What is the one thing that shapes your whole political philosophy?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] To describe circular objects, yes. Now please explain how pi is itself an object.Laihendi

how can something that doesn't exist(pi) explain the universe, which can only be assumed to be real.

It doesn't exist as an object a la physical matter, but it describes a relationship that exists independent of whether or not we recognize it.

I sense a bit of semantics WRT the term "object."

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

how can something that doesn't exist(pi) explain the universe, which can only be assumed to be real.

coolbeans90

It doesn't exist as an object a la physical matter, but it describes a relationship that exists independent of whether or not we recognize it.

I sense a bit of semantics WRT the term "object."

i was going to draw out saying this a bit longer but... this is pretty much it.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Pi exists as a concept. Pi does not exist as an object. You are not distinguishing theoretical concepts from physical matter.frannkzappa

It doesn't exist as an object a la physical matter, but it describes a relationship that exists independent of whether or not we recognize it.

I sense a bit of semantics WRT the term "object."

i was going to draw out saying this a bit longer but... this is pretty much it.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It doesn't exist as an object a la physical matter, but it describes a relationship that exists independent of whether or not we recognize it.

I sense a bit of semantics WRT the term "object."

Laihendi

i was going to draw out saying this a bit longer but... this is pretty much it.

it most certainly does.

there is nothing perfect in the world so A=A is meaningless.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i was going to draw out saying this a bit longer but... this is pretty much it.

frannkzappa

it most certainly does.

there is nothing perfect in the world so A=A is meaningless.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Then we agree. However this does not contradict Ayn Rand's metaphysics.Laihendi

it most certainly does.

there is nothing perfect in the world so A=A is meaningless.

everything is an equation(based off of perfect ones), we just caan't acuratley measure the parts involved.

Is anyone else thinking how amazing it would be to get Lai and zappa in the same place to talk this out in person?

(...and not so someone could plant a claymore mine nearby to blow them both up... that would be wrong...)

Is anyone else thinking how amazing it would be to get Lai and zappa in the same place to talk this out in person?

(...and not so someone could plant a claymore mine nearby to blow them both up... that would be wrong...)

OrkHammer007

...

Is anyone else thinking how amazing it would be to get Lai and zappa in the same place to talk this out in person?

(...and not so someone could plant a claymore mine nearby to blow them both up... that would be wrong...)

OrkHammer007

It would look exactly like a debate from the last Presidential election.

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

Is anyone else thinking how amazing it would be to get Lai and zappa in the same place to talk this out in person?

(...and not so someone could plant a claymore mine nearby to blow them both up... that would be wrong...)

jimkabrhel

It would look exactly like a debate from the last Presidential election.

who would be who?

i call clint eastwood talking to a chair.

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

Is anyone else thinking how amazing it would be to get Lai and zappa in the same place to talk this out in person?

(...and not so someone could plant a claymore mine nearby to blow them both up... that would be wrong...)

jimkabrhel

It would look exactly like a debate from the last Presidential election.

...um...

I mean... it could be much more spirited. No mediator, no judge. Two men enter. One man leaves.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

Is anyone else thinking how amazing it would be to get Lai and zappa in the same place to talk this out in person?

(...and not so someone could plant a claymore mine nearby to blow them both up... that would be wrong...)

OrkHammer007

It would look exactly like a debate from the last Presidential election.

...um...

I mean... it could be much more spirited. No mediator, no judge. Two men enter. One man leaves.

It would end up looking more like oil wrestling rather than two gladiators.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

Is anyone else thinking how amazing it would be to get Lai and zappa in the same place to talk this out in person?

(...and not so someone could plant a claymore mine nearby to blow them both up... that would be wrong...)

OrkHammer007

It would look exactly like a debate from the last Presidential election.

...um...

I mean... it could be much more spirited. No mediator, no judge. Two men enter. One man leaves.

" i master, he blaster"

i call clint eastwood talking to a chair.

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

It would look exactly like a debate from the last Presidential election.

frannkzappa

...um...

I mean... it could be much more spirited. No mediator, no judge. Two men enter. One man leaves.

" i master, he blaster"

(Not that it was a great movie.)

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i call clint eastwood talking to a chair.

mattbbpl

exactly;)

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]Only if we don't screen them for weapons as they enter the Pit...

...um...

I mean... it could be much more spirited. No mediator, no judge. Two men enter. One man leaves.

OrkHammer007

" i master, he blaster"

(Not that it was a great movie.)

i honestly love them all.

plus they gave us "fist of the north star(hokuto no ken)"

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

it most certainly does.

 

there is nothing perfect in the world so A=A is meaningless.

frannkzappa

everything is an equation(based off of perfect ones), we just caan't acuratley measure the parts involved.

You are assuming that a perfectly smooth and round surface is ideal. You are assuming that any deviations from this ideal is a flaw. You are assuming that it is better for a planet to not possess any inconsistencies in its surface area, despite the inconsistencies being necessary for this planet to sustain life as we know it. You cannot have bodies of water without inconsistencies of surface area, unless the entire planet is equally covered by water.

