Re: Re: Objectivity

On Saturday 28 April 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
> 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.
>

Perhaps. But by that I meant that it seems to match my expectations.

> > 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'.

Right.

>
> > 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.
>

Right.

> There is no induction here. Induction is proof. 

I'm not talking about the so-called mathematical induction, I'm talking about 
logical induction of proving that a rule is correct from various inidividual 
instances:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

> 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.

See above.

>
> > 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)

I do not. I have proven that they are incorrect based on more basic 
assumptions.

>
> > 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.

I realise that if something "makes a lot of sense" it may not be correct. I'll 
give you that. However, after having seen N-T criticised by other people 
several times, and after I've understood why these criticisms were false, I 
concluded that I still believe Neo-Tech is true.

>
> > > 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.

Well, as I see it, "The Truth is Out There". Objective reality exists. People 
can be misled to believe something about it that is not true. And if they are 
hallucinating or under hypnosis, etc. may believe something completely 
different. However, the reality is still shared, and one can verify what 
indeed happens or happened.

>
> > 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, there is exactly one reality, and we all share it. We can probably never 
be certain of what really happened or what are actually the facts, but we can 
be sure that they are shared among us all. Either I have a copy of a book 
called "How to Cook Everything" on my shelf next to me now, or I don't. You 
can come to my house and verify it. Similarly, either Mao is responsible for 
killing tens of millions of people or he was not.

> > > 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.

Well, I can tell him that he cannot be certain he'll go to heaven, and much 
less that God is muslim. It is hard to believe the soul can persist without 
the body, because whatever affects the body is registered in the mind. And it 
is unlikely that God, assuming he indeed exists, favours the crazy and 
subjective religious theories as put forth by most religions. (And if he 
does - we're in deep trouble).

You cannot rely on anything that happens to you after death. Death is most 
probably final.

>
> > 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.
>

Right.

> > 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.
>

Well, I don't necessarily buy into what you said, because I need something 
more substantial than that. Not everything I'm saying is true. 

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif-ik1l9ssToec+JF/[email protected]
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
    -- An Israeli Linuxer


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[email protected] 
    mailto:[email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/