Activity feed
I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility. If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why theformerlatter has been physicalized in the first place. (Logan Chipkin)
#522 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoI don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.
If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the former has been physicalized in the first place.
(Logan Chipkin)
The latter?
#521 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoWhat do you think of: it’s the law of the excluded middle that causes the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
I don’t see why nonexistence cannot also be a logical possibility.
If nonexistence is logically possible, and existence is logically possible, we need to explain why the former has been physicalized in the first place.
(Logan Chipkin)
What do you think of: it’s the law of the excluded middle that causes the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
Yes. Which doesn’t problematize most of her other ideas, fortunately. But my guess is that any false idea could, if not corrected, result in humanity’s demise. So, shouldallany of Rand’s ideas spread to fixation, we could have her to thank for going the way of the dodo. Of course the fact that this‘exist‘existence as foundationalism’ idea does not problematize her other ideas goes both ways - opponents of Objectivism cannot appeal to that idea as a wholesale refutation of Objectivism. (Logan Chipkin)
#518 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoSounds like she treats existence as an ultimate bedrock. Foundationalism.
Yes. Which doesn’t problematize most of her other ideas, fortunately.
But my guess is that any false idea could, if not corrected, result in humanity’s demise. So, should all of Rand’s ideas spread to fixation, we could have her to thank for going the way of the dodo.
Of course the fact that this ‘exist as foundationalism’ idea does not problematize her other ideas goes both ways - opponents of Objectivism cannot appeal to that idea as a wholesale refutation of Objectivism.
(Logan Chipkin)
#516 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoAyn Rand writes:
[A]lthough few people today believe that the singing of mystic incantations will bring rain, most people still regard as valid an argument such as: “If there is no God, who created the universe?”
To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.In short, she argues that “the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated […]”. Which means that investigations into the origin of the universe are metaphysically invalid because they contradict the primacy of existence.
Sounds like she treats existence as an ultimate bedrock. Foundationalism.
#516 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoAyn Rand writes:
[A]lthough few people today believe that the singing of mystic incantations will bring rain, most people still regard as valid an argument such as: “If there is no God, who created the universe?”
To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.In short, she argues that “the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated […]”. Which means that investigations into the origin of the universe are metaphysically invalid because they contradict the primacy of existence.
I disagree. Existence is something to be explained.
(Logan Chipkin)
A discussion with Logan Chipkin. Shared with permission. Others are welcome to contribute.
Ayn Rand writes:
[A]lthough few people today believe that the singing of mystic incantations will bring rain, most people still regard as valid an argument such as: “If there is no God, who created the universe?”
To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.
In short, she argues that “the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated […]”. Which means that investigations into the origin of the universe are metaphysically invalid because they contradict the primacy of existence.
#501 · Tom Nassis, 3 months agoVeritula should have a section with a list of all its current members.
For now, people just have profiles.
But having a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.
And would promote a greater flow of communication.
[H]aving a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.
Just so you know, although I’ve implemented the list of members, I do want to be clear that Veritula is not meant for socializing.
#501 · Tom Nassis, 3 months agoVeritula should have a section with a list of all its current members.
For now, people just have profiles.
But having a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.
And would promote a greater flow of communication.
Done as of 6251b6a, see veritula.com/members.
#512 · Nick Willmott, 3 months agoCool. Not sure I can criticise a syllogism. I can try push the definition ad absurdum...
- A light switch processes information. Therefore, a light switch is a computer.
- An OR gate processes information. Therefore, an OR gate is a computer.
Yes re OR gate.
Re light switches: as I understand it, they either inhibit or permit the flow of electricity. But there’s no information there, let alone processing of information. So the example is flawed, I think.
#498 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoIt is under that definition. Not the kind of computer people traditionally think of when they hear the term, like a laptop or desktop, but it’s a computer nonetheless.
Cool. Not sure I can criticise a syllogism. I can try push the definition ad absurdum...
- A light switch processes information. Therefore, a light switch is a computer.
- An OR gate processes information. Therefore, an OR gate is a computer.
#506 · Tom Nassis, 3 months agoMakes sense to me.
'Discussions' is a much broader term than 'problems and their solutions.'
So I can see how that would allow for greater freedom.
I can also imagine some of the challenges presented in prior iterations of Veritula, if it had more of a 'problems and their solutions' structure.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest.
