About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 10:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"The Omnipotent Fallacy or The Night of Randuary 16th"

"Every single field or discipline should be examined from the perspective of Objectivism. But that does NOT mean they are part of Objectivism. Just as physics, chemistry, biology, geology, or civil engineering are not part of Objectivism. Because a field is not part of philosophy doesn't mean contradictions with Objectivist Metaphysics or Epistemology are accepted. Knowledge is hierarchical and philosophy is the foundation, the base. The other fields build upon it. Some disciplines need major rewrites, other only a tiny bit of tweaking. It is because of the hierarchy that we can give priority to one layer over those built upon it."

Some hack Objectivists do think that all knowledge forms a subset of philosophy, and that Objectivism provides them with a "veto" of theories, such as the big bang, which they find objectionable for ideological reasons. This is a mistake. All human knowledge is coherent, and all human knowledge is subject in some way to the axiomatic concepts. But color theory is not a subset of logic, and biology is not a subfield of physics, nor is physics a bastard child of metaphysics. Philosophy deals with the three primary fields of epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. But knowledge of the central concepts of, say, ethics, does not give one a full education in legal theory. Again, you will find plenty of armchair legalists among Objectivists. They find it easy to postulate all sorts of "rights" based on flimsy premises, and also tend to believe that such arguments are sufficient force to establish valid law. But law is an empirical matter, no matter how important philosophy is to keep it grounded. Philosophy can provide the principles, like directions to a party delivered by voice over the phone. But law must be based on experience, history, cultural practices. You can't get there without looking out the window and already knowing what a red light looks like as you drive. For example, one has to set some not arbitrary but rather conventional limits, such as an age of consent in criminal and civil law. The age can be any number within a range, but it must be some specific number. What number is chosen cannot be deduced from the NIoF principle alone. Such matters of convention and contingency must be explored within the context of an already large corpus of established legal thought and precedence.

Armchair philosophizing and philosophical omnipotence go hand in hand. But matters such as various the law, human sexuality, prescriptive linguistics, and dietary practices do not simply follow from philosophical principles. That notion that philosophy decides everything leads to such absurdities as anarcho-"capitalism," condemning female presidential candidates, and suggesting radical spelling reforms. Such fallacies of omnipotence are not unique to Objectivism. Look at the French Revolutionary Calendar. Today is neither le troisieme de Thermidor nor the Twenty-first of Randuary.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/03, 4:21am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 11:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted says, "...knowledge of the central concepts of, say, ethics, does not give one a full education in legal theory."

Absolutely! Each field that rests upon a foundation of ethics, like law, will pull its general purpose and its outermost constraints from ethics, but it will have a different context than other fields and will pull principles and understandings from other fields.

Ted mentions that "...law must be based on experience, history, cultural practices." It must also become its own body of knowledge which includes the principles of making laws based upon the understanding of these different fields and the purpose of law (as uniquely drawn from ethics).

It is similar for psychology which arises out of biology. There is a philosophy of biology which is the connection to philosophy in general (primarily metaphysics and epistemology) and there is a philosophy of psychology that is part of the layer of knowledge that connects psychology to biology.

Branden, wrote in "The Psychology of Self-Esteem, that he had originally designated his theories as "Objectivist Psychology" and says, "I knew, however, that this was only a temporary designation - a working title - and that it is not appropriate to name a system of psychology, or any science, after a philosophy." He went on to call his theory "Biocentric Psychology" to show it's roots in biology. And he said, "It is, of course, an indication that a science is at an early stage of development when that science is still divided into schools, each with its own name."

The option of examining knowledge, on this scale, as inter-related structures - all part of a whole, yet separate - is under-appreciated in this age of analytical philosophy which is openly antagonistic to what it calls "system building."
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/03, 4:53am)


Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Sunday, August 3, 2008 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted said:
Some hack Objectivists do think that all knowledge forms a subset of philosophy, and that Objectivism provides them with a "veto" of theories, such as the big bang, which they find objectionable for ideological reasons. This is a mistake.
Ted,

I couldn't disagree more.  I don't know of any Objectivists who claim that "all knowledge forms a subset of philosophy".  What many do claim, and I think even non-Objectivists would agree, is that philosophy is more fundamental than the special area of knowledge: science, law, etc.

