is the most complete and coherent philosophical system to date, from metaphysics to epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics.

I think we overestimate the importance of our conscious brain. Most of our life is controlled from the subconscious.

You're probably referring to Benjamin Libet - recently debunked:

• Brain preparation before a voluntary action: Evidence against unconscious movement initiation
  
  ABSTRACT
  
  Benjamin Libet has argued that electrophysiological signs of cortical movement preparation are present before people report having made a conscious decision to move, and that these signs constitute evidence that voluntary movements are initiated unconsciously. This controversial conclusion depends critically on the assumption that the electrophysiological signs recorded by Libet, Gleason, Wright, and Pearl (1983) are associated only with preparation for movement. We tested that assumption by comparing the electrophysiological signs before a decision to move with signs present before a decision not to move. There was no evidence of stronger electrophysiological signs before a decision to move than before a decision not to move, so these signs clearly are not specific to movement preparation. We conclude that Libet’s results do not provide evidence that voluntary movements are initiated unconsciously.

It is what it is that it is, is'nt it? Unless it is non-identity since then it is nothing.

Close. Work on it.

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

That sentence conveys no meaning to me as I have explained earlier. And I did not mention logic, but induction and deduction.

Ok, I won't dwell too much on this issue, but let me ask, just to check and to prevent any future misunderstandings in relation to any logical issues that may arise - true or false:

• 1. things are not what they are.
  2. things can be and not be at the same time.
  3. reality is made up of contradictions.

For me consciousness, logic, reason, regression, etc. are all humans concepts to make some sense of the universe.

I do agree. Most concepts are man-made for that purpose.

All these concepts have one thing in common: they position the self as an observer of this universe.

Yes. Nothing else than consciousness could be conscious of that which exists.

That position implies an infinite regression that we most directly perceive as time, but all logic, reason, language, mathematics,etc. suffer from this same infinite regression.

Could you explain what "infinite regression of time" means or would any attempt to do so break down into "an infinite regression of language" by means of "an infinite regression of reason" based on "an infinite regression of logic" that you then would try to resolve by "an infinite regression of mathematics" ... ad infinitum?

...this law [The Law of Identity] is just a tautology: "The universe exists".

Doesn't it?

This "law" of "identification" is skipping the process of matter coming into existence.

The Law of Identity <...>

It's like reading the book of Genesis from the 6th day only.

You would probably be better off studying philosophy. Aristotle and Ayn Rand to be more specific.

I take that as an indication that you are not prepared to give up your favorite beliefs no matter what will be discussed.

If you'd rather study the bible, feel free to do so.

Just the fact that so many words are needed means that this rant cannot be very basic. How does it define time for instance? Is action coupled to time?

• Time is a measurement of motion; as such, it is a type of relationship. Time applies only within the universe, when you define a standard—such as the motion of the earth around the sun. If you take that as a unit, you can say: “This person has a certain relationship to that motion; he has existed for three revolutions; he is three years old.” But when you get to the universe as a whole, obviously no standard is applicable. You cannot get outside the universe. The universe is eternal in the literal sense: non-temporal, out of time.

And entity?

• To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes.

Why do assume we need to understand more than this tree does?

Does a tree understand anything at all? A tree doesn't even have a brain. Could man survive if he knew nothing?

You are incurable.

Is there a disease? Could it be one of these?

I have shown you that logic can prove that every physical property can be expressed in ratio's of space and time but you keep on denying.

I'm sorry, but stolen (relational) concepts can't be bent backwards to the entities they presupposes to prove themselves to be more fundamentally true. That's not even wrong. It's like a thief going back to the bank to deposit what he has stolen before he goes to the police to make a false report blaming the victim for the crime.

Should I give some links?

No I don't want my fingerprints on it.

Well, the universe is as old as the universe is.

The universe is out of time as time is a relational concept. Since the universe is all there is, by implication, there is nothing to relate it to.

But how does your immensely deep law of identification explain that we can prove that the protons on earth are 15 Billion years old assuming lightspeed is constant?

