Objectivism

[StevenO]

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.

Judged by whom? These same Objectivists? Or do you have some objective criteria, like highest number of accurate predictions, greatest number of independent professors subscribing to the philosophy, largest number of scientific references? Show me something concrete instead of just your opinion.

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
<snip>

No. I'm referring to a book by a popular professor in Holland ("The smart unconscious", Ap Dijksterhuis) where he shows a.o. that the subconscious brain capacity is about 200000x greater than the conscious brain capacity.

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.

You still pretend you or this Rand philosophy is more clever than anything else? It's just a bunch of meaningless tautologies without any work done to me.

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.

1. Meaningless without context.
2. True, things have multiple properties.
3. False, a contradiction is a human invention.

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.

I'm happy we agree on something.

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.

You make me even happier.

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?

Compare it to a painter trying to paint a picture of the universe. He does that, but realizes he did'nt put himself in it. So he positions himself three meters back and starts again, ad infinitum.

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

Doesn't it?

I take that as a yes.

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.

You suggest that the Bible has no important role in Western philosophy?

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.

I think that is a very sensical definition actually.

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.

Hmmmpf. I would say something that exists is separated by space would suffice.

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?

For at least as long as he is nurtured by his mom.

You are incurable.

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

Yes, the disease that also ruined physics and mathematics: assigning meaning to a division by zero or implications from false outcomes. You start with a tautological definition of the universe and then you claim it supersedes everything and everybody.

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.

See the item above, no matter how many claims you make they have no basis by your own non-starter. Dewey Larson worked on this since 1930 and Samuel Alexander published Space, Time and Deity in 1920, but you still have the audicity to claim it is stolen from Rand? I have to think long and hard if I still want to waste my time with this.

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.

Implication is the most abused statement in logic. I would say that everything relates to the universe instead of nothing.

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?

The protons on earth that is. I can show you the derivation here (check for "Why 108x").
So, we have two independent observations (Hubble, the 108x proton acceleration limit) that show that from our position at earth the universe appears to be about 15 Billion years old. What does your theory have to say about that?

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.

I planted a seed and a flower grew from it. What does your theory say about how that changed form? Or it only says "the flower exists". Dah.

[Plasmatic]

Steven, your response:

1. Meaningless without context.

To Birkelands question :

1. things are not what they are.

Along with :

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.

Demonstrates to me that either we are to the limit of your understanding, or you are simply not listening. We have explicitly differentiated the epistemological process of identification carried out by observers [which involves "labels"], from the metaphysical status of concrete entities, independent of observers, i.e. entities which as you have already conceded posses:

2. True, things have multiple properties.
3. False, a contradiction is a human invention.

Which is our entire point whether you grasp it or not.

Compare it to a painter trying to paint a picture of the universe. He does that, but realizes he did'nt put himself in it. So he positions himself three meters back and starts again, ad infinitum.

This certainly does not describe Objectivism ,which has consciousness as axiomatic following existence!

I take that as a yes.

And Ill take your protestation as a claim that you think non-existence exist!

You suggest that the Bible has no important role in Western philosophy?

It is valuable as far as any other mythology.

You start with a tautological definition of the universe and then you claim it supersedes everything and everybody.

Your only alternative is non-existence exist! But youve already conceded that contradictions are only in our heads! Anyway existence exist is not a definition of the universe or anything else! Its an inescapable axiom!

Better check your premises!

but you still have the audicity to claim it is stolen from Rand? I have to think long and hard if I still want to waste my time with this.

Umm, thats not what "stolen" means in this fallacy. Do we offend Aristotle by affirming the consequent?

I planted a seed and a flower grew from it. What does your theory say about how that changed form? Or it only says "the flower exists". Dah.

It says the flower exists with identity, and the observation of the fact that it grew under certain conditions, is an example of causality ! Now what type of flower it is, and how many cells it has and what type of soil it needs etc. are all answered by the specific sciences.

[StevenO]

Steven, your response:

1. "things are not what they are" is meaningless without context.

Along with :

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.

Demonstrates to me that either we are to the limit of your understanding, or you are simply not listening. We have explicitly differentiated the epistemological process of identification carried out by observers [which involves "labels"], from the metaphysical status of concrete entities, independent of observers, i.e. entities which as you have already conceded posses:

2. True, things have multiple properties.
3. False, a contradiction is a human invention.

Which is our entire point whether you grasp it or not.

You guys are as deaf as the same people you deride at BAUT or other fora. For me, the basic "Objectivism" statements:

a) "existence exists", which is about the most meaningless statement you can make about the universe or the conscious human, and
b) "things", whether observed or not (another useless tautology), "have multiple properties",

are examples of philosophical stupidity, admiring useless tautologies as the highest form of reasoning. I could give more examples of stupidity, like Rands statement: "a thing cannot be all red and all green at the same time". Well, it can, it is called "all yellow".

Compare it to a painter trying to paint a picture of the universe. He does that, but realizes he did'nt put himself in it. So he positions himself three meters back and starts again, ad infinitum.

This certainly does not describe Objectivism ,which has consciousness as axiomatic following existence!

So, Objectivism gets rid of the infinite regressions of observation based sciences by simply stating "existence exists"? Could you show me how Objectivism would solve the dilemma of this painter?

I take that as a yes.

And Ill take your protestation as a claim that you think non-existence exist!

How often is it now that you guys are deliberately misrepresenting oneness as non-existence?

You suggest that the Bible has no important role in Western philosophy?

It is valuable as far as any other mythology.

At least it is far more influential than ms. Rand.

You start with a tautological definition of the universe and then you claim it supersedes everything and everybody.

Your only alternative is non-existence exist! But youve already conceded that contradictions are only in our heads! Anyway existence exist is not a definition of the universe or anything else! Its an inescapable axiom!

Better check your premises!

