Objectivism

[Birkeland]

Existence Exists

Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification

Aristotle and Ayn Rand have solved it. If you want to be able to make sense of reality and establish an objective and non-contradictory understanding you really have no other choice than to study philosophy. You don't need to study Aristotle. Start with Rand as she completed Aristotle.

[JohnMalone]

Greetings, jjohnson! Olympia, Washington - what a wonderful place to call home!

I was glad to see both you and Birkeland already posting on Irving Wolfe's 1994 Velikovsky speech. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop in the TPOD. It didn't, until I read Birkeland's first line:

[the 9/16/09 TPOD is] A good summary of the intellectual bankruptcy of contemporary science and scientific methodology.

BRAVO!

jjohnson said,

They look just about the same as the last time you pulled an all-nighter sitting in the lab and watching the screen yourself as the interference pattern builds. You tell me how observing or not observing an experiment influences its outcome.

In response, it does not seem to me that the all-nighter example refutes the assertions for the inseparability of the observed and the observed. According to the excerpts from Wolfe's talk, it would not be necessary for the observer to always be present physically during the observing, since the equipment, the experimental design, and the intellectual thinking that went in to the whole act of observing have already constrained the observations to produce a self-referential, ignorant outcome.

I agree (and understand that jjohnson may not agree) that in the act of observing, both the observer and the observed are changed. But I do not agree with Wolfe that this indicates there is no prospect of fundamental truths.

I believe Eric J. Lerner hints at the source of the intellectual bankruptcy in Wolfe's heavy-hitters when he wrote:

When determinism was rejected, causality was rejected along with it. [T]his is entirely wrong. Completely causal processes, such as the notion of a comet in an orbit around the sun, can also be entirely indeterminate over time. (BBNH, p. 368)

To compensate for the rejection of both causality and determinism, the big minds invented the notion expressed by Wolfe that

In all of [the fields of science] we have derived many partial subjective truths but no fundamental ones, nor is there the prospect of any. There is nothing but ignorance.

Let me paraphrase and borrow from p. 97 of Lerner's BBNH, since he writes so well, and speaks for Nicholas of Cusa so well: Reality is infinite in complexity. Knowledge is a series of better approximations which unify larger realms of experiences. The human mind, though finite in it understanding, is infinite in its capacity for understanding and in its desire for truth. All learning is still ignorance, not because it is false, but because it will never arrive at the final truth. There can be no Theory of Everything.

So far, so good, Wolfe and his like-minded fellows might say. And I agree with all of the previous paragraph, except for the last sentence of it. For, if one believes in the inescapably self-referential nature of human understanding, how could one dare to say there are "many partial subjective truths, but no fundamental ones"? If one concludes that human understanding is incapable of arriving at the "final truth", with what authority does one conclude that the final truth is that there can be no final authority, "no Theory of Everything"?

When people's healthy skepticism of authority and rightful desire for independence over-reach, then they produce the intellectual bankruptcy that Wolfe summarizes so well.

[StevenO]

Existence Exists

Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification

Aristotle and Ayn Rand have solved it. If you want to be able to make sense of reality and establish an objective and non-contradictory understanding you really have no other choice than to study philosophy. You don't need to study Aristotle. Start with Rand as she completed Aristotle.

I think there is no such thing as "objective understanding". "Objective" science limiting its results to repeatable observations willfully leaves out most of our universe like an artist painting the world without himself in it. Pretending to have solved existence philosophically is just human hubris caused by a misplaced observation of "self". All matter comes from branches of the same tree, with semi-conscious beings incapable of seeing their roots and destination.

[Birkeland]

I think there is no such thing as "objective understanding". "Objective" science limiting its results to repeatable observations willfully leaves out most of our universe like an artist painting the world without himself in it. Pretending to have solved existence philosophically is just human hubris caused by a misplaced observation of "self". All matter comes from branches of the same tree, with semi-conscious beings incapable of seeing their roots and destination.