Your ideals have no concern for the necessities of life. You consider the universe to be flawed because it accommodates life. You literally are saying that the universe would be better if life could not possibly exist. This is why your values are anti-life, and incidentally this is also why Ayn Rand hated Plato.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Define perfect. You have the mistaken idea that a thing is only perfect if it conforms to a single simple equation. You do not consider the possibility that the small contradictions between equations and physical shapes is due to a deficiency of the equation rather than the shape.Laihendi

everything is an equation(based off of perfect ones), we just caan't acuratley measure the parts involved.

You are assuming that a perfectly smooth and round surface is ideal. You are assuming that any deviations from this ideal is a flaw. You are assuming that it is better for a planet to not possess any inconsistencies in its surface area, despite the inconsistencies being necessary for this planet to sustain life as we know it. You cannot have bodies of water without inconsistencies of surface area, unless the entire planet is equally covered by water.

Your ideals have no concern for the necessities of life. You consider the universe to be flawed because it accommodates life. You literally are saying that the universe would be better if life could not possibly exist. This is why your values are anti-life, and incidentally this is also why Ayn Rand hated Plato.

exactly A=/=A

I guess mine would be happiness. I wouldn't say that it is the ultimate goal of my political philosophy, more like a very strong but defeasible presumption. I would never say that maximizing happiness for the most people should always and everywhere be our goal as it leads to some obvious moral problems (example: very few people would think it right to secretly kill homeless people for their organs, but this is an implication of act-utilitarianism)

i call clint eastwood talking to a chair.

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

everything is an equation(based off of perfect ones), we just caan't acuratley measure the parts involved.

frannkzappa

You are assuming that a perfectly smooth and round surface is ideal. You are assuming that any deviations from this ideal is a flaw. You are assuming that it is better for a planet to not possess any inconsistencies in its surface area, despite the inconsistencies being necessary for this planet to sustain life as we know it. You cannot have bodies of water without inconsistencies of surface area, unless the entire planet is equally covered by water.

Your ideals have no concern for the necessities of life. You consider the universe to be flawed because it accommodates life. You literally are saying that the universe would be better if life could not possibly exist. This is why your values are anti-life, and incidentally this is also why Ayn Rand hated Plato.

exactly A=/=A

I wish Lai would stop ignoring quantum physics. It's so neat. Ace6301

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Physically existent shapes rarely if ever perfectly conform to the equation used to define the conceptual shape that the physical object is related to. For example, Acircle = pi*r^2 can be used to estimate the surface area of the Earth, but it does not take into account the inconsistencies of Earth's surface, such as mountains. That does not mean that the shape of the Earth is flawed/imperfect; what it means is that the shape of the Earth is not entirely compatible with the single equation you are trying to impose on it.

You are assuming that a perfectly smooth and round surface is ideal. You are assuming that any deviations from this ideal is a flaw. You are assuming that it is better for a planet to not possess any inconsistencies in its surface area, despite the inconsistencies being necessary for this planet to sustain life as we know it. You cannot have bodies of water without inconsistencies of surface area, unless the entire planet is equally covered by water.

Your ideals have no concern for the necessities of life. You consider the universe to be flawed because it accommodates life. You literally are saying that the universe would be better if life could not possibly exist. This is why your values are anti-life, and incidentally this is also why Ayn Rand hated Plato.

Laihendi

exactly A=/=A

A=A is an absolutes perfect statement.

Absolutes do not physically exist.

therefore you require a margin of error.

For example, Acircle = pi*r^2 can be used to estimate the surface area of the Earth, but it does not take into account the inconsistencies of Earth's surface, such as mountains.Laihendi

It's the basis of more than just geometric identities. It's also used for electromagnetism, charge, force, etc. Without , you likely wouldn't have the electricity to post on the internet.

Pick another concept to base your "understanding" of objectivism, because you picked a horrible argumentative basis.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

exactly A=/=A

frannkzappa

A=A is an absolutes perfect statement.

Absolutes do not physically exist.

therefore you require a margin of error.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]For example, Acircle = pi*r^2 can be used to estimate the surface area of the Earth, but it does not take into account the inconsistencies of Earth's surface, such as mountains.OrkHammer007

It's the basis of more than just geometric identities. It's also used for electromagnetism, charge, force, etc. Without , you likely wouldn't have the electricity to post on the internet.

Pick another concept to base your "understanding" of objectivism, because you picked a horrible argumentative basis.

me or lai?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] A planet is a planet. A perfect circle is a perfect circle. A planet is not a perfect circle. A=A, B=B, and A=/=B This does not contradict Ayn Rand's law of identity in any way.Laihendi

A=A is an absolutes perfect statement.

Absolutes do not physically exist.

therefore you require a margin of error.

no a planet is an infinitely unique clump of matter, defined by perfect mathematical principles.

A=A means nothing and can be used for nothing.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]For example, Acircle = pi*r^2 can be used to estimate the surface area of the Earth, but it does not take into account the inconsistencies of Earth's surface, such as mountains.OrkHammer007

It's the basis of more than just geometric identities. It's also used for electromagnetism, charge, force, etc. Without , you likely wouldn't have the electricity to post on the internet.