You better learn that language is not the same as predicate logic. I'm not claiming that "existence exists" is false but that it is a tautology, like "to be or not to be". In the same line of reasoning, "not-existence exists" looks like a contradiction for humans, but not for the universe. The universe works by assertions only.

but you still have the audicity to claim it is stolen from Rand? I have to think long and hard if I still want to waste my time with this.

Umm, thats not what "stolen" means in this fallacy. Do we offend Aristotle by affirming the consequent?

Let me repeat the original statement:

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.

What does "stolen" relational concept here? It probably goes back to Rand's "Stolen Concept":

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”

But Rand does not seem to understand that if the universe already exists of change there is no change from change into change and back.

I planted a seed and a flower grew from it. What does your theory say about how that changed form? Or it only says "the flower exists". Dah.

It says the flower exists with identity, and the observation of the fact that it grew under certain conditions, is an example of causality ! Now what type of flower it is, and how many cells it has and what type of soil it needs etc. are all answered by the specific sciences.

Meaningless statements and the actual work done by others. That typifies Objectivism for me.

[Birkeland]

Judged by whom? These same Objectivists? Or do you have some objective criteria, like highest number of accurate predictions, greatest number of independent professors subscribing to the philosophy, largest number of scientific references? Show me something concrete instead of just your opinion.

With what right do you command me to follow rules that you've already broken yourself in your initial claim leading to my answer which you now clearly admit you're unable to validate yourself? Why would I appeal to authority or majority? I trust my own mind and my own judgement, I've got intellectual self-esteem. I'm even illustrating Objectivism in my answers to you in this very thread. Are you unable to process and validate them without a higher authority approving or disapproving? What authority would that be given your critique of man and his mind? God? "The Tooth Fairy"? Voodoo? What? Nothing? Some "collective brain" named consensus? In the end, regarding any issue, you have to make up your own mind based on the facts of reality - objectivity:

• Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

No. I'm referring to a book by a popular professor in Holland ("The smart unconscious", Ap Dijksterhuis) where he shows a.o. that the subconscious brain capacity is about 200000x greater than the conscious brain capacity.

Yes, the subconscious human brain capacity is huge, but be cautious of what your consciousness feeds it with:

• Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.

You still pretend you or this Rand philosophy is more clever than anything else?

"This Rand philosophy" have a name, it's called Objectivism. Furthermore: Your question is misleading, implying intellectual dishonesty, and thus invalid, it should read:

You still think Objectivism is more right than any other philosophy?

My answer is of course yes.

It's just a bunch of meaningless tautologies without any work done to me.

It could take years to fully understand it, and first of all you must be willing to learn - you have to choose it voluntarily.

...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.

1. Meaningless without context.
2. True, things have multiple properties.
3. False, a contradiction is a human invention.

Ok, let me rephrase, true or false:

• 1. an apple is not an apple.
  2. an apple can be and not be an apple at the same time.
  3. to arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking.

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.

I'm happy we agree on something.

Do you think an agreement makes an idea more true or does an agreement just make you feel better?

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.

You make me even happier.

Good, now: what does this observer observe? What is his consciousness conscious of? Is this observer still thinking or is he unconscious of existence, wound up in infinite circular subconscious processes inside his own head, recycling feelings, sensations and emotions, applying them to reality in a process of rationalization? To put it in even simpler language: is he a thinking being or a non-thinking and primitive mystic? This is of course a general question with no general answer. An individual answer could be something like this:

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?

Compare it to a painter trying to paint a picture of the universe. He does that, but realizes he did'nt put himself in it. So he positions himself three meters back and starts again, ad infinitum.

Thank you.

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

Doesn't it?

I take that as a yes.

As an answer to what question?

You suggest that the Bible has no important role in Western philosophy?

The bible is irrelevant. It has nothing to offer. Letting it play any role in human thinking is destructive.

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.

I think that is a very sensical definition actually.

Yes, it's an objective definition showing that time is a man-made concept of Measurement:

• Measurement is the identification of a relationship —a quantitative relationship established by means of a standard that serves as a unit. Entities (and their actions) are measured by their attributes (length, weight, velocity, etc.) and the standard of measurement is a concretely specified unit representing the appropriate attribute. Thus, one measures length in inches, feet and miles—weight in pounds—velocity by means of a given distance traversed in a given time, etc.

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.

Hmmmpf. I would say something that exists is separated by space would suffice.

That which exists is that which is not where non-existing is? Is anti-anti-matter the same as matter? And would anti-anti-anti-matter annihilate it just as anti-anti-anti-anti-matter would annihilate anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-matter ad infinitum? Do you ever wonder what makes you drift further and further away from reality?

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?

For at least as long as he is nurtured by his mom.

Could his mom survive if she knew nothing?

You are incurable.

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

Yes, the disease that also ruined physics and mathematics: assigning meaning to a division by zero or implications from false outcomes. You start with a tautological definition of the universe and then you claim it supersedes everything and everybody.

Logic have ruined physics and mathematics? Why do you keep mixing methaphysics with epistemologi? It only illustrates your philosophical ignorance. Your non-existing metaphysical roots leads to a rejection of reason itself. This is what leads to division by zero - to wiping out.

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.

See the item above, no matter how many claims you make they have no basis by your own non-starter. Dewey Larson worked on this since 1930 and Samuel Alexander published Space, Time and Deity in 1920, but you still have the audicity to claim it is stolen from Rand? I have to think long and hard if I still want to waste my time with this.

Committing a conceptual fallacy is not the same as identifying it. For further clearification, see the Hierarchy of Knowledge (very important):

• Concepts have a hierarchical structure, i.e., . . . the higher, more complex abstractions are derived from the simpler, basic ones (starting with the concepts of perceptually given concretes).
  
  [There is a] long conceptual chain that starts from simple, ostensive definitions and rises to higher and still higher concepts, forming a hierarchical structure of knowledge so complex that no electronic computer could approach it. It is by means of such chains that man has to acquire and retain his knowledge of reality.
  