So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Done, see #510.
I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
I think you’re right, that would be best.
How to Structure Discussions
Overall, I think the starting point of a discussion isn’t all that important as long as you’re willing to keep correcting errors.
But for those looking for a starting point, you can take inspiration from what I wrote in #502. You can either structure a discussion around a single problem:
Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions
Or, if the discussion is wider than a single problem, you can treat it as a collection of problems:
Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on
Either way, discussions map onto Popper’s problem-oriented philosophy. If that’s what people want – I’m keeping discussion structures open and flexible in case they don’t.
And, as I wrote: “Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.”
I agree with @tom-nassis that it’s best if discussion titles are problem statements (#506).
#506 · Tom Nassis, 3 months agoMakes sense to me.
'Discussions' is a much broader term than 'problems and their solutions.'
So I can see how that would allow for greater freedom.
I can also imagine some of the challenges presented in prior iterations of Veritula, if it had more of a 'problems and their solutions' structure.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest.
So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.
You marked this as a criticism but it sounds like you’re agreeing with me.
#503 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoYou suggest replacing discussion trees:
[I]nstead of […] discussion trees […] users would articulate problems and their solutions.
But then you also write:
Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions.
Which means you’d still have trees regardless. So that sounds like a contradiction.
To be clear, I'm not opposed to 'trees' in general.
I was wondering whether 'discussion trees' can be replaced with 'problems-and-their-solutions trees' (for lack of a better phrasing).
4 unchanged lines collapsedPerhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does VeritulaWork?'↵ To be clear, I'm not opposed to 'trees' in general. I was wondering whether 'discussion trees' can be replaced with 'problems-and-their-solutions trees' (for lack of a better phrasing).↵ And yes,Work?'↵ Yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest. So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements. But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.
#502 · Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoAs I recall, previous iterations of Veritula had explicit designations such as ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ but I decided against continuing those designations. It’s been years but I think it was too rigid and felt too much like ‘red tape’. It’s easier when the only check box in this regard is a boolean for ‘criticism’.
Can’t discussions already map onto the structure you suggest?
Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutionsNote also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.
So I think people can already use Veritula in the way you suggest.
They can also use it like this:
Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on
Makes sense to me.
'Discussions' is a much broader term than 'problems and their solutions.'
So I can see how that would allow for greater freedom.
I can also imagine some of the challenges presented in prior iterations of Veritula, if it had more of a 'problems and their solutions' structure.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
To be clear, I'm not opposed to 'trees' in general. I was wondering whether 'discussion trees' can be replaced with 'problems-and-their-solutions trees' (for lack of a better phrasing).
And yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest.
So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.
#501 · Tom Nassis, 3 months agoVeritula should have a section with a list of all its current members.
For now, people just have profiles.
But having a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.
And would promote a greater flow of communication.
Good idea. I’ve added this to my list of features to implement.
#500 · Tom Nassis, 3 months agoI'm still getting a feel for this platform. I'm wondering whether it would help promote wider and deeper engagement if Veritula was organized in terms of problems and their solutions. So instead of discussions, discussion trees, and broad topics such as 'Abortion', users would articulate problems and their solutions. Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions. This approach might also make Veritula even more Popperian. All life is problem solving as Popper says.
You suggest replacing discussion trees:
[I]nstead of […] discussion trees […] users would articulate problems and their solutions.
But then you also write:
Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions.
Which means you’d still have trees regardless. So that sounds like a contradiction.
#500 · Tom Nassis, 3 months agoI'm still getting a feel for this platform. I'm wondering whether it would help promote wider and deeper engagement if Veritula was organized in terms of problems and their solutions. So instead of discussions, discussion trees, and broad topics such as 'Abortion', users would articulate problems and their solutions. Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions. This approach might also make Veritula even more Popperian. All life is problem solving as Popper says.
As I recall, previous iterations of Veritula had explicit designations such as ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ but I decided against continuing those designations. It’s been years but I think it was too rigid and felt too much like ‘red tape’. It’s easier when the only check box in this regard is a boolean for ‘criticism’.
Can’t discussions already map onto the structure you suggest?
Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions
Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.
So I think people can already use Veritula in the way you suggest.
They can also use it like this:
Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on
Veritula should have a section with a list of all its current members.
For now, people just have profiles.
But having a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.
And would promote a greater flow of communication.