As you state in post #40, "Philosophy deals with the three primary fields of epistemology, metaphysics and ethics."  Therefore, a particular philosophy would have a particular metaphysics.  So, for example, it might take the stand that all actions have causes.  If you accept this position, then you do have the "veto" over any acausal theory in physics.  And it has to do with logical reasons, not "ideological reasons".

Those scientists who interpret their theories a particular way are going way beyond physics; they're doing metaphysics.  I happen to agree with much of what Harriman points out in his lectures, particularly "The Philosophical Corruption of Physics".  However, I disagree with him on where the blame lies and on the solution to the problem.  I don't blame the physicists; I blame the philosophers.  Interpreting theories and determining how the theories relate to reality should be the job of the philosopher of science, not the scientist.  J. B. Kennedy, author of Space, Time and Einstein, put it this way:

"One task that philosophers perform is the conceptual interpretation of theories in physics. … Despite their technical skills, as soon as physicists stop calculating they are sadly quite mortal."

Thanks,
Glenn



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Sunday, August 3, 2008 - 12:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted I thought you weren't going to post on this thread anymore?

But law is an empirical matter, no matter how important philosophy is to keep it grounded. Philosophy can provide the principles, like directions to a party delivered by voice over the phone. But law must be based on experience, history, cultural practices.


It's a mistake to consider the most important aspect to law being an empirical, historical or cultural matter, because it all depends on the values of the law-maker and what he wants to accomplish with a law. What if you want to redistribute wealth? Well if it is empiricism that is mostly of concern to the law-maker, then the best way to accomplish this end is through progressive taxation, subsidies, and other welfare schemes. What if culturally abortion is considered murder? Does culture alone make the laws against abortion just? Is traditionalism the philosophy that should guide law-making? Or in your case Ted, you arbitrarily assert that assisted suicide is wrong, it doesn't matter whatever empirical analysis you want to give to a law that bans assisted suicide as long as you hold a philosophical premise that contradicts basic principles like individualism, I don't care how effective the law you want is. Dictatorships can also be quite effective in what laws it wants to enforce. I'd hardly put much value into that. Philosophy and theory is far far more important to jurisprudence than empiricism and cultural attitudes. While obviously empirical analysis should be used to determine the effectiveness of a law, that should come way after the fact you've established what it is you want to accomplish and why and for the right reasons. Without the right philosophical principles there's no guarantee you would get a good law. With empiricism based on traditionalism that you seem to be quite fond of, you get laws that accomplish an end, any end that the law-maker arbitrarily wants to get to based on any number of bad ideas.

Post 44

Sunday, August 3, 2008 - 11:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Glenn, I've stated it elsewhere, there are Objectivists who do not understand the concepts proper to the special sciences, who make pronunciations on matters which they don't fully understand. Leonard Peikoff and others at ARI oppose the Big Bang theory because they say it claims that existence came out of nothing and that it smacks of creationism. This shows a lack of understanding of the theory. Serious scientific Big Bang proponents hold that there was no time and space before the Big Bang. Existence didn't emerge out of some space where the was an eternity of pre-existing nothing. Rather, space and time themselves began with the Big Bang. There never was any time or place where there was nothing, neither was there a moment or a place at which existence could have emerged from nothing. There never was nothing.

Frankly, this is not a matter for debate in this sort of forum. It requires a minimal grasp of higher dimensional thinking. Stephen Hawkins discusses it in his Universe in a Nutshell. I understand just enough to know what's going on. Saint Augustine apparently understood the idea of space and time being within existence. Of course, he's a Catholic, so his ideas must be dismissed out of hand, even if they correspond nicely with those of physicists like Hawkins with no religious belief.

In any case, my point has never been that physicists are privileged to assert contradictions or to make philosophical mistakes. I merely maintain that one cannot propound ex cathedra on physics merely because on styles oneself a philosopher. The ideas that Peikoff is denying are not the ideas that physicists hold. If the Big Bang is false, then it is a false physical theory as well as philosophically. There is no dichotomy. Hence a demonstration, based on physics, not philosophy misapplied, is the proper refutation, if it exists, of the Big Bang. `Trying to refute the Big Bang because one smells a priest is no different intellectually from a witch hunt.

Post 45

Sunday, August 3, 2008 - 7:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

No. I have read those before, and am well conversant with the basic principles of Objectivism and broad strokes used to define government. I am really hoping to see some new discussion on those interpretations - something more practical and concrete.

jt

Post 46

Sunday, August 3, 2008 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

urQ "What you don't have to do is to have every single action taken -- every step, hop, and jump -- planned out ahead of time."