  Starting from the base of conceptual development—from the concepts that identify perceptual concretes—the process of cognition moves in two interacting directions: toward more extensive and more intensive knowledge, toward wider integrations and more precise differentiations. Following the process and in accordance with cognitive evidence, earlier-formed concepts are integrated into wider ones or subdivided into narrower ones.
  
  Observe that the concept “furniture” is an abstraction one step further removed from perceptual reality than any of its constituent concepts. “Table” is an abstraction, since it designates any table, but its meaning can be conveyed simply by pointing to one or two perceptual objects. There is no such perceptual object as “furniture”; there are only tables, chairs, beds, etc. The meaning of “furniture” cannot be grasped unless one has first grasped the meaning of its constituent concepts; these are its link to reality. (On the lower levels of an unlimited conceptual chain, this is an illustration of the hierarchical structure of concepts.)
  
  The first concepts man forms are concepts of entities—since entities are the only primary existents. (Attributes cannot exist by themselves, they are merely the characteristics of entities; motions are motions of entities; relationships are relationships among entities.)
  
  Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence.
  
  To know the exact meaning of the concepts one is using, one must know their correct definitions, one must be able to retrace the specific (logical, not chronological) steps by which they were formed, and one must be able to demonstrate their connection to their base in perceptual reality.

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.

Implication is the most abused statement in logic. I would say that everything relates to the universe instead of nothing.

I'm assuming you're not claiming that the sum of everything, the universe, relates to itself.

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?

The protons on earth that is. I can show you the derivation here (check for "Why 108x").
So, we have two independent observations (Hubble, the 108x proton acceleration limit) that show that from our position at earth the universe appears to be about 15 Billion years old. What does your theory have to say about that?

What is my theory?

According to Eric J. Lerner, large scale voids have a different story to tell:

• The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang - Large-scale Voids are too old

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.

I planted a seed and a flower grew from it. What does your theory say about how that changed form? Or it only says "the flower exists". Dah.

What theory? Back to philosophy: metaphysically speaking, yes. However, science is an epistemological issue. The science of life and of living organisms is called biology, and the science of plants and plant life is called botany. In botany you'll find the "miracle" of growing explained in detail.

[StevenO]

With what right do you command me to follow rules that you've already broken yourself in your initial claim leading to my answer which you now clearly admit you're unable to validate yourself? Why would I appeal to authority or majority? I trust my own mind and my own judgement, I've got intellectual self-esteem. I'm even illustrating Objectivism in my answers to you in this very thread. Are you unable to process and validate them without a higher authority approving them? What authority would that be given your critique of man and his mind? God? "The Tooth Fairy"? Some "collective brain" named consensus? In the end, regarding any issue, you have to make up your own mind based on the facts of reality - that's objectivity:

• Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

For me you are free to believe anything you want, I was just asking for some evidence outside your personal judgement for your claim that Objectivism is so wonderful. Some facts perhaps. That is because I would fully subscribe to the view that reality is the ultimate judge, but I have been fooled too many times by my own brain to view it as the next best arbiter, let alone somebody else's brain.

Yes, the subconscious human brain capacity is huge, but be cautious of what your consciousness feeds it with:

• Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don’t reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted.

I do not subscribe to the idea that the subconcious is programmed by the conscious. Dijksterhuis shows that it is the other way around. The conscious is the stage where the stories and conclusions prepared by the subconscious are played out.

It's just a bunch of meaningless tautologies without any work done to me.

It could take years to fully understand it, and first of all you must be willing to learn - you have to choose it voluntarily.

It's more like choosing a faith then? I can find no objective criteria that make me want to adopt it. Dewey Larson's theories also take years of work to comprehend, but at least his two initial postulates appealed to me. Miles Mathis can be understood in a few days however, so I think he is more of an actual genius.

...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.

1. Meaningless without context.
2. True, things have multiple properties.
3. False, a contradiction is a human invention.

Ok, let me rephrase, true or false:

• 1. an apple is not an apple.
  2. an apple can be and not be an apple at the same time.
  3. to arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking.

• 1. a wooden apple is not a real apple.
  2. a wooden apple is and is not an apple at the same time.
  3. the wooden apple highlights the imprecision of natural language.

We could play these little wordgames for eternity.

I'm happy we agree on something.

Do you think an agreement makes an idea true or does an agreement just make you feel better?

Agreement brings people closer together.

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

Doesn't it?

I take that as a yes.

As an answer to what question?

Whether you agree with me that it is a tautology.

You suggest that the Bible has no important role in Western philosophy?

The bible is irrelevant. It has nothing to offer. Letting it play any role in human thinking is destructive.

Christianity is still the core of Western culture. And I would think unrestricted capitalism is destructive.

Identity is that which is not where non-existing is? Is anti-anti-matter the same as matter? And would anti-anti-anti-matter annihilate it just as anti-anti-anti-anti-matter would annihilate anti-anti-anti-anti-anti-matter ad infinitum? Do you ever wonder what makes you drift further and further away from reality?

The universe is working with assertions, not negations of negations. There is no not of not-existing, there is only existing. Where you see nothing, the universe asserts space.

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?

For at least as long as he is nurtured by his mom.

Could his mom survive if she knew nothing?

You have discovered the regression again. How would Objectivism solve that?

You are incurable.

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

Yes, the disease that also ruined physics and mathematics: assigning meaning to a division by zero or implications from false outcomes. You start with a tautological definition of the universe and then you claim it supersedes everything and everybody.

Logic have ruined physics and mathematics? Why do you keep mixing methaphysics with epistemologi? It only illustrates your philosophical ignorance. Your non-existing metaphysical roots leads to a rejection of reason itself. This is what leads to division by zero - to wiping out.

Please do not change my words: I said that abuse of logic implication has messed up physics and most of math beyond recognition. But you are right to conclude that I'm not very proud of philosophy. I would believe in it a little more if it would solve those nasty regressions, divisions by zero or implications derived from false outcomes for the other sciences.

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.

