About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5


Post 100

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 11:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nate:
:>Well, in asking "to what does the concept of 'objective' apply," you're asking not for a list of existents but for methods of learning about and evaluating the world.  The major things you want to be objective are concept formation and ethical evaluations.

Hmmm. Perhaps I could put this another way. Maybe we could break down Rand's schema so we can roughly compare them. This model of Popper's epistemology is crude natch, the "worlds" are a manner of speaking, but the salient points emerge clearly and it makes it easier to compare and criticise. It helps you see what goes where. For example, if I was comparing a behaviourist/determinist model it might be this:

W1: Objective/physical (there is no W2 - consciousness is an illusion, everything is determined by physical processes. And W3, fugghedaboutit!)

In contrast, I would guess that Rand's schema might be:

W1: Objective/physical
W2: Subjective & objective/non-physical (this would be consciousness, which includes subjective thoughts and feelings but also *concepts* which are "objective". I'm also guessing on the non-physical side as she seems to call for a strong distinction between consciousness and physical existence, and she is not a determinist. There is no W3 - concepts reside within individual consciousnesses)

Is that about right as you see it? If you feel uncomfortable with W1&2 you can just differentiate them by saying "Existence" and "Consciousness" or something.

- Daniel

Post 101

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 2:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nate T:
>>When did I ever say that the range was approximate? I think Ed may have conceded that somewhere above, but I have not.

and later:
>What do you mean, "can only be approximated between?" When you're measuring with a millimeter length, you're counting units lined up end to end, as I've mentioned before.

OK, I can see I'm going to have to do a little 'knuckle cracking' myself to get this straight...;-)

Let me lay out the problem so it emerges a little more clearly.

Imagine AR and Prof. E have a metric ruler handy while they're having their discussion in the IOE. They have a fairly convoluted conversation in which, somewhat predictably, everything finally boils down to "context" - that is, precision is relative to the context of a particular situation (building a platform, meeting in a years time etc); or in short, *precision is relative*. AR agrees with this in a general way, but then suddenly makes a last minute bolt for a cleaner solution:

AR: "But more than that, isn't there a very simple solution to the problem of accuracy? Which is this: let us say that you cannot go into infinity, but in the finite you can always be absolutely precise simply by saying, for instance: "Its length is no less than one millimeter and no more than two millimeters.

Prof. E: And that's perfectly exact.

AR: It's exact. If an issue of precision is involved, you can make it precise even in non-microscopic terms, even in terms of a plain ruler. You can define your length-that is, establish your measurement-with absolute precision."

Now imagine they both look at their "plain ruler" - and sure enough, there they are, clear as day, the 1mm and 2mm markings. So regardless of the vagaries of exactly establishing (say) the microscopic point 1.474mm between them - the impossibility of which is the very reason Rand suggests this in-between solution - she can always say you have established your measurement with "absolute precision" by saying it is somewhere between those two exact markings. Problem of "perfect exactness" solved!

Except for one slight detail...*by what method are the 1mm and 2mm points - the start and end points of your range - "exactly" established on your plain ruler*? It turns out to be the same method by which the point 1.474 is established. That is, they are *approximated* too (first in creating the standard block, where the points are estimated between other points by breaking the meter into 1000 approximately equal parts, then by making however many *approximate copies* - or "plain rulers").

Thus Ayn Rand and Prof E's solution, which they call call "perfectly exact" and "absolutely precise" - even with a plain ruler! - is actually *an approximation within approximations*.

Geddit?

- Daniel




(Edited by Daniel Barnes
on 6/01, 2:41pm)


Post 102

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 4:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Daniel,

First: your summary of Rand's metaphysics and epistemology seems right.  Essentially, if one were to try to case Rand's system into "worlds", it boils down to: there are two ways to sense reality-- the five senses which give us material information, and introspection, which tells us about non-physical existents.

Next:  Your summary of what you think is going on with my conception of the measurement problem helps, too.
Now imagine they both look at their "plain ruler" - and sure enough, there they are, clear as day, the 1mm and 2mm markings. So regardless of the vagaries of exactly establishing (say) the microscopic point 1.474mm between them - the impossibility of which is the very reason Rand suggests this in-between solution - she can always say you have established your measurement with "absolute precision" by saying it is somewhere between those two exact markings. Problem of "perfect exactness" solved!
Well, the real point she was trying to get across is that "exact measurement" isn't possible.  Hence, this range idea, which is the next best thing, is what we ought to describe as precise, since it's the only technique of measurement of this kind possible to man.  Also, in this paragraph:
Except for one slight detail...*by what method are the 1mm and 2mm points - the start and end points of your range - "exactly" established on your plain ruler*? It turns out to be the same method by which the point 1.474 is established. That is, they are *approximated* too (first in creating the standard block, where the points are estimated between other points by breaking the meter into 1000 approximately equal parts, then by making however many *approximate copies* - or "plain rulers").
First, 1mm and 2mm do not correspond to "points" on a ruler-- that would be improperly reifying the real line.  The numbers preceding the "mm" correspond to the number of millimeters it takes to get just past the length of an object.  1.474mm is just shorthand for 1474 micrometers.

Next, how we put the tics on a meterstick is the problem of subdivision I alluded to earlier in our discussion.  One doesn't subdivide a ruler by eyeing it-- one finds a unit (or calibrates an instrument) in such a way so that, say, 100 of these new subdivisions correspond to the original unit you were given.

(My guess is that some kind of mechanical device is used which prints a tic, translates a prespecified distance that can be set by the machine, and then prints another tic, etc.  However, I don't know exactly how it's done.)

As for the approximate copies, I've already shown how one can verify how closely a copy unit deviates from an original unit.

If you have meter as your unit, your job of refining units is not done-- you have to actually find something which corresponds to 1cm (read: a unit 100 of which has the same length as a meter), otherwise your "subdivisions" are just blind guesswork, and hence aren't valid.

So I suppose since everyone practically uses copies of units, you could call measurement an "approximation of an approximation", if you wanted.  But's that's as far as the error goes, and it's determinable.

Nate T.




Post 103

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 5:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nate:
>First: your summary of Rand's metaphysics and epistemology seems right. Essentially, if one were to try to case Rand's system into "worlds", it boils down to: there are two ways to sense reality-- the five senses which give us material information, and introspection, which tells us about non-physical existents.

Good, then let's get back to that shortly. Measurement is kinda boring to say the least, and I think we agree on this now ie:

>Well, the real point she was trying to get across is that "exact measurement" isn't possible.

Which is basically what I'm saying too. And my original point, way back when, was how confusing it is for her to *say* things like "You can...establish your measurement..with absolute precision." whilst actually *meaning* that you can't!

Anyhoo, now we've beaten that into a stiff broth, let's compare epistemologies. Much more interesting...;-)

- Daniel


Post 104

Sunday, June 5, 2005 - 11:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nate T. wrote:

" [...] I would still like to know more about this process by which a length is measured in terms of light-- I tried Wikipedia, but it wasn't helpful"

This brief explanation of the "history of the metre" explains the process quite lucidly.

http://www.irl.cri.nz/msl/training_&_resources/History/history_metre.html

I also found this brief bit on "length standards" interesting, and thought some here may as well.

http://www.irl.cri.nz/msl/si-units/length/#The%20Metre




RCR
(Edited by R. Christian Ross on 6/05, 2:07pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5


User ID Password or create a free account.