TTI Forums

Hmm.

I used to think in a similar manner to AT, but turned away from such, long before I ever read Ayn Rand, on account of the fact that nine ninths equals one.

Specifically, one ninth is, in essence, .1 repeating; an endless string of ones. Two ninths is two strings of ones added together, producing an endless string of twos. So on for the other fractions between, culminating in nine ninths; theoretically an endless string of nines... and thus, not equal to one. Being endless, there is no point at which you can equate nine ninths to one; it approaches one, becoming infinitely close to one, but on the face of it, does not equal one.

This expanded directly out into other areas; I believed that an endless amount of information on a subject did not prove anything, merely imply a high level of probability; and that 'absolute certainty' was only possible given omniscience. Literally, I believed that only God could really 'know' things; this being the source of his divinity.


Then I considered things more fully, and discarded the notion that nine ninths was not equal to one, on account of the fact that a theoretical consideration of an insignificant difference is utterly meaningless in the face of practical reality. The fact that nine ninths is theoretically smaller then one by an infinitely small amount has no practical meaning; as in any comparison whatsoever, nine ninths will not be shown to be significantly different from one. The amount by which nine ninths is smaller then one is an infinitely small 'number' which does not actually exist; it is a theoretical monster sneering at truth at the edge of nonexistence. That last phantom .000...001 at the end of the figures is a number which can be labeled 'mathematical error' in a numerical comparison, as it can be eliminated entirely by expanding the calculations. Further studies into science and the discovery of 'significant figures' confirmed this; an amount too small to observe is not worthy of consideration; that which cannot be observed can be considered not to exist.

Similarly, I abandoned the concept of the possibility of a plurality of knowledge being considered only 'probable' on the account of a lack of omniscience; the theoretical conception of a falsification of basic physical laws being equivalent to the 'mathematical error' from before, only here it is better labeled 'philosophical error'. Lacking a divine source of infinite knowledge does not invalidate any knowledge currently possessed, nor does it provide grounds to doubt any knowledge currently possessed. That has to come from observations and evidence. It makes no sense to claim that nothing can be known unless everything is known. Some things are known, and others are not. Knowledge accumulates as observation and reason provides it. Perhaps everything may be known, eventually; this is unlikely, but possible. Perhaps all things about the nature of reality will be fully comprehended, and the possibility will exist to do anything by affecting reality using means currently unknown to us. Even so, the possibility that this may one day come to pass does not negate any of the progress we make towards that point; and the idea of a divine source of infinite knowledge is, at best, a childish mockery of the true nature of knowledge.


Existence exists. It is objective, and not determined by the observer. As such, it can be known. Everything about it can be known; possibly even at once. To suggest otherwise is to deny either existence or knowledge. If you deny existence, then, by your own admission, you do not exist, and thus have no business denying anything. If you deny knowledge, then you admit to being a fool, and as such should not proclaim your admitted foolishness as wisdom. In either case, I can have no discussion with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feUA5qkzOjs

This is on Karl Popper.

It made me realize something... AT always claimed to avoid induction, and said it has no place in science. Then he claimed that things should be subject to falsification and direct OBSERVATIONS. Direct observations... what do you think induction is! The only way humans can understand observations is through identifying things they see in reality--ie, induction!

Karl Popper was a Hot Karl.

Second part of the video series expliains the actual obvious problem with Popper's view.

Essentially: why choose to fly a plane if past observations are no proof at all for its performance? Why not choose to fly on a magic carpet, etc.?

Outsider wrote:musashi: in all your posts that I've read I noticed one mistake which keeps repeating. It seems to be a contradiction you identify, and therefor ask questions about "collective" situations.

Here is an example to explain what I mean: You want to show that something (like government funded education, or government funded shelters) can benefit "society". Now, since society is composed of individual men, you think, you have proven that a method of force is good for men, and therefor you think you see a contradiction to Objectivist principle that a method of force between men is bad.
I believe you see the contradiction, since you know that force used against a man is not good for his life. Even if eventually it gives him more money. (For example, suppose you've been saving for your dream of opening an ice cream shop. Then someone forces you to give that money to him, invests it in stocks, and gives you some time later more than what he took. Did he do you good? Obviously not. Money by itself is not good detached from how a person chooses to use it or earn it.)
And yet you are trying to prove that a method of force is good anyway. How is this achieved?

mathematically, this can be described as follows:

Suppose X stands for a man. X1,X2,...Xn are individual people.
We know that F (stands for force) is bad for X. F(Xi)=Bad for any i between 1 and n. But, we want to prove that F(X)=Good. So here is how we do it:
We define Y=X1+X2+...+Xn. Now, since Y is a sum of X's, it preserves the "mold and characteristics" of X. So Let's treat Y like another X and call it X_Big (X_Big is society, treated as a single human unit). Now if F(X1) Produces wealth, then Y has wealth. Now wealth given to some specific person may be good or bad for him, depending on his life, desires, etc'. But wealth for Y is always good, since Y is a weird average of people. It cannot be said to have a personality or life, but it still needs wealth to maintain physical life. So we establish that F(Y)=Good. Now Y is really X_Big that we recall from before, and therefore F(Xi)=Good. Case proven, we feel very sophisticated.

Conclusion? If you see a contradiction don't try to prove that it exists. That doesn't make you appear smart and sophisticated. It makes you look like you aren't dedicated to finding the truth.
Proving contradictions is the fuel of self-esteem of bad philosophers. No one here would appreciate that sort of thing, except, maybe, Arakasi Takeda.

Well, I hope this helped.

Please accept my apologies for not replying sooner, I have been away from the forums for some time… My New Year’s resolution not to forum troll at work

Thanks for the advice, although I was a bit confused in following the math.

”You think you see a contradiction to Objectivist principle that a method of force between men is bad.”

This is a keen observation, and I do struggle with the tenant. I would suggest that social philosophy (like Objectivism) is built upon natural philosophy. In nature the use of force is a very real and acceptable. I choose to keep and maintain the capacity to use force, because I never know when the “law of the jungle” will come back into style. So yes for me there is a level of contradiction to the premise.