See the item above, no matter how many claims you make they have no basis by your own non-starter. Dewey Larson worked on this since 1930 and Samuel Alexander published Space, Time and Deity in 1920, but you still have the audicity to claim it is stolen from Rand? I have to think long and hard if I still want to waste my time with this.

Committing a conceptual fallacy is not the same as identifying it. For further clearification, see the Hierarchy of Knowledge (very important):

• Concepts have a hierarchical structure, i.e., . . . <snip>

Yeah, kids are especially good at this: "one apple + one banana = two fruit". But I fail to see how this would disprove the logic that shows that all physical properties can be expressed as ratios of space and time.

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.

Implication is the most abused statement in logic. I would say that everything relates to the universe instead of nothing.

I'm assuming you're not claiming that the sum of everything, the universe, relates to itself.

How could it relate to anything else? If you express that algebraically you will find a formula that explains why we have three dimensions.

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.

I planted a seed and a flower grew from it. What does your theory say about how that changed form? Or it only says "the flower exists". Dah.

What theory? Back to philosophy: metaphysically speaking, yes. However, science is an epistemological issue. The science of life and of living organisms is called biology, and the science of plants and plant life is called botany. In botany you'll find the "miracle" of growing explained in detail.

So, what did "Objectivism" contribute to any of these sciences then?

[Plasmatic]

a) "existence exists", which is about the most meaningless statement you can make about the universe or the conscious human, and
b) "things", whether observed or not (another useless tautology), "have multiple properties",

are examples of philosophical stupidity, admiring useless tautologies as the highest form of reasoning. I could give more examples of stupidity, like Rands statement: "a thing cannot be all red and all green at the same time". Well, it can, it is called "all yellow".

A). Is a claim that maintaining the position that a "conscious human", along with all the multiplicities of entities that are the referents of the concept "universe", are existents, and therefore cannot also be considered non-existents, is according to Steven "meaningless and "stupid"! WOW!

B).Is a claim that the position that everything that exist has multiple properties, as opposed to no particular properties, is "stupid" and "meaningless"

All of this follows from the metaphysical position that "all is one"! Whats worse is this "one" is an action with no-thing acting....

"a thing cannot be all red and all green at the same time". Well, it can, it is called "all yellow".

Wow, this is amazing context dropping and I find it hard to believe you aren't aware of the false comparison involved!

So, Objectivism gets rid of the infinite regressions of observation based sciences by simply stating "existence exists"? Could you show me how Objectivism would solve the dilemma of this painter?

Objectivism doesnt "get rid of the infinite regressions of observation based sciences", because there is nothing to get rid of. It is a misintegration concocted by those who haven't grasped the axioms. The result is constructs such as your hypothetical painter which describes only one who has had far too much of the poison that is the majority of accepted ideas today.

How often is it now that you guys are deliberately misrepresenting oneness as non-existence?

How often are you gonna observe bounded individual particular entities and deny what you see?

At least it is far more influential than ms. Rand.

Unfortunately this appeal to the majority/consensus is true so far in history!

You better learn that language is not the same as predicate logic. I'm not claiming that "existence exists" is false but that it is a tautology, like "to be or not to be". In the same line of reasoning, "not-existence exists" looks like a contradiction for humans, but not for the universe. The universe works by assertions only.

Sorry [deleted] the analytic -synthetic dichotomy is garbage. As Mrs Rand pointed out:

"that which is empirically impossible is also logically impossible (or false)"

There is no distinction between the "logically" and the "empirically" possible (or impossible). All truths, as I have said, are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience. This applies as much to the identification of possibilities as of actualities.
The same considerations invalidate the dichotomy between the a priori and the a posteriori. According to this <ioe2_117> variant, certain propositions (the analytic ones) are validated independently of experience, simply by an analysis of the definitions of their constituent concepts; these propositions are "a priori." Others (the synthetic ones) are dependent upon experience for their validation; they are "a posteriori."
As we have seen, definitions represent condensations of a wealth of observations, i.e., a wealth of "empirical" knowledge; definitions can be arrived at and validated only on the basis of experience. It is senseless, therefore, to contrast propositions which are true "by definition" and propositions which are true "by experience." If an "empirical" truth is one derived from, and validated by reference to, perceptual observations, then all truths are "empirical." Since truth is the identification of a fact of reality, a "non-empirical truth" would be an identification of a fact of reality which is validated independently of observation of reality. This would imply a theory of innate ideas, or some equally mystical construct.

By the way the A-S dich. is the source of the primacy of mathematics in physics today!

But Rand does not seem to understand that if the universe already exists of change there is no change from change into change and back.

Secondary derivative dynamic concepts taken as primaries!.....

[Birkeland]

I was just asking for some evidence outside your personal judgement for your claim that Objectivism is so wonderful.

Where did I claim that Objectivism is wonderful?

Some facts perhaps.

The proof is in the pudding.

That is because I would fully subscribe to the view that reality is the ultimate judge...

There you go.

...but I have been fooled too many times by my own brain to view it as the next best arbiter, let alone somebody else's brain.

What else is there than your own brain? You can't use my brain or some other brain. No brain? You're stuck with your brain. The clue is to learn how to use it.

I do not subscribe to the idea that the subconcious is programmed by the conscious. Dijksterhuis shows that it is the other way around. The conscious is the stage where the stories and conclusions prepared by the subconscious are played out.

It's called memory, which content is stored subconsciously. Being constantly conscious of everything stored in your subconscious memory would instantly lead to insanity.

It's more like choosing a faith then?

No, faith is a belief without logical proof or material evidence.

I can find no objective criteria that make me want to adopt it.

Objectivism is not objective enough? Define objectivity objectively.

...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.

1. Meaningless without context.
2. True, things have multiple properties.
3. False, a contradiction is a human invention.

Ok, let me rephrase, true or false:

• 1. an apple is not an apple.
  2. an apple can be and not be an apple at the same time.
  3. to arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking.

• 1. a wooden apple is not a real apple.
  2. a wooden apple is and is not an apple at the same time.
  3. the wooden apple highlights the imprecision of natural language.