Well, we are humans, and have no other choice than to accept and relate to that fact. Trying to seek out some omnipotent and supernatural perspective is futile. Being objective, according to Rand, means the following:

• Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.
  
  The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.
  
  It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.
  
  Most people . . . think that abstract thinking must be “impersonal”—which means that ideas must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker. This notion rests on the premise that a personal interest is an agent of distortion. But “personal” does not mean “nonobjective”; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally. But if you are the kind of person who knows that reality is not your enemy, that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, selfish importance to you and to your own life—then, the more passionately personal the thinking, the clearer and truer.

I don't think not being able to know everything implies not being able to know anything. We know what we know, and we also know that there is a great deal we don't know. If some new discoveries contradicts what we (think) we know, we adjust our premises and everything built on top of it. This is scientific honesty. Sadly the opposite is true today, but do we really have to relate to it?

I believe Eric J. Lerner hints at the source of the intellectual bankruptcy in Wolfe's heavy-hitters when he wrote:

When determinism was rejected, causality was rejected along with it. [T]his is entirely wrong. Completely causal processes, such as the notion of a comet in an orbit around the sun, can also be entirely indeterminate over time. (BBNH, p. 368)

Good observation by Lerner.

[StevenO]

I think there is no such thing as "objective understanding". "Objective" science limiting its results to repeatable observations willfully leaves out most of our universe like an artist painting the world without himself in it. Pretending to have solved existence philosophically is just human hubris caused by a misplaced observation of "self". All matter comes from branches of the same tree, with semi-conscious beings incapable of seeing their roots and destination.

Well, we are humans, and have no other choice than to accept and relate to that fact. Trying to seek out some omnipotent and supernatural perspective is futile. Being objective, according to Rand, means the following:

• Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

The trouble with all the definitions of observation and self is that the moment we identify ourselves as an "observer" of this universe, so we seperate the world from ourselves, we run into an infinite recursion of observed "facts" that we most directly perceive as 'time' but more indirectly as 'relativity' and at a basic level as 'quanta of energy'. Nothing wrong with this process as long as we correctly identify the first and second order defining steps of this regression. There is a wonderful, though lenghty explanation of this process written by W.H.Dunne: The Serial Universe. It highlights the limits of observational sciences, whether being philosophy or anything more substantial.

So, I don't agree with Rand's statement that "one must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)". Both reason and logic are human inventions to express the separation between self and not-self, not universal facts. The Universe just moves.

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.

It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.

Most people . . . think that abstract thinking must be “impersonal”—which means that ideas must hold no personal meaning, value or importance to the thinker. This notion rests on the premise that a personal interest is an agent of distortion. But “personal” does not mean “nonobjective”; it depends on the kind of person you are. If your thinking is determined by your emotions, then you will not be able to judge anything, personally or impersonally. But if you are the kind of person who knows that reality is not your enemy, that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, selfish importance to you and to your own life—then, the more passionately personal the thinking, the clearer and truer.[/list]

I don't think not being able to know everything implies not being able to know anything. We know what we know, and we also know that there is a great deal we don't know. If some new discoveries contradicts what we (think) we know, we adjust our premises and everything built on top of it. This is scientific honesty. Sadly the opposite is true today, but do we really have to relate to it?

Unfortunately we have no way to incorporate 'beliefs', 'emotions' or 'spirituality' into the current definition of science. That is why science will not give us all the answers we seek.

I believe Eric J. Lerner hints at the source of the intellectual bankruptcy in Wolfe's heavy-hitters when he wrote:

When determinism was rejected, causality was rejected along with it. [T]his is entirely wrong. Completely causal processes, such as the notion of a comet in an orbit around the sun, can also be entirely indeterminate over time. (BBNH, p. 368)

Good observation by Lerner.

