Spirituality
22 Jan 07
24 Jan 07
8 edits
The post that was quoted here has been removedI take Rand's statement to mean that contradictions don't manifest in reality. That is, it is never the case in any actual universe that both A and Not-A are true, where A is any claim about the way the universe is.
I don't take Rand's statement to mean that logical statements representing contradictions can't be constructed or conceived of. On the contrary, counterexamples to such an assertion are trivial to find. Here's one: the proposition (A and Not-A).
This interpretation applies to Russell's paradox in two main ways.
First, Russel's R, the set of all sets that are not members of themselves, can never manifest in reality, the domain to which I take Rand's claim to refer, so R can never both be and not be a member of itself, as it can never be at all. Thus, R is not a counterexample to Rand's claim. I believe Hilbert's analysis of the R paradox is along these lines.
Alternatively, Rand's admonition to check ones premises upon finding a contradiction is precisely what set theorists pursued, an endeavor which has enriched the field and led to better understanding. Contrast this to rejecting the admonition, in which case set theorists would have just thrown up their hands, said "Well, that's weird" and moved on. The prior axioms simply corresponded to a set of premises that obscurely entailed (A and Not-A). I think it is clear that the possibility of constructing such a set of premises is not what Rand was denying.
Finally, I think it is generally accepted that Rand was a legitimate child.
24 Jan 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaThe problem here is not in the limits to Gods abilities but in the limit of the language being used. If there exists an entity called God which made the universe then it is possible that he is capable of moving a rock of any size within the universe. However it is theoretically possible for God to make a rock that fills the entire universe and thus cannot be moved as moving would loose its meaning in that case. But loss of meaning is not the same thing as failure to do.
Can God make a rock that's so big that he can't move it? 🙂
The evidence is however, that the laws of physics are consistent within the observable universe, so whatever God may be capable of, he doesn't seem to ever violate the laws of physics in an observable way.
24 Jan 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoctorScribbles, today I was reading about this Komodo Dragan in Manchester that is a virgin, yet it gave birth (layed eggs) to about five little Komodos. What is your take on this from two areas? First the whole contradiction discussion as this seems to be a contradiction. Secondly, I have heard nothing but silence from the religious world about this phenomenon. Could they feel threatened by this as it may suggest that Jesus is returning as 5 Komodo Dragons?
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." -- Ayn Rand
24 Jan 07
8 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957What is your take on this from two areas? First the whole contradiction discussion as this seems to be a contradiction.
DoctorScribbles, today I was reading about this Komodo Dragan in Manchester that is a virgin, yet it gave birth (layed eggs) to about five little Komodos. What is your take on this from two areas? First the whole contradiction discussion as this seems to be a contradiction. Secondly, I have heard nothing but silence from the religious world about this ...[text shortened]... uld they feel threatened by this as it may suggest that Jesus is returning as 5 Komodo Dragons?
Reverend, this is the very sort of practical problem that Rand was addressing. We only have a contradiction in the present case if we persist in believing that a mother and father are required to produce a Komodo dragon. When faced with these five bastards, we have a choice: either remain in ignorance, misunderstanding and wonder, or examine our premises, figure out their flaws and repair our beliefs accordingly.
However, we don't need to look to exotic reptiles to find such applications. We have already seen a mathematical one in this thread. Another is the seeming contradiction of a priest who molests children, steals from the collection plate, or rapes nuns. People generally hold the impression that priests ought to be respected merely in virtue of being priests, and this is a premise that clearly needs to be checked.
Secondly, I have heard nothing but silence from the religious world about this phenomenon. Could they feel threatened by this as it may suggest that Jesus is returning as 5 Komodo Dragons?
Well, in contrast to scientists who readily discuss open questions that are bound to shake and call for revision of long held scientific beliefs, many religious leaders are socially and professionally committed to maintaining their beliefs in the face of conflicting evidence, and thus often require time to figure out how their present beliefs can be molded into coherence with the new evidence, so that when they do finally address the subject, it looks as if their religion held the answers all along. Think about it...when is the last time Ivanhoe posted a VIS article with a headline like "New Evidence Calls Veracity of the Flood Story into Question" or "Cosmologists Conclude that Solar System Would Be Destroyed if Sun Actually Stood Still over Jericho." Why would you now expect a headline like "Did Noah Really Need to Put Two Komodos on the Ark?" or "One Man and one Woman: Maybe not God's Design After All."