We could play these little wordgames for eternity.

No need for playing wordgames. If I'd meant wooden apples I would've said so. It's real apples. Try again with real apples.

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

Doesn't it?

I take that as a yes.

As an answer to what question?

Whether you agree with me that it is a tautology.

It's an axiom.

The universe is working with assertions...

That sounds a bit odd.

...not negations of negations. There is no not of not-existing, there is only existing.

Yes, existence exists.

Where you see nothing, the universe asserts space.

Where you see nothing, the sum of all that exists asserts nothing? That makes no sense.

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?

For at least as long as he is nurtured by his mom.

Could his mom survive if she knew nothing?

You have discovered the regression again. How would Objectivism solve that?

Easy, because there is no problem with "regression" to solve other than those you make up in your own mind. We simply conclude, based on the facts of reality, that in order for man to survive he must know more than a tree - which knows nothing since it has no brain. Man need to know how to get food, how to build a shelter and how to make clothes. These are the primary necessities. The more man knows, the easier the task. Today we have evolved from the dark, wet and sometimes cold caves into houses and apartments warmed and lit by electricity, with electrical computers and internet that allows us to communicate and discuss things like philosophy and science. Remarkable.

I said that abuse of logic implication has messed up physics and most of math beyond recognition. But you are right to conclude that I'm not very proud of philosophy. I would believe in it a little more if it would solve those nasty regressions, divisions by zero or implications derived from false outcomes for the other sciences.

Let me recommend Aristotle By Ayn Rand:

• Ayn Rand reads her (published) review of John Herman Randall’s book Aristotle, and offers additional comments on Aristotle’s greatness.

An excerpt that sums up what this is all about:

• Observe every anti-Aristotelian, every mystical, school of thought in any philosopher since the time of Aristotle up to the present, and you will observe that, directly or indirectly, and usually quite implicitly, the philosophers rest their attack on reason on their attack against the law of identity. It is the law of identity that every irrationalist is attempting to attack, to destroy, and to eliminate from human thinking. And it can't be done.

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.

See the item above, no matter how many claims you make they have no basis by your own non-starter. Dewey Larson worked on this since 1930 and Samuel Alexander published Space, Time and Deity in 1920, but you still have the audicity to claim it is stolen from Rand? I have to think long and hard if I still want to waste my time with this.

Committing a conceptual fallacy is not the same as identifying it. For further clearification, see the Hierarchy of Knowledge (very important):

• Concepts have a hierarchical structure, i.e., . . . <snip>

Yeah, kids are especially good at this: "one apple + one banana = two fruit".

However simple that may seem, it's still true ... in contrast to: space + time + tooth fairy = universe

But I fail to see how this would disprove the logic that shows that all physical properties can be expressed as ratios of space and time.

What do hope to end up with other than an empty formalistic description, in contrast to an explanation leading to an understanding?

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.

Implication is the most abused statement in logic. I would say that everything relates to the universe instead of nothing.

I'm assuming you're not claiming that the sum of everything, the universe, relates to itself.

How could it relate to anything else?

The universe can't relate to itself since there's nothing left to relate it to - a relation implies something in addition, but since the universe is all there is there is nothing left but ... nothing. It's therefore absurd to say that the universe relates to itself. It's an invalid statement.

If you express that algebraically you will find a formula that explains why we have three dimensions.

You could create as many dimensions as you like, but three seems to be the most adequate number to work with.

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.

I planted a seed and a flower grew from it. What does your theory say about how that changed form? Or it only says "the flower exists". Dah.

What theory? Back to philosophy: metaphysically speaking, yes. However, science is an epistemological issue. The science of life and of living organisms is called biology, and the science of plants and plant life is called botany. In botany you'll find the "miracle" of growing explained in detail.

So, what did "Objectivism" contribute to any of these sciences then?

Objectivism is fresh out of the box, so to speak, and will hopefully make an impact little by little. Human progress up until now is mainly based on the work of Aristotle, the father of logic - Rand:

• If there is a philosophical Atlas who carries the whole of Western civilization on his shoulders, it is Aristotle. He has been opposed, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and—like an axiom—used by his enemies in the very act of denying him. Whatever intellectual progress men have achieved rests on his achievements. Aristotle may be regarded as the cultural barometer of Western history. Whenever his influence dominated the scene, it paved the way for one of history’s brilliant eras; whenever it fell, so did mankind. The Aristotelian revival of the thirteenth century brought men to the Renaissance. The intellectual counter-revolution turned them back toward the cave of his antipode: Plato. There is only one fundamental issue in philosophy: the cognitive efficacy of man’s mind. The conflict of Aristotle versus Plato is the conflict of reason versus mysticism. It was Plato who formulated most of philosophy’s basic questions—and doubts. It was Aristotle who laid the foundation for most of the answers. Thereafter, the record of their duel is the record of man’s long struggle to deny and surrender or to uphold and assert the validity of his particular mode of consciousness.

Peikoff:

• Aristotle is the champion of this world, the champion of nature, as against the supernaturalism of Plato. Denying Plato’s World of Forms, Aristotle maintains that there is only one reality: the world of particulars in which we live, the world men perceive by means of their physical senses. Universals, he holds, are merely aspects of existing entities, isolated in thought by a process of selective attention; they have no existence apart from particulars. Reality is comprised, not of Platonic abstractions, but of concrete, individual entities, each with a definite nature, each obeying the laws inherent in its nature. Aristotle’s universe is the universe of science. The physical world, in his view, is not a shadowy projection controlled by a divine dimension, but an autonomous, self-sufficient realm. It is an orderly, intelligible, natural realm, open to the mind of man. In such a universe, knowledge cannot be acquired by special revelations from another dimension; there is no place for ineffable intuitions of the beyond. Repudiating the mystical elements in Plato’s epistemology, Aristotle is the father of logic and the champion of reason as man’s only means of knowledge. Knowledge, he holds, must be based on and derived from the data of sense experience; it must be formulated in terms of objectively defined concepts; it must be validated by a process of logic.