Hardly what I've suggested, but I am a great believer in planning.

urq "In the case of an Objectivist society, you have to have certain government policies. They will be policies with objective value for humans. Like a marathon, they will head us toward a goal."

I would say that you are putting the cart before the horse. You must first have certain government goals (i.e. respecting Objectivist values), and then devise policies that will help achieve those goals. The most logical,economical path is to prevent the type of laws (such as your examples) before they become law.

Granted there will likely always be some trial and error, but clearly understanding the ethical goals in advance can at least remove ethical errors from the process - half the battle.

jt




Post 47

Sunday, August 3, 2008 - 8:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

urQ "I think these broad ethical concepts were formalized from concretes about the real world. They are not floating abstractions so I think it's fallacious to assume these concepts when applied to formulating laws must mean they are detached from reality"

Nor have I suggested so, or do I think so. To the contrary, I think when these concepts are applied to formulating laws need to be even more of the concretes of the real world.

urQ "If you think you hold the same standard and you think laws need to be passed that abrogate these ethical standards in order to preserve them, then where does this contradiction lead to?"

That is certainly a contradiction, but also certainly not related to anything I have posted.

jt

Post 48

Sunday, August 3, 2008 - 9:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

urQ ""How it will work in the real world" is a vague request. And please note that you are mixing a couple of things up - you say "...you are obligated..." Who, specifically, is obligated? Ed, Ted, John? And when you say, Objectivism could do this, you are talking about a body of knowledge - not people."

The real - or "concrete" if you prefer - world is quite simply the test of all things, including, of course, philosophy. If a philosophy doesn't gain traction, let's say, in the real world, then it is important to examine the reasons. In the case of Objectivism, its philosophy dictates broad goals. That is, perhaps, fine for philosophy. However, I think that by implication, those believing in that philosophy - Ed, John, Ted, me, and you - us - have an obligation to support those goals by determining what is needed to establish these goals in the real world. This certainly entails determining what impediments exist - i.e. a serious evaluation of societal impediments.

urQ "Should your knowledge of traffic signals, or driver's education, or local knowledge of the streets be a part of Objectivist Philosophy? Of course not"

In your example, the law, in essence, is standing in for philosophy. If that law specified that no speed limits or traffic signals were required, and people (society) said "that's not safe - we can't abide by that - we need those restrictions, and so will ignore the law", would you not consider examining the law to encompass safety conditions?

I fully respect the hierarchical nature of knowledge. I strongly object to excluding knowledge from a decision or evaluation when that knowledge is available or discoverable. The end result usually makes for a stronger law.

jt

Post 49

Sunday, August 3, 2008 - 9:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Post 40.

Here, here! good post.

jt

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Monday, August 4, 2008 - 6:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,
You said:
Serious scientific Big Bang proponents hold that there was no time and space before the Big Bang. Existence didn't emerge out of some space where the was an eternity of pre-existing nothing. Rather, space and time themselves began with the Big Bang. There never was any time or place where there was nothing, neither was there a moment or a place at which existence could have emerged from nothing. There never was nothing.
I find this very confusing.  You seem to be suggesting that "nothing" must exist in space-time and if there is no space-time, then "nothing" doesn't exist. 
Well, before the big bang there was either something or nothing, right?  "Something" and "nothing" are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, so this is just the law of the excluded middle.  You aren't claiming that there was something before the big bang, so there must have been nothing.  I would think that creating space-time out of this nothing was a pretty amazing ex nihilo creation.
You said:
Frankly, this is not a matter for debate in this sort of forum. It requires a minimal grasp of higher dimensional thinking.
Is that thinking of higher dimensions or thinking on a higher dimension?  : )  Either way, I happen to agree with you that the big bang theory is probably too technical a topic for this forum.  But I don't think that's true of the topic of the importance of philosophy in science. 
You said:
Hence a demonstration, based on physics, not philosophy misapplied, is the proper refutation, if it exists, of the Big Bang.
Well, philosophy misapplied isn't a proper refutation of anything, so I can't disagree here.  However, in general, if one has competing theories of a phenomenon, and no experiment or additional theory can decide among them, I would argue that the theory whose interpretation is consistent with metaphysics and epistemology is the more viable.  And I think that Harriman and Peikoff are saying that many of the theories of modern physics are inconsistent with the Objectivist philosophy.