Indeed, current mathematics and physics are intellectually bankrupt. The mathematical and physical elite are a bunch of illusionists hiding behind great white clouds of "higher" math, while not being able to acknowledge high-school level errors in their assumptions and derivations. For more detail, see: The Greatest Standing Errors in Physics and Mathematics

[StevenJay]

Both reason and logic are human inventions to express the separation between self and not-self, not universal facts. The Universe just moves.

Unfortunately we have no way to incorporate 'beliefs', 'emotions' or 'spirituality' into the current definition of science. That is why science will not give us all the answers we seek.

I do believe that you've hit two proverbial nails squarely on the head.

I see this thing that most people like to refer to as "objective reality" ( ) as being akin to gazing into a mirror, and I see the scientific method as being an attempt to fully understand that which is being reflected through the intense study of the reflection. While such scrutiny can reveal much, it can never hope to reveal the multitude of more subtle aspects which, by their very nature, do not appear in said reflection; most especially, the true nature and origin of that which is being reflected.

[Birkeland]

The trouble with all the definitions of observation and self is that the moment we identify ourselves as an "observer" of this universe, so we seperate the world from ourselves, we run into an infinite recursion of observed "facts" that we most directly perceive as 'time' but more indirectly as 'relativity' and at a basic level as 'quanta of energy'.

Observations of facts are perceived as relative motion (time)?! What moves in relation to what? Existence is identity, consciousness is identification. The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. What is it? What does it? Why is that? Observing is not sufficient.

So, I don't agree with Rand's statement that "one must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)". Both reason and logic are human inventions to express the separation between self and not-self, not universal facts.

Reason and logic are human inventions to express the separation between self and not-self? I don't think so. Reason and logic are (man-made) tools to identify reality. The separation between self and not-self are axioms: Existence is identity, consciousness is identification. You're falling into the kantian analytic-synthetic dichotomy. And if you accept that reason and logic is invalid, how do you intend to understand reality? Mystical revelations? Voodoo?

The Universe just moves.

Really? Is that all there is to the Universe? Just motion?

• The "Stolen Concept” Fallacy: They proclaim that there are no entities, that nothing exists but motion, and blank out the fact that motion presupposes the thing which moves, that without the concept of entity, there can be no such concept as “motion”.

Unfortunately we have no way to incorporate 'beliefs', 'emotions' or 'spirituality' into the current definition of science.

Beliefs, emotions and spirituality does not belong in science.

That is why science will not give us all the answers we seek.

What are the questions?

Current mathematics and physics are intellectually bankrupt.

Nothing wrong with mathematics as such.

The mathematical and physical elite are a bunch of illusionists hiding behind great white clouds of "higher" math, while not being able to acknowledge high-school level errors in their assumptions and derivations.

That's what you get when you mix mathematics with beliefs. You're no different than those you criticize - formalistically speaking.

[StevenO]

The trouble with all the definitions of observation and self is that the moment we identify ourselves as an "observer" of this universe, so we seperate the world from ourselves, we run into an infinite recursion of observed "facts" that we most directly perceive as 'time' but more indirectly as 'relativity' and at a basic level as 'quanta of energy'.

Observations of facts are perceived as relative motion (time)?! What moves in relation to what? Existence is identity, consciousness is identification. The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. What is it? What does it? Why is that? Observing is not sufficient.

Rand is describing the same thing several times. The term "what" refers to something outside the "self". Identity and consciousness describe "self" too.

So, I don't agree with Rand's statement that "one must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic)". Both reason and logic are human inventions to express the separation between self and not-self, not universal facts.

Reason and logic are human inventions to express the separation between self and not-self? I don't think so. Reason and logic are (man-made) tools to identify reality. The separation between self and not-self are axioms: Existence is identity, consciousness is identification. You're falling into the kantian analytic-synthetic dichotomy. And if you accept that reason and logic is invalid, how do you intend to understand reality? Mystical revelations? Voodoo?

I was not saying that reason and logic are invalid. I was just stating that the process of the identification of "self" wrt. to "something else observed" is more basic than those concepts.

