Re: Re: Objectivity

On 4/28/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif-ik1l9ssToec+JF/[email protected]> wrote:

> I do accept the Peano axioms (which I'm well aware of) on "faith". However,
> they seem to "make sense", and using them one has proven the rest of

That "make sense" thing is where your subjective belief system comes into play.

> arithmetics and number theory in a consistent fashion, and with no
> contradictions so far. So I can accept them not based on "faith" but based on
> intuition, proof-by-induction and practical science.

Well, one could construct a consistent system with different axioms
and still be practical. When you say "based on intuition" you're
actually saying 'based on what I *feel* or *believe* should be true
and correct'.

> As you know it's impossible to prove that all objects on planet earth, without
> intervention will try to go down. However, this is known to be the case by
> induction from many experiments, and from general practice. So we can assume
> it is the case.

This is not math, this is physics. As you well know our physics is
based on empiric study of the world. There is a theory that there
exists a force called gravity, it's pulling objects towards each
other, and the force is equal to G(M1xM2)/r^2. This formula was
derived empirically from (I think) the Kepler observations, and G was
defined to fit the observations.

There is no induction here. Induction is proof. What you have is
inference. You see two apples falling towards the ground and you
DEDUCE that the third apple will too. Contrary to popular belief,
these theories cannot be proven, they can only be very well
experimented with or disproven. You can say that from the many
experiments done in this field you infer that there is a force F=mg
pulling your object towards the ground. You cannot prove it by
induction. Let's try and see where that fails:

n=0 - let's drop apple#0... okay it fell with the predicted speed in vaccum.
n=1 - let's drop apple#1... okay it fell much the same way
but wait these experiments are unrelated, maybe experiment 1234 won't
work the same. Induction requires that you will be able to say
something about i-1 but when each experiment is independent you
cannot.

> As you know, one can think of several different systems of ethics. And in a
> way, we can expect that they would vary in time as technology, economy and
> philosophy progresses. However, as you know, sometimes people can poke large
> holes within ethical systems, showing them to violate more basic, commonly
> accepted assumptions (as I have shown for some of the Ethics proposed by Kant
> and Kierkegaard). As such they can be rejected as false.

Again you take something subjective like ethics and judge it
pseudo-objectively (rejected as false)

> While I don't know the precise reasoning, Ayn Rand and later on Neo-Tech have
> claimed to derive a set of absolute ethics using logic and very basic
> assumptions. And I should note that what Neo-Tech says seems to "make a lot
> of sense" to me, and I have concluded that it is a good and fully-integrated
> system of ethics and a proper model of existence.

Again with that 'make a lot of sense'; you proclaim your subjectivity
and still insist that the definition
is somehow objective. Come on.

> > It's not either-or. Our realities overlap enough so we can converse in
> > the same language. It does not overlap enough to agree on questions of
> > the absoluteness of morality, so it seems.
>
> The phyiscal world in which we live in is completely shared between us. (I
> hope you agree to that). However, each of us have his own knowledge,

Well, you forget that that alleged physical world is percieved by us
using nothing but our senses which are both fallible and go through
subjective filters, so any observation you might make about the
physical world might not be the same as one I make about it. And then
again it might.

I only see the world through my own eyes.

> opinions, thoughts, mental baggage, etc. Some people believe Mao was a heroic
> figure, but you and I both know he was a mass-murderer. (Which a grown-up
> Chinese programmer I talked with, didn't know that is the case, because he
> was never told that). While the facts still stand, everyone has a different
> conception of reality. However, his conception of reality is not reality
> itself, but a mere conception. (All of this avoiding some technicalities as
> the fact that our mind is made of atoms, etc.)

Oh? How do you "KNOW" that his view of reality is the false one and
yours is the true one? Do you have some ability to see reality in a
way that is radically different than his? Are you superman?

Have you ever met Mao? Did you ever chat? Did you form an opinion
through means other than history books and the internet? You make an
assumption about what's true and what's not based on not even your
senses (which as I claim before are fallible etc) but other people's
subjective thoughts and ideas put to print. Who said you're right?

There is more than one reality, Shlomi.

> > No. I simply deny your ability to arbitrate moral rules with logic.
> OK. Well, I don't. If someone tells me "I think it should be OK to kill
> people", then I could tell him "Fine, would you like it if I kill you?"
> or "If I see you're killing too many people, then I'll kill you so you won't
> end up killing me.". Thus, we're eliminating some falsified ethical rules
> using logic.

No you're not using logic. You're using your subjective judgment. That
man might say, yes, you can try to kill me, and if you fail and I kill
you I'll win, and if I fail and you kill me I'll be a Shahid and go to
heaven and have 77 virgins and still win, so live or die I win because
I'm a true believer and will go to heaven. If he says that I recommend
you kill him because his reality is probably dangerous to you. To this
person, killing you is moral because his subjective belief system sees
it as moral.

> What isn't provable or disprovable? Trying to guess: if someone makes a claim
> that seems objective (rather than "I think..." or "I like...", etc.) then
> either it is true, false, or cannot be demonstrated to be either true or
> false. And it would be anti-intellectual to think this claim is meaningful
> without demonstrating that it is indeed so.

It is true UNDER SOME ASSUMPTIONS, like 2+2=4 is true under the
assumption that you accept the axioms as true. This is the only way
you can prove anything.

> Like I said, when someone makes an assertion, the burden-of-proof is on him.

Well, I assume whatever I say is true and under this assumption
everything I said is true so there.

-- Arik