Thanks,
Glenn


Post 51

Monday, August 4, 2008 - 8:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay:

urQ "If you think you hold the same standard and you think laws need to be passed that abrogate these ethical standards in order to preserve them, then where does this contradiction lead to?"

That is certainly a contradiction, but also certainly not related to anything I have posted.


I disagree Jay. I believe you have. You professed to be an advocate of laissez-faire Capitalism but you advocated policies that run contrary to this ideology. You said in post 15 on a different thread:

May as well use the current housing crisis as the second example. In this case, lenders (with maybe a few possible exceptions) were not behaving dishonestly, just carelessly. As with almost any market (oil another recent example), when prices are seen to be rising, speculators begin to drive prices up further, popularizing the risk until the bubble breaks. This, of course, will be sorted out by laissez faire if nothing else is there to correct the unwise, rampant speculation. However, the existence of regulations that could (only) set intelligent standards or guidelines to lending could have prevented or at least minimized the crisis by assuring known, responsible lending practices would be used.


So you advocate restricting a particular commodities market, specifically the futures market, and you want to restrict certain lending practices you deem "careless" but not necessarily dishonest. The latter example you even give a paternalistic reason for the regulation, essentially saying "we can't trust individuals to make decisions for themselves".

The current banking crisis as I said in that thread was a product of banking regulations and currency manipulation that gave artificially low interest rates, and a government economic engineering program that backed up risky loans in an effort to give as many people houses as possible even if they really couldn't afford them. Lenders didn't have to worry because they were guaranteed to have these risky loans bought by quasi-public banks like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac. The government created a moral hazard. Yet you don't want to blame the government's activities for this, you want to blame "careless lenders".

The oil prices have been artificially inflated not from "speculators" but from the government stranglehold over oil exploration. Environmental regulations have stopped American oil companies from extracting oil in many areas of the country including off-shore drilling, shale oil in the Rockies, and oil drilling in ANWAR. I can't find the statistic at the moment, but I came across some data that showed oil exploration has declined significantly in America since the 1940s. Combine this with more demand for oil from developing countries like China and India, and we have obviously an increase in the price of oil. Hopefully technological innovation will provide substitutes to oil and it appears this will happen with battery-powered cars that will get 100 miles with a full charge and will cost less in energy consumption than gasoline, an equivalent to a dollar per gallon of gasoline. "Speculators" are hedging against future shortages of oil. If you restrict this at all, you would only succeed in creating oil shortages. If anything, speculators are saving us from future disaster.

So I would have to say you most certainly have contradicted the standards you profess you hold. Albeit not on this particular thread, but I didn't see you post that you changed your mind and were persuaded by mine or other arguments.




Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Monday, August 4, 2008 - 9:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay Abbott,

You said, "In the case of Objectivism, its philosophy dictates broad goals. That is, perhaps, fine for philosophy. However, I think that by implication, those believing in that philosophy - Ed, John, Ted, me, and you - us - have an obligation to support those goals by determining what is needed to establish these goals in the real world. This certainly entails determining what impediments exist - i.e. a serious evaluation of societal impediments."

You appear to be confused, saying, "...Objectivism, its philosophy..." It doesn't have a philosophy,it IS a philosophy. You go on to say that having broad goals is perhaps fine for a philosophy - Well, it IS a philosophy. I'm not just being picky here - there are appropriate limits to any particular field of knowledge. Chemical engineering, for example, would not address tort law.

Then you go on to declare that we should support its goals in the real world.... As opposed to the unreal world?

Jay, after ignoring your confusion about Objectivism having a philosophy, and even after removing the real-unreal part, that sentence still has problems. It is either saying nothing: i.e., 'we should support what we support' or it is a call for sacrifice. Obligation is word that arises out of moral commitment or contractual agreement (or both) and with a philosophy with rational egoism at its heart, calls for sacrifice are inappropriate.

But even if someone gives you the benefit of the doubt, and assumes you just want Objectivism to be more than it is now, look where you go next. You say what is needed is a serious evaluation of "societal impediments"? Your entire reply to me has gone off track. You started by calling for Objectivist policy and making a claim that Objectivism should be expanded to include things beyond philosophy. You wanted Objectivist laws and You ignored all the replies attempting to tell that it was a philosophy and not a legal theory. Now you want Objectivism to include a an evaluation of the social impediments to its being implemented?

Jay, someone here can correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't understand the hierarchical nature of knowledge, not as I've tried to explain in this context - not if you want to stuff legal theory into philosophy.