The Universe just moves.

Really? Is that all there is to the Universe? Just motion?

Dewey Larson is able to derive the whole physical universe from it. I guess Rand never took notice of him. But maybe she knew Samuel Alexander, which put this idea into Dewey's head:

Space-Time, the universe in its primordial form, is the stuff out of which all existents are made. It is Space-Time with the characters which we have found it to reveal to experience. But it has no 'quality' save that of being spatio-temporal or motion.

– Space, Time and Deity [1920] Vol. I, p. 342

• The "Stolen Concept” Fallacy: They proclaim that there are no entities, that nothing exists but motion, and blank out the fact that motion presupposes the thing which moves, that without the concept of entity, there can be no such concept as “motion”.

Unfortunately we have no way to incorporate 'beliefs', 'emotions' or 'spirituality' into the current definition of science.

Beliefs, emotions and spirituality does not belong in science.

Luckily we also have pastors, spiritual people and mental health workers to save us.

That is why science will not give us all the answers we seek.

What are the questions?

Why do we ask questions? Why do we pretend to talk to ourselves in our heads? Why are we mostly guided by our beliefs?

Current mathematics and physics are intellectually bankrupt.

Nothing wrong with mathematics as such.

The mathematical and physical elite are a bunch of illusionists hiding behind great white clouds of "higher" math, while not being able to acknowledge high-school level errors in their assumptions and derivations.

That's what you get when you mix mathematics with beliefs. You're no different than those you criticize - formalistically speaking.

I did not mention the term beliefs in this context but I was pointing to glaring errors that have caused current physics and mathematics to be a mess beyond repair. I'm not sure what you mean by "formalistically speaking" here: that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on that?

[StevenJay]

Current mathematics and physics are intellectually bankrupt.

As I see it, they're both fine, intellectually. What they are sorely lacking, though, is intelligence. Intellect is acquired, whereas, intelligence is inherent. To pursue the former while ignoring or contradicting the latter is a foolish endeavor.

[Birkeland]

Identity and consciousness describe "self" too.

What is self? Since we're talking about Objectivism we need to refer to Rand's concepts to maintain coherence - self:

• A man’s self is his mind—the faculty that perceives reality, forms judgments, chooses values.

I was not saying that reason and logic are invalid.

Good. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to have a meaningful conversation.

I was just stating that the process of the identification of "self" wrt. to "something else observed" is more basic than those concepts.

Consciousness is of course more fundamental than reason and logic, but existence is the primary axiom, then follows identity and, hopefully, non-contradictory identification. Descartes got it backwards:

• Prior Certainty of Consciousness - Descartes began with the basic epistemological premise of every Witch Doctor (a premise he shared explicitly with Augustine): “the prior certainty of consciousness,” the belief that the existence of an external world is not self-evident, but must be proved by deduction from the contents of one’s consciousness —which means: the concept of consciousness as some faculty other than the faculty of perception—which means: the indiscriminate contents of one’s consciousness as the irreducible primary and absolute, to which reality has to conform. What followed was the grotesquely tragic spectacle of philosophers struggling to prove the existence of an external world by staring, with the Witch Doctor’s blind, inward stare, at the random twists of their conceptions—then of perceptions—then of sensations. When the medieval Witch Doctor had merely ordered men to doubt the validity of their mind, the philosophers’ rebellion against him consisted of proclaiming that they doubted whether man was conscious at all and whether anything existed for him to be conscious of.

Note: There is a distinction between inductive and deductive logic in relation to concepts:

• The process of forming and applying concepts contains the essential pattern of two fundamental methods of cognition: induction and deduction. The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction.

See top post for further details on induction.

Dewey Larson is able to derive the whole physical universe from it [motion]. I guess Rand never took notice of him. But maybe she knew Samuel Alexander, which put this idea into Dewey's head:

Space-Time, the universe in its primordial form, is the stuff out of which all existents are made. It is Space-Time with the characters which we have found it to reveal to experience. But it has no 'quality' save that of being spatio-temporal or motion.

