On Fri, 12 Sep 1997, Nathaniel Hall wrote:
> Prof. Tim wrote:
> > 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.
Ahhh... not so, grasshopper! See our first axiom: "the universe in
non-objective." If a contradiction is *NOT* found, it must therefore have
an explination other than that the universe objective. And there are a
countess number of those, but be carefull--you run the risk of having to
prove Subjectivity in order to support your proof for Objectivity.
> That would be a contradiction of the axiom.
And a step outside the system, m'boy. Like proving Objectivism while
denying A=A. Are you ready for that slippery slope?
> Thus for a non-contradictory universe, reduction ad absurdum, a
> non-objective universe cannot exist!
You don't have much experience with axiomatic systems for being a
so-called Objectivist, Nateman.
Where is your proof that this axiomatic system is non-contradictory? Not
that I don't want you to find it, mind you. If you prove that my
anti-thesis is non-contradictory I've won. The first axiom is, "the
universe is non-objective" and if that is non-contradictory then why are
you an Objectivist, hmmm?
Maybe you want to go back read about the nature of axiomatic systems,
Nateman, before you attack this one again. You seem to be hitting at the
underpinnings of Objectivism as well, with these wild swings of yours!
> 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!
I knew a fellow that had a dream about a snake eating its own tail... I
wonder what ever became of that fellow?
> > 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!
And just because you assume A=A does not make it so! (Look out, Nateman,
the hill starts to get slippery around these parts.)
> > 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!
Why? Where is the axiom in my anti-thesis that denies truth? Truth is
only a byproduct of objectivity in the Objectivists axioms, not in these.
Please try again to find a contradiction in my anti-thesis without working
outside the axioms, otherwise I see no reason why should accept your
axioms as any more valid than mine. Or can you chose to work within
*your* axiomatic system only when it suits *you*?
> Disproving anything requires first and foremost a universe where proofs
> are possible!
No, rather it requires a thinking process in which proofs are possible,
that is all. Unless you what to say that thinking processes *ARE* the
universe. Is that what your saying, Nateman?!? Funny thing for an
Objectivist to think, if you ask me!
> Consider yourself shot.
And the sucker on the end of the dart has left a nasty red ring on my
forehead. But I think I'll live, thank you.
-Prof. Tim