TTI Forums

Hi all,

I'm new on these forums. I submitted my application to TTI recently (and hope for it to be approved, even though I feel my chances are slim), but that's not what I want to talk about.

Reading TTI's website and the philosophy on which the corporation is based triggered me to do some research into Ayn Rand and her objectivist philosophy. I admittedly haven't read any of Ayn Rand's books, though Atlas Shrugged is definately on my wish list.

The first thing about Objectivism that struck me was its reliance on objective reality. That is the part I want to debate.

In the world of EVE, reality is truly objective. The EVE universe is built upon a foundation of programmed laws. Things happen in a set way. Reality in EVE is as objective as any reality can be, based as it is upon sets of directives and 'physical laws' as put forth into its programming by its creators. The only dissonant here is the actions of the player-controlled characters, but even they have to obey the laws that make EVE work. As such, an Ibis can never change into a Raven instantly, and a laser beam that hits its target will do a set amount of damage, as determined by a number of pre-defined variables.

The real world, however, is not objective. Its very nature is subjective, actually. Reality is what we see, what our senses detect and our brains interpret. Reality is subjective to its observer.

Scientific examples can be found in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, as well as in quantum physics where particles exist and move in patterns of probability. For example, quantum theory states that it is entirely possible for a banana to change into an apple in the blink of an eye. It's just extremely unlikely that it does so.

As such, Objectivism is a very valid philosophy to adhere to in the world of EVE. In the real world, however, it has a shaky foundation at best.

All this is only my view, of course. I have no education in philosophy, and no knowledge of the subject matter outside of what I have read on Ayn Rand and Objectivism on the internet, and some of Stephen Hawkins' popular books on quantum theory and such.

Any thoughts, comments, $0.02 to add?

Cheers,
- Gralgathor

Gralgathor wrote: As such, Objectivism is a very valid philosophy to adhere to in the world of EVE. In the real world, however, it has a shaky foundation at best.

I agree.

I feel Objectivism is a bit like "Oh, things can be so complicated, let's just try to stick to what we can comprehend and make that the only truth. Every other thing must fit to that." This is okay so knowledge can be useful at last.

... on the other hand even in EVE with its objective laws things get funny if you divide anything by zero. Despite of anyones definition, exceptions will still be exceptions.

I'm nervous to post too much, I too would like to be a part of Taggart, partially because I enjoy the complexity of this market, and partially because one of the two books I embrace as my core "beliefs" is Atlas Shrugged.
Personally I completely disagree with you. I wish I had the book with me, I loaned it out, but Atlus Shrugged certainly says it best. To paraphrase from memory (if someone knows what I'm referring to and could correct me that would be nice), Reality is the final arbitor of truth, what you perceive may or may not agree, but that won't make you any more correct then you were before. If you see a banana change to an apple in the blink of an eye it's only proof that quantum theory may be correct. And just because you can't accurately measure where a qubit is without disturbing it's path, doesn't mean it isn't somewhere, only that you don't know where.
Just to give this thread a little more life (I enjoy philosophy and discussing it, learning about other people's views on it, and arguing it {intelligently}) In response to ""Reality is what we see, what our senses detect and our brains interpret. Reality is subjective to its observer"" Descartes made some good points about senses and proving them. Once again being very basic, amoung other things, Descartes stated the senses were not true and could not be proved. "I think therefore I am"
I would really be interested in other views on this.