This line of reasoning is erroneous - the stolen concept fallacy.

Luckily we also have pastors, spiritual people and mental health workers to save us.

Save us from what?

Why do we ask questions?

Most often to gain knowledge. What do you want to know?

Why do we pretend to talk to ourselves in our heads?

Why do we think?

• The process of thinking . . . is the process of defining identity and discovering causal connections.

Of course, not all thinking is rational. Some thinking could be pure fantasy just for the fun of it.

Why are we mostly guided by our beliefs?

I'm not. I'm using reason most of the time. If I'm not sure I tend to check things out. Acting on blind faith is irrational and could lead to problems.

I did not mention the term beliefs in this context but I was pointing to glaring errors that have caused current physics and mathematics to be a mess beyond repair. I'm not sure what you mean by "formalistically speaking" here: that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on that?

Sure you're allowed to have your opinions as everyone else. To be more specific I was referring to:

Unfortunately we have no way to incorporate 'beliefs', 'emotions' or 'spirituality' into the current definition of science.

Which is exactly what Georges Lemaître managed to pull off with great "success":

• Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on "a day without yesterday." After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact.

[StevenO]

Identity and consciousness describe "self" too.

What is self? Since we're talking about Objectivism we need to refer to Rand's concepts to maintain coherence - self:

• A man’s self is his mind—the faculty that perceives reality, forms judgments, chooses values.

For me Ayn Rand is not the highest form of intellect. I hope you can forgive me. My position is just that the basis is "self" versus "not-self", any language beyond that is mere tautologies. More words mean more detailed expressions of separation or recursion. Take Ayn Rand axiom of existence: "existence exists". A finer example of infinite regression can not be given.

I was just stating that the process of the identification of "self" wrt. to "something else observed" is more basic than those concepts.

Consciousness is of course more fundamental than reason and logic, but existence is the primary axiom, then follows identity and, hopefully, non-contradictory identification.

The existence axiom is recursive, for me that is without meaning unless an end to the recursion is also defined.

Descartes got it backwards:

• Prior Certainty of Consciousness - Descartes began with the basic epistemological premise of every Witch Doctor (a premise he shared explicitly with Augustine): “the prior certainty of consciousness,” the belief that the existence of an external world is not self-evident, but must be proved by deduction from the contents of one’s consciousness —which means: the concept of consciousness as some faculty other than the faculty of perception—which means: the indiscriminate contents of one’s consciousness as the irreducible primary and absolute, to which reality has to conform. What followed was the grotesquely tragic spectacle of philosophers struggling to prove the existence of an external world by staring, with the Witch Doctor’s blind, inward stare, at the random twists of their conceptions—then of perceptions—then of sensations. When the medieval Witch Doctor had merely ordered men to doubt the validity of their mind, the philosophers’ rebellion against him consisted of proclaiming that they doubted whether man was conscious at all and whether anything existed for him to be conscious of.

Note: There is a distinction between inductive and deductive logic in relation to concepts:

• The process of forming and applying concepts contains the essential pattern of two fundamental methods of cognition: induction and deduction. The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction.

See top post for further details on induction.

Deduction or induction are just different forms of regression.

Dewey Larson is able to derive the whole physical universe from it [motion]. I guess Rand never took notice of him. But maybe she knew Samuel Alexander, which put this idea into Dewey's head:

Space-Time, the universe in its primordial form, is the stuff out of which all existents are made. It is Space-Time with the characters which we have found it to reveal to experience. But it has no 'quality' save that of being spatio-temporal or motion.

This line of reasoning is erroneous - the stolen concept fallacy.