Rand completed Aristotles work and developed the aristotelian tradition by solving all previous philosophical problems of relevance. That said, it's probably possible to develope philosophy further, thereby making the foundation of science even stronger, but right now, Objectivism is by far the most advanced philosophy ever known to man.

More pudding?

[StevenO]

A). Is a claim that maintaining the position that a "conscious human", along with all the multiplicities of entities that are the referents of the concept "universe", are existents, and therefore cannot also be considered non-existents, is according to Steven "meaningless and "stupid"! WOW!

B).Is a claim that the position that everything that exist has multiple properties, as opposed to no particular properties, is "stupid" and "meaningless"

All of this follows from the metaphysical position that "all is one"! Whats worse is this "one" is an action with no-thing acting....

Well, we can try to make this an exercise in ridicule, but that will be no fun for anybody to watch. One could also argue it is just a "subtle" difference:

1) Objectivism starts with the whole existing universe as a given.
2) Dewey Larson starts with the only physical absolute, "constant lightspeed" as a given and deduces the whole physical universe from it.
3) I fail to see how Objectivism would or could induce 2)

Please note that Dewey Larson does not claim to be philosophical, his claim is that all known physics can be derived from a universe consisting of lightspeed units of motion in three dimensions only (or only photons if you like it more mechanical). That in itself is a life's work and it probably contains many human errors. But my point is that at least DL's work has contributed something to science while I fail to see what 1) contributes.

And BTW. in DL theory oneness is acting as scalar motion at lightspeed, yet another time where you Objectivists deliberately misrepresent.

"a thing cannot be all red and all green at the same time". Well, it can, it is called "all yellow".

Wow, this is amazing context dropping and I find it hard to believe you aren't aware of the false comparison involved!

My point is just that language is bad for describing absolutes. Rand tries to make an absolute statement: "a leaf cannot be all one color and all another color at same time" but fails since technically the color yellow is a mix of two colors (at the same time). Now, what would be the false comparison here according to you?

So, Objectivism gets rid of the infinite regressions of observation based sciences by simply stating "existence exists"? Could you show me how Objectivism would solve the dilemma of this painter?

Objectivism doesnt "get rid of the infinite regressions of observation based sciences", because there is nothing to get rid of. It is a misintegration concocted by those who haven't grasped the axioms. The result is constructs such as your hypothetical painter which describes only one who has had far too much of the poison that is the majority of accepted ideas today.

That is how you would solve it? Just claim regressions like this do not exist? If only life could be that easy

How often is it now that you guys are deliberately misrepresenting oneness as non-existence?

How often are you gonna observe bounded individual particular entities and deny what you see?

I'm sorry, but my brain has no recognition of "bounded individual particular entities", except maybe the term "thing". Could you please explain? Could you also explain what is wrong with the concept of "oneness" (yes, it is not Western, I know). Would you claim "space" equals "no-thing" then? But how can it be that "space" carries a property "distance" in that case? Maybe because "space" is mediated by photons like Einstein suggests?

At least it is far more influential than ms. Rand.

Unfortunately this appeal to the majority/consensus is true so far in history!

Luckily, because I think the world is better off with the Bible (even though it is not my book) than with ms. Rand.

You better learn that language is not the same as predicate logic. I'm not claiming that "existence exists" is false but that it is a tautology, like "to be or not to be". In the same line of reasoning, "not-existence exists" looks like a contradiction for humans, but not for the universe. The universe works by assertions only.

Sorry [deleted] the analytic -synthetic dichotomy is garbage. As Mrs Rand pointed out:

"that which is empirically impossible is also logically impossible (or false)"

There is no distinction between the "logically" and the "empirically" possible (or impossible). All truths, as I have said, are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience. This applies as much to the identification of possibilities as of actualities.

The same considerations invalidate the dichotomy between the a priori and the a posteriori. According to this <ioe2_117> variant, certain propositions (the analytic ones) are validated independently of experience, simply by an analysis of the definitions of their constituent concepts; these propositions are "a priori." Others (the synthetic ones) are dependent upon experience for their validation; they are "a posteriori."
As we have seen, definitions represent condensations of a wealth of observations, i.e., a wealth of "empirical" knowledge; definitions can be arrived at and validated only on the basis of experience. It is senseless, therefore, to contrast propositions which are true "by definition" and propositions which are true "by experience." If an "empirical" truth is one derived from, and validated by reference to, perceptual observations, then all truths are "empirical." Since truth is the identification of a fact of reality, a "non-empirical truth" would be an identification of a fact of reality which is validated independently of observation of reality. This would imply a theory of innate ideas, or some equally mystical construct.

By the way the A-S dich. is the source of the primacy of mathematics in physics today!

I agree that there is no arguing with reality, but language does not equal reality any more than logic. They are both at best tautologies. Ms. Rand can be simply proven wrong when proclaiming "that which is empirically impossible is also logically impossible (or false)" by realizing that material conditional is not the same as logical conditional (Paradoxes of material implication).

The problems in math and physics are mostly due to simple mistakes at high school level assumptions or formula's, obfuscated by white clouds of higher math. It seems to be below the dignity of the last generations of physicists and mathematicians to study or acknowledge mistakes at that level. Luckily the engineers have taken over the real work for the last century.

But Rand does not seem to understand that if the universe already exists of change there is no change from change into change and back.

Secondary derivative dynamic concepts taken as primaries!.....

Are you sure you are still talking English?

[StevenO]

Where did I claim that Objectivism is wonderful?

You said: "Objectivism is the most complete and coherent philosophical system to date, from metaphysics to epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics.". Then you suggested this was your own judgement, so I tried to translate that whole discussion into just one label. But the question was not if it is the right term, the question was if you could show me what "the only authority is reality" thinks about this first claim of yours, but you have'nt showed anything.