And you said, "I strongly object to excluding knowledge from a decision or evaluation when that knowledge is available or discoverable." You'll have to show me where I said or implied anything like that because I can't see it.

I'd suggest you slow down and take a look at what people are saying. Your objections and arguments are flying so fast and furious that you may not have noticed that this is a forum where the members want Objectivism to succeed and care about anything that gets in the way of that and who are focused on what is real and not real. Have you asked yourself why you would end up feeling under siege on a forum like that?



Post 53

Monday, August 4, 2008 - 9:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

urQ "The current banking crisis as I said in that thread was a product of banking regulations and currency manipulation "

The essence of our differences is that you cite Regulation as source of problems, and I cite BAD Regulation as being the source of problems. To wit, I obviously think laissez-faire has weaknesses - the main one being that not all people are rational, or will follow paths of rational self interest. Abuses can endure and do much damage within an economy before (if) laissez-faire can correct abusive situations.

urQ"and you want to restrict certain lending practices you deem "careless" but not necessarily dishonest. The latter example you even give a paternalistic reason for the regulation"

I have a paternalistic reason for supporting speeding laws, stop signs, and traffic lights too. Much for the same reason - not all people will behave in rational self interest.

I do not have much disagreement with your comments on oil, but point out that besides obstacles government may have presented to oil interests, historically the availability of cheap foreign oil has for the most part made buying oil overseas a logical business decision. Also factor in that (at least until the Carter era) buying foreign oil was also considered in some circles to be strategically wise (use up overseas reserves and save ours for the future). And the issue is still even more complex...

urQ "So I would have to say you most certainly have contradicted the standards you profess you hold. Albeit not on this particular thread, but I didn't see you post that you changed your mind and were persuaded by mine or other arguments."

What I am most concerned about today is that the standards that I profess may be incomplete and contradicted. And you are correct if you assume I was not persuaded by your and other arguments on that earlier thread.

jt

Post 54

Monday, August 4, 2008 - 11:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jay:

urQ "The current banking crisis as I said in that thread was a product of banking regulations and currency manipulation "

The essence of our differences is that you cite Regulation as source of problems, and I cite BAD Regulation as being the source of problems.


Ok, so you are making a philosophical distinction between different kinds of regulations. So am I, and the distinction I'm making is that those bad regulations were bad because they were paternalistic, they created moral hazards and improper incentives. Why are you pointing out a particular observation about the market, and citing it as a reason for a regulation when it was a bad, i.e. paternalistic regulations that accounted for this problem in the first place? You want your cake and eat it too by simultaneously advocating for paternalistic regulations in response to bad consequences that resulted from paternalistic regulations. You don't see the absurdity in that? You would have to demonstrate that in the absence of these bad regulations that the market would still have a problem worthy of other paternalistic, i.e. bad regulations. Another words, can you cite an example where no paternalistic regulations were present and problems still existed? It was a bad regulation that caused the problem, so why do you want more bad regulations? If you want "good" regulations, how to you differentiate between "bad" or "good" regulations? What is a "good" regulation? What are your standards?

To wit, I obviously think laissez-faire has weaknesses - the main one being that not all people are rational, or will follow paths of rational self interest.


But if this is the case, what makes you think someone else will be better equipped to act in someone else's rational self-interest against their will? You have never met me, why do you distrust me and why the altruistic concern Jay for my well-being? Suppose I think you are not rational, do I have a right to then make decisions for your life against your will?

urQ"and you want to restrict certain lending practices you deem "careless" but not necessarily dishonest. The latter example you even give a paternalistic reason for the regulation"

I have a paternalistic reason for supporting speeding laws, stop signs, and traffic lights too. Much for the same reason - not all people will behave in rational self interest.



This is a terrible analogy. Other motorists obeying traffic laws is in your self-interest (presuming you are a motorist yourself) since unsafe driving creates a hazard to your safety and property. The difference here is that an activity, a dangerous one, can damage your interests. So wanting traffic laws is not contrary to your self-interests nor is it necessary paternalistic. The idea is that you are participating in an activity that other are participating with you, and others may be engaging in behavior that will threaten your life and property. That is not paternalistic since people do not have a right to endanger your life. But since roads are public and not private, if you want to be a motorist you have no choice but to accept the government's view on what are appropriate traffic behaviors, even in instances where they may not make much sense. So there is no competition here, and you have no ability to alter your economic decision based on what traffic rules you think are conducive to your particular individual interests.

urQ "So I would have to say you most certainly have contradicted the standards you profess you hold. Albeit not on this particular thread, but I didn't see you post that you changed your mind and were persuaded by mine or other arguments."