No, Rand is as erroneous as the others. She places the concept of "entity", which is a tautology of "exists" before "motion". That is an arbitrary choice. I hold that without motion, the Universe would not exist since everything in the universe is relative. It means that there is no "zero" in the Universe, it starts as "one". Deviations of that "oneness" are what can be observed or can "exist". Since a deviation must arise from a motion, I would hold that motion is prior to existence, but I would agree it is an arbitrary choice. The relationships are what count: when motion arises then also space and time arise. One can prove that all physical quantities can be expressed as ratios between space and time (Dewey Larson and Xavier Borg have done that for instance), that is why I prefer the motion idea as primary.

Luckily we also have pastors, spiritual people and mental health workers to save us.

Save us from what?

To save our souls from loss of belief.

Why do we ask questions?

Most often to gain knowledge. What do you want to know?

Why do we pretend to talk to ourselves in our heads?

Why do we think?

• The process of thinking . . . is the process of defining identity and discovering causal connections.

Of course, not all thinking is rational. Some thinking could be pure fantasy just for the fun of it.

Why are we mostly guided by our beliefs?

I'm not. I'm using reason most of the time. If I'm not sure I tend to check things out. Acting on blind faith is irrational and could lead to problems.

Blind faith is something else than belief. I think you assume that you use reason most of the time but that's wrong. You believe your wife will cook dinner tonight or that you will arrive in time at your work or that the sun will rise tomorrow, but you cannot prove it, proofs always come after the fact.

I did not mention the term beliefs in this context but I was pointing to glaring errors that have caused current physics and mathematics to be a mess beyond repair. I'm not sure what you mean by "formalistically speaking" here: that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on that?

Sure you're allowed to have your opinions as everyone else. To be more specific I was referring to:

Unfortunately we have no way to incorporate 'beliefs', 'emotions' or 'spirituality' into the current definition of science.

Which is exactly what Georges Lemaître managed to pull off with great "success":

• Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on "a day without yesterday." After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact.

Ah. I agree with you that current science is full of beliefs, like black holes, dark matter, massless photons, imaginary time, Twin Paradoxes and many others. However it is not acknowledged in the scientific method itself, which I consider a loss.

[Birkeland]

For me Ayn Rand is not the highest form of intellect. I hope you can forgive me.

Forgive you? Let me thank you for proving that Rand was right.

My position is just that the basis is "self" versus "not-self", any language beyond that is mere tautologies. More words mean more detailed expressions of separation or recursion. Take Ayn Rand axiom of existence: "existence exists". A finer example of infinite regression can not be given.

Did you and not-you come into existence after you became aware of you and not-you? Do you exist because you think or do you think beacuse you exist? Does epistemological knowledge precede the methaphysically given? You're line of thinking is a fine example of backwardness - Prior Certainty of Consciousness

The existence axiom is recursive, for me that is without meaning unless an end to the recursion is also defined.

It is [without any meaning] until you ask "what is it?" and identify it by means of reason and logic. How do you intend to find out if you don't even know what logic is:

Deduction or induction are just different forms of regression.

And you don't even know the meaning of the concepts you are using:

Rand is as erroneous as the others. She places the concept of "entity", which is a tautology of "exists" before "motion". That is an arbitrary choice.

• “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.

How could motion be primary to that which moves? First there is motion? What moves? The law of causality is still valid.

I hold that without motion, the Universe would not exist since everything in the universe is relative. It means that there is no "zero" in the Universe, it starts as "one". Deviations of that "oneness" are what can be observed or can "exist". Since a deviation must arise from a motion, I would hold that motion is prior to existence, but I would agree it is an arbitrary choice.

Say what?! If something doesn't move it pops out of existence since everything in the Universe moves in relation to everything else? Nonsensical gobbledygook.

The relationships are what count: when motion arises then also space and time arise. One can prove that all physical quantities can be expressed as ratios between space and time (Dewey Larson and Xavier Borg have done that for instance), that is why I prefer the motion idea as primary.

Unscientific gobbledygook.

Luckily we also have pastors, spiritual people and mental health workers to save us.

Save us from what?