The real world judgements I read sofar come from Wiki: "According to Rick Karlin, academic philosophers have generally dismissed Rand's ideas and have marginalized her philosophy", "Rand's philosophy has been the object of criticism by prominent intellectuals" and "Commentators have noted that the Objectivist epistemology is incomplete", which appear to be quite in line with my comments.

It's more like choosing a faith then?

No, faith is a belief without logical proof or material evidence.

Faith comes before understanding. That is how we are born into this world.

I can find no objective criteria that make me want to adopt it.

Objectivism is not objective enough? Define objectivity objectively.

Objectivism is just a word. Since the axioms are only tautologies I think I could learn more from studying my chair.

...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.

1. Meaningless without context.
2. True, things have multiple properties.
3. False, a contradiction is a human invention.

Ok, let me rephrase, true or false:

• 1. an apple is not an apple.
  2. an apple can be and not be an apple at the same time.
  3. to arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking.

• 1. a wooden apple is not a real apple.
  2. a wooden apple is and is not an apple at the same time.
  3. the wooden apple highlights the imprecision of natural language.

We could play these little wordgames for eternity.

No need for playing wordgames. If I'd meant wooden apples I would've said so. It's real apples. Try again with real apples.

• 1. a red real apple is not a green real apple.
  2. a red real apple is not a green real apple at the same time.
  3. a red real apple and a green real apple are apples at the same time.

You still want to continue?

Whether you agree with me that it is a tautology.

It's an axiom.

Using Rand's own definition of axiom.

The universe is working with assertions...

That sounds a bit odd.

I can understand that from your background. Any object in the universe is a delta. Or let's just say that the universe uses unary arithmetic combined with recursion.

Where you see nothing, the universe asserts space.

Where you see nothing, the sum of all that exists asserts nothing? That makes no sense.

There is no nothing in the universe. It must be continuous to logically exist. But then you will have to go past your Objectivist axioms.

• Concepts have a hierarchical structure, i.e., . . . <snip>

Yeah, kids are especially good at this: "one apple + one banana = two fruit".

However simple that may seem, it's still true ... in contrast to: space + time + tooth fairy = universe

Back to strawmans for lack of anything better?

The universe can't relate to itself since there's nothing left to relate it to - a relation implies something in addition, but since the universe is all there is there is nothing left but ... nothing. It's therefore absurd to say that the universe relates to itself. It's an invalid statement.

I think you are confusing "one" with "many".

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.

I planted a seed and a flower grew from it. What does your theory say about how that changed form? Or it only says "the flower exists". Dah.

What theory? Back to philosophy: metaphysically speaking, yes. However, science is an epistemological issue. The science of life and of living organisms is called biology, and the science of plants and plant life is called botany. In botany you'll find the "miracle" of growing explained in detail.

So, what did "Objectivism" contribute to any of these sciences then?

Objectivism is fresh out of the box, so to speak, and will hopefully make an impact little by little. Human progress up until now is mainly based on the work of Aristotle, the father of logic -

<snip>

Rand completed Aristotles work and developed the aristotelian tradition by solving all previous philosophical problems of relevance. That said, it's probably possible to develope philosophy further, thereby making the foundation of science even stronger, but right now, Objectivism is by far the most advanced philosophy ever known to man.

More pudding?

I think very few deny the importance of Aristotle. But claiming Rand completed his work is a good example of megalomania. It literally has nothing to contribute.

[Birkeland]

Where did I claim that Objectivism is wonderful?

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

Yes.

Then you suggested this was your own judgement, so I tried to translate that whole discussion into just one label. But the question was not if it is the right term, the question was if you could show me what "the only authority is reality" thinks about this first claim of yours, but you have'nt showed anything.

You have to compare it to other philosophical systems and draw your own conclusions based on the facts of reality. What you'll find is that all other philosophical systems fail to identify metaphysical axioms. In other words: they generally fail to identify the very foundation on which all their other branches rest. This leads to the most remarkable errors, but don't take my word for it. You need to study it yourself and make up your own mind.

The real world judgements I read sofar come from Wiki: "According to Rick Karlin, academic philosophers have generally dismissed Rand's ideas and have marginalized her philosophy", "Rand's philosophy has been the object of criticism by prominent intellectuals" and "Commentators have noted that the Objectivist epistemology is incomplete", which appear to be quite in line with my comments.

I've never heard about Rick Karlin or his critique of Objectivist epistemology. Since you seem familiar with his critique with reference to your previous comments I'll be more than happy to consider your brief, coherent, consistent and essential summary.

It's more like choosing a faith then?

No, faith is a belief without logical proof or material evidence.

Faith comes before understanding. That is how we are born into this world.

Without any logical proof or material evidence no understanding is possible as there is nothing to understand - what you end up with is not knowledge, but the Arbitrary:

• “Arbitrary” means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality. If a man asserts such an idea, whether he does so by error or ignorance or corruption, his idea is thereby epistemologically invalidated. It has no relation to reality or to human cognition.

I can find no objective criteria that make me want to adopt it.

Objectivism is not objective enough? Define objectivity objectively.

Objectivism is just a word. Since the axioms are only tautologies I think I could learn more from studying my chair.

Words have meanings. Axioms are axioms. Tautologies are tautologies. A chair is a chair. What are your objective criterias? No words? Just staring at things, awaiting a revelation?

...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.

1. Meaningless without context.
2. True, things have multiple properties.
3. False, a contradiction is a human invention.

Ok, let me rephrase, true or false:

• 1. an apple is not an apple.
  2. an apple can be and not be an apple at the same time.
  3. to arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking.

• 1. a wooden apple is not a real apple.
  2. a wooden apple is and is not an apple at the same time.
  3. the wooden apple highlights the imprecision of natural language.

We could play these little wordgames for eternity.

No need for playing wordgames. If I'd meant wooden apples I would've said so. It's real apples. Try again with real apples.

• 1. a red real apple is not a green real apple.
  2. a red real apple is not a green real apple at the same time.
  3. a red real apple and a green real apple are apples at the same time.

You still want to continue?