Taken your premise at face value: Protons were formed (not created out of nothing) 15 billion years ago. How do you date a proton?

Please show me how to derive any physical prediction from this universal law of non-contradictory identification then.

Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist, nor can it be created out of nothing.

Give me a hint if you stumble upon a miracle.

[StevenO]

That is contradictory again. You state that something is without identification and that non-identity is nothing. Which of the two is it?

In other words everything is something particular,has a specific nature,A is A, what is, is. Something without identity does not exist.

You are still talking contradictions. You are claiming that a human action: giving something a label (an identity) is applicable to everything that is, also the things that have not been observed by humans. It's illogical megalomania.

Your confusion is with equivocating "identification", an epistemological process with "identity", a metaphysical reality. To reject identity is to claim what is , is nothing particular. Now if there was only "one" thing instead of multiplicity then this would be irrelevant because one and zero are metaphysically in the same boat without the context of more than "one"! In essence your arguing that we may one day find a square-circle.

You spend more words on it, but it is still the same nonsense. "Identity is a metaphysical reality" is not a reality, it's just some words stringed together. You are claiming that every object not discovered yet by humans already has an identity, that it is already given a label by your philosophical deity. Notice that I do not reject identity as you seem to suggest. I just say that it is a human activity. It has nothing to do with entities not discovered by humans, unless your philosophy claims that gods are human and they have done that work for us already. Finally, your claim that I state that some day we might find a square circle is a strawman too, I just claim that some day we might discover something new.

If you define the universe as "all that exists" you are done, is'nt it?

Done with the metaphysical task as pertains to that concept. Science with its specific non ubiquitous identifications is built upon this foundation.

These words do not convey any meaning to me as well. You have something in plain English? Or should I understand that the empty statement "existence exists" is the basis of all science?

Applies to everything, so the rest of the statements are just tautologies. Why would we enumerate photons and electrons and atoms and molecules, it's all the same thing anyway.

Axioms are self referent because they are inescapable. "photons and molecules are "done" as regards their metaphysical status [which is the province of philosophy] i.e they are considered existents. Either mental, physical or both. This tells us nothing about their specific aspects/characteristics. That is the job of science!

That's just lazy philosophy. We claim everything existing (though we have no clue what exists yet) with one megalomanic statement and the actual work is left for others. Long live the new clothes of the emperor!

My definition of self is not tied to anything physical in particular, but to our position as an "observer" of the universe.

You've just conceded a subject,object distinction.

No, I only talked about observation and self awareness.

The above is a claim that " the universe [all that exist] was created from non-existence."
No strawmans please. Change starts as a deviation from oneness (or uniform motion).

Yes I know your a proponent of non-material causation. You'd have to be because there are no plurality of entities in your construct.Concepts divorced from percepts.Anyway in your formulation "change" would not a part of the "universe", which is that which exist, so it would therefore not exist as such. The only non contradictory concept of "creation" is a rearrangement of that which is.

You assume that oneness is non-material while I don't.

Fine. But I prefer the idea of a growing human ego being tamed and balanced by a growing human conscience. That idea is also way older than Rand's

Rand didn't claim to originate Egoism. Explain your divided conscience from ego please.

My use of the word ego is not the literal meaning, but is better understood as the "free will" of people.

Nonsense. You are confusing "oneness" with "non-existence" again. And why do you claim that physics would not be interested in how to create anything? Did'nt somebody invent the electric motor? Or did it already exist in your philosophy since it claims the whole universe in one sweep?

Metaphysical oneness is non existent metaphysically and an illogicity! Your are confusing technology with physics. And I actually said " create something from nothing". The electric motor was invented from a collection of existent concrete entities.

You are confusing philosophy with actual work. Is the idea of an electric motor a concrete entity? Is a magnetic field a concrete entity? Is the application of physics (technology) different from physics? To me that reasoning smells like megalomaniacal philosophy again. Labelling anything "meta"physical does'nt place it above the actual physics, it makes it just more philosophical, more clubroom talk.