Pick another concept to base your "understanding" of objectivism, because you picked a horrible argumentative basis.

[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]For example, Acircle = pi*r^2 can be used to estimate the surface area of the Earth, but it does not take into account the inconsistencies of Earth's surface, such as mountains.Laihendi

It's the basis of more than just geometric identities. It's also used for electromagnetism, charge, force, etc. Without , you likely wouldn't have the electricity to post on the internet.

Pick another concept to base your "understanding" of objectivism, because you picked a horrible argumentative basis.

no body is suggesting that. Lai i think you are failing to grasp some basic concepts here.

please read some books or do some web research on the "theory of forms". because i don't have the time or energy to explain this to you if you continue to misinterpret me.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

A=A is an absolutes perfect statement.

Absolutes do not physically exist.

therefore you require a margin of error.

frannkzappa

no a planet is an infinitely unique clump of matter, defined by perfect mathematical principles.

A=A means nothing and can be used for nothing.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] A planet is not approximately a planet. A planet is absolutely a planet, just as a circle is absolutely a circle. A planet being only approximately circular does not mean that it is also only approximately a planet. That just means that planets are circles are two entirely different things.Laihendi

no a planet is an infinitely unique clump of matter, defined by perfect mathematical principles.

A=A means nothing and can be used for nothing.

"I know that I know nothing" -Socrates

i see no proof of absolutes in the universe, why should i trust in them?

everything in this world operates with a margin of error...except your philosophy.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

no a planet is an infinitely unique clump of matter, defined by perfect mathematical principles.

 

A=A means nothing and can be used for nothing.

frannkzappa

"I know that I know nothing" -Socrates

i see no proof of absolutes in the universe, why should i trust in them?

everything in this world operates with a margin of error...except your philosophy.

Margins of error are due to a discrepancy between personal expectations and objective reality. That does not mean that objective reality does not exist.

Also, please continue to point out any time I mistakenly attribute a belief/value to you.

Everyone in the United States should be treated equally, and we should do our best to help support each other/less fortunate.

(Liberal leaning)

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]A planet is a planet. A perfect circle is a perfect circle. A planet is not a perfect circle. A=A, B=B, and A=/=B This does not contradict Ayn Rand's law of identity in any way.frannkzappa

A=A is an absolutes perfect statement.

Absolutes do not physically exist.

therefore you require a margin of error.

I felt like you guys should have reached this point several threads ago on this point. I almost thought about pointing it out. In retrospect, I probably should have.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] "Expert" and "consensus" are just different words for "authority". An appeal to an expert is an appeal to authority. An appeal to consensus is an appeal to authority. You are committing a logical fallacy, because you are treating an idea as irrefutably true just because it is the consensus among "experts" that it is true.Ace6301

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]A planet is a planet. A perfect circle is a perfect circle. A planet is not a perfect circle. A=A, B=B, and A=/=B This does not contradict Ayn Rand's law of identity in any way.coolbeans90

A=A is an absolutes perfect statement.

Absolutes do not physically exist.

therefore you require a margin of error.

I felt like you guys should have reached this point several threads ago on this point. I almost thought about pointing it out. In retrospect, I probably should have.

i have fun in arguments... so i often drag them out.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] A=A is a recognition of the fact that existence exists as an absolute. It is a recognition of the fact that contradictions do not exist and only seem to appear as a result of mistaken premises held by an individual. An absolute, non-contradictory existence is an objective existence. A=A means that reality is objective, rather than subjective. A planet is a specific clump of matter arranged in a specific way. A specific planet is itself, not approximately itself. A unique body of matter requires a unique sum of mathematical principles. That does not contradict the law of identity. You are saying that a planet is only approximately a planet because it only approximately conforms to the ratios of a perfect circle. That is false, because perfect circles have nothing to do with planets. The equation is itself an approximation, not the planet.Laihendi

"I know that I know nothing" -Socrates

i see no proof of absolutes in the universe, why should i trust in them?

everything in this world operates with a margin of error...except your philosophy.

Margins of error are due to a discrepancy between personal expectations and objective reality. That does not mean that objective reality does not exist.

Also, please continue to point out any time I mistakenly attribute a belief/value to you.

that quote means (i assumed you have heard it before) that the only absolute is that there are no physical absolutes.

it is not a contradiction because it is a form describing the universe, just how like pi exists yet you can never draw a line length pi.

This is another appeal to authority.

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.Laihendi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It is a recognition of the fact that contradictions do not exist and only seem to appear as a result of mistaken premises held by an individualLaihendi

well i'm done for the night, Gonna watch the new episode of "hunter x hunter" and go to bed.

The righteous reap while the weak save all but ambition, and blame the true who hold that which they earned to keep.

"hunter x hunter"

frannkzappa

eww

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

"hunter x hunter"

coolbeans90

eww

blasphemy!!!!, hunter x hunter is amazing.

roommate tried to get me into it

four episodes in, and i just couldn't take it anymore

roommate tried to get me into it

four episodes in, and i just couldn't take it anymore

coolbeans90