What I am most concerned about today is that the standards that I profess may be incomplete and contradicted. And you are correct if you assume I was not persuaded by your and other arguments on that earlier thread.


The standards that you profess to hold, that of laissez-faire capitalism, requires that the state not interfere in an individual's economic choices. There is no contradiction in that, and you haven't demonstrated one. You now want things that interfere in an individual's economic choices, a direct contradiction to laissez-faire capitalism. So please explain how you are a laissez-faire capitalist when it appears you are more accurately a mixed-economy proponent.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/04, 11:22am)


Post 55

Monday, August 4, 2008 - 12:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

To clarify, those who criticize Big Bang theory as creationism are of the belief that the theory actually implies that at some time there was nothing, and that then existence came to be out of nothing at some moment. I do not hold and physicists do not hold that there was some time when nothing existed. Rather, time itself is "within" existence. The was no time and no nothing before the Big Bang. There has never been and could not be nothing. To claim that physicists believe that existence emerged out of nothing is to misunderstand the claims. Physicists worth their salt do not make this kind of mistake. Time and space are relations between entities. Only in regard to entities do they have any meaning. To speak of a time before existence is to make a category mistake, one that physicists don't make. One has to be able to imagine higher dimensions in order to avoid the problem. Just as south is not absolute, neither are time or space. One cannot draw the false analogy that either south has a beginning that emerges from nothing or that it goes on forever. South does not go on for ever. Neither does it emerge from nowhere. Rather, the surface of the earth is not flat. Likewise, time and space are closed but unbounded just as the surface of the earth is finite but has no edge.


Post 56

Monday, August 4, 2008 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, can we get back to the issue of the general principle by which Objectivist ethics leads to a set of Politics (theory of how we should socialize on a broader scale of groups)? o_O

Post 57

Monday, August 4, 2008 - 1:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

I do not hold and physicists do not hold that there was some time when nothing existed. Rather, time itself is "within" existence. The was no time and no nothing before the Big Bang. There has never been and could not be nothing.
You're saying time's included within existence (or within the universe). Peikoff says you can't clock existence on a universal scale -- i.e., you can't measure any kind of a beginning of the universe -- because the universe is outside of time, non-temporal, or eternal (in the literal sense).

You say time would have to start and stop with some kind of a start or stop of existence (or the universe). Peikoff says you couldn't have any starting or stopping of something that is, itself, non-temporal (outside of time).

You make good points about what the physicist's are really thinking, but you seem to misunderstand what Peikoff is saying. Here are potentially-relevant though awfully quick-n-dirty syllogisms, on display for discussion clarity and further comment/discussion-progress:

The Physicists (e.g. the logical positivist, Stephen Hawking):

Time is relational, it applies to parts of the universe (in relation to other parts of the universe).

Time measures starts and stops, and everything within the universe starts and stops.

=========
Therefore, the universe can be related to the absence of the universe which "came before" the existence of the universe (however, because it "came before" the time that time started, nothing was starting or stopping way back then -- until the universe did).


Peikoff and those like-minded:

Time is relational, it applies to parts of the universe (in relation to other parts of the universe).

There is no positive relation of the universe as a whole to anything "outside" of it (including "nothingness").

=======
Therefore, there can be no "time-line" of the universe (because there can be no relation to anything) -- the universe is eternal in the literal sense.

If interested, then just let me know which parts of these 2 syllogisms you think are untrue or invalid.


Ed

Post 58

Monday, August 4, 2008 - 1:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oops, sorry Brede!

I just helped to hijack the thread.

My bad.

Ed


Post 59

Monday, August 4, 2008 - 4:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The hijacking is not malicious or gratuitous, it responds to a topic brought up in the thread. (I LIKE APPLE PIE!) Peikoff does make some correct statements about the relative nature of time. Why he doesn't integrate that with the Big Bang theory I don't know. The point is that being a philosopher doesn't make one an expert on physics. Philosophical standards may indicate something is amiss. But such misgivings have no authority if they cannot be couched in the proper form. Peikoff denies the Big Bang based on an evident misunderstanding on his part. He cheapens the authority with he speaks by making claims outside his expertise. Not having to make a living or deal with peer review is not always a good thing. From riches to rags in three generations.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/04, 4:46pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.