To save our souls from loss of belief.

Are you serious?

Proofs always come after the fact.

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

I agree with you that current science is full of beliefs, like black holes, dark matter, massless photons, imaginary time, Twin Paradoxes and many others. However it is not acknowledged in the scientific method itself, which I consider a loss.

Again: are you making this stuff up just for the fun of it or are you serious?

[StevenO]

For me Ayn Rand is not the highest form of intellect. I hope you can forgive me.

Forgive you? Let me thank you for proving that Rand was right.

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

My position is just that the basis is "self" versus "not-self", any language beyond that is mere tautologies. More words mean more detailed expressions of separation or recursion. Take Ayn Rand axiom of existence: "existence exists". A finer example of infinite regression can not be given.

Did you and not-you come into existence after you became aware of you and not-you? Do you exist because you think or do you think beacuse you exist? Does epistemological knowledge precede the methaphysically given? You're line of thinking is a fine example of backwardness - Prior Certainty of Consciousness

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

The existence axiom is recursive, for me that is without meaning unless an end to the recursion is also defined.

It is [without any meaning] until you ask "what is it?" and identify it by means of reason and logic. How do you intend to find out if you don't even know what logic is:

??? Should I conclude now that labeling an object is the act of giving it existence? That seems to contradict Rand's statement that it exists independently of our observation and reason.

Deduction or induction are just different forms of regression.

And you don't even know the meaning of the concepts you are using:

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

Rand is as erroneous as the others. She places the concept of "entity", which is a tautology of "exists" before "motion". That is an arbitrary choice.

• “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.

How could motion be primary to that which moves? First there is motion? What moves? The law of causality is still valid.

That is only if you assume language, reason and logic are prior to "motion" or "exists". The argument I tried to show argues that space and time come before existence as two aspects of motion that cannot be separated. Everything else is way beyond that.

I hold that without motion, the Universe would not exist since everything in the universe is relative. It means that there is no "zero" in the Universe, it starts as "one". Deviations of that "oneness" are what can be observed or can "exist". Since a deviation must arise from a motion, I would hold that motion is prior to existence, but I would agree it is an arbitrary choice.

Say what?! If something doesn't move it pops out of existence since everything in the Universe moves in relation to everything else? Nonsensical gobbledygook.

No, it's the other way around. Everything that exists is defined by its motion.

The relationships are what count: when motion arises then also space and time arise. One can prove that all physical quantities can be expressed as ratios between space and time (Dewey Larson and Xavier Borg have done that for instance), that is why I prefer the motion idea as primary.

Unscientific gobbledygook.

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

Luckily we also have pastors, spiritual people and mental health workers to save us.

Save us from what?

To save our souls from loss of belief.

Are you serious?

I think beliefs are an essential part of healthy human beings.

Proofs always come after the fact.

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

...so you agree with me then?

I agree with you that current science is full of beliefs, like black holes, dark matter, massless photons, imaginary time, Twin Paradoxes and many others. However it is not acknowledged in the scientific method itself, which I consider a loss.

Again: are you making this stuff up just for the fun of it or are you serious?

I'm serious. I think leaving the belief system undescribed is a serious distortion of the scientific method. If things are believed instead of facts that should be explicit. Do you have proof beyond doubt that black holes or massless photons are a fact or do you believe it?

[mharratsc]

Wow- heated debate! o.O


Hey Birkeland- thanks for posting those! About the most concise fingerpointing at the flaws of Mainstreamists that I've ever seen!

That young fella has a rather functional brain in his head, doesn't he? Spot on criticism if you ask me!

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

Mike H.

[Birkeland]

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

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

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

True or false?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition:

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

Everything that exists is defined by its motion.

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

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

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

I think beliefs are an essential part of healthy human beings.

I speculate a lot, but I don't believe everything I think.

Proofs always come after the fact.

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

...so you agree with me then?

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

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

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

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

I don't believe in catholic big bang cosmology.