Re: virus: Re: The saga continues!

Nathaniel Hall (
Sat, 13 Sep 1997 18:50:10 -0600

Tim Rhodes wrote:

> This is too easy...
> 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 is objective.

Why must it be so? Do you keep the axiom regardless of the evidence to
the contrary?

> 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.

Lost me here.I don't see why that is the case.

> > 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.

An axiom is something which one takes as a given. Something which does
not need to be proved. However the universe does not care what you
choose to think of as an axiom. It has some kind of axiom that one must
figure out. You have two choices :do contradictions exist or do
contradictions not exist. If one assumes contradictions do exist as in
the thought experiment one needs go no further. Reason , logic argument
is all pointless. One doesn't have to make sense. Anything goes. However
if one takes the axiom that contradictions can't exist you have some
work ahead of you.

> Where is your proof that this axiomatic system is non-contradictory?

But it is contradictory. By its very nature.


> 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.

Then you lose. It's contradictory from the beginning.

> The first axiom is, "the
> universe is non-objective" and if that is non-contradictory then why
> are
> you an Objectivist, hmmm?

Where do you get this idea that I claim a non-objective universe is
non-contradictory? Did I screw up somewhere and not notice it?

> 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!

Given what you seem to think I believe I can understand that, however
let me state my axioms to make my view clear:1)The universe is Objective

2)Scientists perform experiments which are meaningful.

> > 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?

He came up with the Idea of the Benzene ring. Funny you should mention
that. I thought of that fellow as I was typing that out. He did not
perform a valid experiment in his dream though did he? Just came up with
a decent Idea to explain the results of some experiments.

> > > 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.)

This is so. But it is true regardless. It's axiomatic. Truly axiomatic
and not just something that I claim to be so. If you think that 2 + 2 =
5 in your heart of hearts I'm at a loss as how to show you the error of
your ways but I know you'd be wrong!

> > > 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?

Define what you mean by Non-Objective and I'll tell you. My definition
of Non-Objective is that Contradictions can exist. Perhaps this is where
the confusion between us is coming from.

> Truth is
> only a byproduct of objectivity in the Objectivists axioms, not in
> these.

So you claim. I claim otherwise. Just what do you really mean when you
say Non-Objective?

> 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*?

This is a clever trick. By taking your foundation as an undeniable idea
(axiom) I'm supposed to show the idea (axiom) is deniable. Of course I
can't show it given those conditions. But the axiom is wrong in the
first place and I don't need to work within it! If you cannot believe
that seeing is believing nothing I say is going to convince you
anyway.By making me work within your axiom you make me accept the very
idea I do not accept. I'm on to you now. You can only trick me for so
long! After all A=A.

> > 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.

I claim that's the same thing as our minds are real objects in a real
universe. How can you separate the two? (Methinks you best wear a helmet
next time you get on your motorcycle least your hurt that mind which
thinks that thinking occurs without something real to think with.)

> 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!

It would be funny. If I was saying it. I'm not. (If I did it unwittingly
I take it back.)

> > 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

Grasshopper : Hey look master, I grabbed the stone out of your hand!
What's the matter with you are you blind or something? That's it, I'm
outta here!

The Nateman.