Sure, but your answers doesn't address the original questions. Let me help you back on track, true or false:

• 1. a real apple is not an apple.
  2. a real apple can be and not be an apple at the same time.
  3. to arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking.

Whether you agree with me that it ["existence exists"] is a tautology.

It's an axiom.

Using Rand's own definition of axiom.

Yes, her objective and non-contradictory definition:

• An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.

The universe is working with assertions...

That sounds a bit odd.

I can understand that from your background. Any object in the universe is a delta. Or let's just say that the universe uses unary arithmetic combined with recursion.

Yes, just like it's using the alphabet to spell itself. Do you think it's able to spell C-R-A-C-K-P-O-T ?

Where you see nothing, the universe asserts space.

Where you see nothing, the sum of all that exists asserts nothing? That makes no sense.

There is no nothing in the universe.

Yes, that's correct. The universe is the sum of all that exists.

It must be continuous to logically exist. But then you will have to go past your Objectivist axioms.

Is it..? Is it a Tooth Fairy hiding in the smoke? Let's find out by examining why primary concretes are dependent upon their secondary derivative concepts to logically exist. Go on. Don't be shy.

• Concepts have a hierarchical structure, i.e., . . . <snip>

Yeah, kids are especially good at this: "one apple + one banana = two fruit".

However simple that may seem, it's still true ... in contrast to: space + time + tooth fairy = universe

Back to strawmans for lack of anything better?

Yes, I strawmanned your deity by replacing him with the Tooth Fairy. Anyway, the same applies here: how does presupposed secondary derivative concepts form their primary existents? Do you really think the Tooth Fairy would make the laws of logic go away?

The universe can't relate to itself since there's nothing left to relate it to - a relation implies something in addition, but since the universe is all there is there is nothing left but ... nothing. It's therefore absurd to say that the universe relates to itself. It's an invalid statement.

I think you are confusing "one" with "many".

Impressive. Now you're inventing more universes - as if that will make the error disappear. Don't forget to redefine universe as the universe, by definition, comprises everything that physically exists. That'll do the trick.

[deleted]

[StevenO]

I'll be more than happy to consider your brief, coherent, consistent and essential summary.

Let me quote from the Wiki page on metaphysics some statements that sum it up quite reasonably for me, while showing that I do not stand alone in my judgement:

Proceeding from Kant's statement about antimony, A.J. Ayer in "Language, Truth and Logic" using the verifiability theory of meaning concluded that metaphysical propositions were neither true nor false but strictly meaningless, as were religious views.

However, Karl Popper argued that metaphysical statements are not meaningless statements, but rather not fallible, testable or provable statements i.e. neither empirical observations nor logical arguments could falsify metaphysical statements to show them to be true or false. Hence, a metaphysical statement usually implies an idea about the world or about the universe, which may seem reasonable but is ultimately not empirically testable.

...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.

1. Meaningless without context.
2. True, things have multiple properties.
3. False, a contradiction is a human invention.

<snip>

Sure, but your answers doesn't address the original questions. Let me help you back on track, true or false:

• 1. a real apple is not an apple.
  2. a real apple can be and not be an apple at the same time.
  3. to arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking.

• 1. an unreal apple is an apple.
  2. an unreal apple can appear to be and not be an apple at the same time.
  3. to arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking.

Yes, just like it's using the alphabet to spell itself. Do you think it's able to spell C-R-A-C-K-P-O-T ?

Is somebody spelling something not part of your Objectivist universe then?

Yes, that's correct. The universe is the sum of all that exists.

It must be continuous to logically exist. But then you will have to go past your Objectivist axioms.

Is it..? Is it a Tooth Fairy hiding in the smoke? Let's find out by examining why primary concretes are dependent upon their secondary derivative concepts to logically exist. Go on. Don't be shy.

The primary and secondary qualifications come from your philosophy, not me. It is relatively straightforward to show that electron and proton motions can be created from multi-dimensional photon rotations for instance. Now, would you claim the protons are primary and the photons secondary? Then I understand why the Objectivists do not want to go there, it would be rather complicated, it smells too much like real work.

Do you really think the Tooth Fairy would make the laws of logic go away?

No, you claim that by labelling axioms "metaphysical". Normally one would have logic axioms, non-logic axioms, rules of inference and a lot of real work.

The universe can't relate to itself since there's nothing left to relate it to - a relation implies something in addition, but since the universe is all there is there is nothing left but ... nothing. It's therefore absurd to say that the universe relates to itself. It's an invalid statement.

I think you are confusing "one" with "many".

Impressive. Now you're inventing more universes - as if that will make the error disappear. Don't forget to redefine universe as the universe, by definition, comprises everything that physically exists. That'll do the trick.

I was just saying that if the universe contains everything it also contains your nothing, so logically it can only relate to itself.

[davesmith_au]

I would have thought that by thirteen pages, someone may have come to a conclusion. If you all spent more time learning EU theory and less time "debating" each other, perhaps something constructive may eventuate. Sooner or later, someone on the admin team will get sick and tired of reading all the drivel and lock the thread, or it may even be deleted and then all the *cough* hard work would go down the gurgler.

Cheers, Dave.

[Birkeland]

I would have thought that by thirteen pages, someone may have come to a conclusion.

The conclusion must be, as always, that the laws of logic are valid, and that any attempt to invalidate reason must involve reason and logic itself. I let this be my last reply until something more reasonable is posted - the thread speaks for itself. StevenO may have another conclusion, and if the moderators don't mind, I'll let him get the last word if he wants to sum it up before our focus is directed elsewhere.

[StevenO]

I'm all in favor of focusing on the theory and application of EU. However, this is not my thread, so I don't want to be the person to shut the discussion down. I was just getting triggered a bit by people comparing themselves or their *cough* work to Aristotle. Think big, act small.

[StevenO]

Let me just finish with one quote from Aristotle (no offense to Birkeland and Plasmatic):

The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ... That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. ... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity. (Aristotle, 340BC)