Re: virus: Re: The saga continues!

Nathaniel Hall (
Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:59:29 -0600

Tim Rhodes wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Nathaniel Hall wrote:
> > D.H.R. wrote:
> > > But to an Objectivist, the
> > > fact that he's perceiving reality is of importance. I have a question
> > > for
> > > you, Nate: Does the obvious fact that the scientist is perceiving
> > > reality,
> > > have usefulness as far as doing the experiment is concerned?
> >
> > Only in so far as it makes the experiment of any use at all! A
> > non-objective universe would make the experiment pointless.
> Let's try a thought experiment, Nate. Let's assume the opposite of what
> we think is true and then find the contradiction in the anti-thesis, shall
> we?
> Your vague here on what it is I'm assumed to be thinking. Of course I know what I happen to be thinking, nobody can make that assumption for me

> The anti-thesis axioms:
> "1) The universe is non-objective.
> 2) Scientists perform experiments on the universe that are meaningful."
> Now, given these obviously erroneous axioms, where will we locate the
> contradiction?

Why you'd simply locate them when they occured. If there was no
contradictions to be found than that universe would be in fact be
objective. That would be a contradiction of the axiom. Thus for a
non-contradictory universe, reduction ad absurdum, a non-objective
universe cannot exist! We do experiance a non-objective universe of
sorts on a nearly nightly basis. That world of our dreams. However we
know they are dreams is because of the contradictions. Try to preform a
meaningful experiment in one of your dreams. If you get anything good
be sure and publish the results by all means!

If experiments on a non-objective universe are assumed to
> be meaningful, what is the nature of "meaning"?

How many legs does a dog have if we assume the tail is a leg? Answer: 4
. Just because you assume the tail is a leg does not make it a leg!

Can we reach a definition
> of "meaningful" derived from the anti-thesis axioms that is in clear
> conflict with our understanding of what the "truth" is?

Given the first axiom ,there is no truth, and no conflict because
anything can be everything!

And thus disprove
> the anti-axioms?

Disproving anything requires first and foremost a universe where proofs
are possible!
> Or... ?
Or what?
> Give it a shot, Nateman. Impress me with your Objective approach.
> -Prof. Tim

Consider yourself shot. Only you can say if you were impressed or not. (
unless of course its a non-objective universe in which case I can say if
you were impressed or not because anything is possible in such a