Interesting point, I get it, but it also helps illustrate our sense of logic based upon day to day perception is limited. it was a pretty hard pill to swallow when I first started reading about how particles exist as a “probability cloud” until you pin them down by observing them.
“an object can’t be in two places at once” superficially seems like a very logical statement, but it isn’t the case.
Quantum physics doesn’t prove A doesn’t equal A at all! There is still no contradiction.
For all we know, everything is a construct of a thought process regarding the sensations we experience in our five senses. We make assumptions and reason from there. Quantum physics doesn’t tell us that A isn’t A; it informs us that some of our assumptions may be wrong, that we weren’t actually dealing with A all along but in fact with B or C. It’s not that A isn’t A, it’s that B isn’t C, although we had previously recognized and labeled both B and C as “A”.
But it isn’t necessary to reach that far to find the problems with objective ethics. Read the past threads on this topic and you’ll be able to see. There are three basic problems with all arguments for objective ethics thus far:
1. They don’t define “objective ethics” as a meaningful concept in the first place.
2. Their logical deduction is flawed, incoherent, ambiguous, only applies to those who already believe, or all four. (See refutations of Ayn Rand’s objectivism, Rothbard’s self-ownership and Ostergard’s reworking of it, Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, Rasmussen and Den Uyl’s natural law proof, and Long’s theory of constitutive means). See also the following threads:
Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law Rights The question of "natural" rights Oughtism and its Cure How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide? Does it make sense that human morality would be a matter of rigorous deduction?
3. Even if the reasoning were correct, denying or defying the ethical precept brings no necessary consequences to the person’s happiness.
For instance, even if someone would be contradicting themselves by denying or defying self-ownership (rather than just being hypocritical), there is no consequence for their happiness unless the person overlooks or fails to realize one important fact: being wrong or self-contradictory is only usually undesirable because it has bad consequences for one’s happiness.
For example, believing that 2 + 2 = 5 has bad consequences for one’s happiness when game hunting, storing food for the winter, making sure all your children have blankets, etc. However, so far no one has been able to articulate what bad consequences for one’s happiness must necessarily be the result of falling into a “performative contradiction” (see Hoppe’s AE).
Yes! That’s it alright. It’s not logic I had the problem with, it is certainty of individual’s ex ante logical conclusions, because they may be misinformed.
It seems like Hoppe and Long (the only two objective rights theorists I’ve read or heard in much detail) make rather large leaps of reasoning when arguing their case “I must objectively exist to argue a point”. Why?
So A does equal A after all, even though it didn’t every now and then.
As wrong as they may be that doesn’t seem like a leap at all.
It was a misunderstanding on my part what you logical fellows were driving at, and probably a little over-reaction from being constantly put on the defensive by nigrahamUK’s, ahem, “colorful” style of debate. I apologize for wasting anyone’s time.
I don’t understand how that requires “objective” existence. Perhaps we are both part of a lucid dream a coma victim is having.
Ah, no problem. Glad to see you getting on the right track.
If we are both apart of the same dream it doesn’t really change anything though.
It changes the objective nature of reality.
No, in relation to one another its the same, that’s all that matters.
But in the dreamer’s world, that is the real world, of which we are just imaginary homunculii crawling around this poor souls cerebral folds, we are non-existant. We perceive we exist in our world, but the whole world is itself imaginary.
Or maybe, (not to sound too creepy), you’ve imagined this whole world, including this conversation. My whole existence could just be an illusion you’ve unconsciously created.
Its still a big “so what?” Until he wakes up, the dream (our reality) goes on. Make do with what you have.
So all we know about reality is that it is created (validated) by our observation of it?
Is there another way to know about reality?
So reality is subject to the observer.
Since you and I are in the same dream simultaneously… probably not, there aren’t aren’t any dual realities, at least in this dream.
Yeah, as far as basic logic like chains of implication, anyone who has healthy memory and concentration can be perfect if they practice. It’s the beliefs and premises they come in with, and the pitfalls created by ambiguities of language, that cause people to make errors.
I don’t think that’s their exact argument. If you’re curious and want to give them a good hearing, it’s all covered - both for and against - in those threads.
But in this case, it’s our consensus that validates reality, not reality validating the consensus. What if there were three other people in the dream (we’d call them “crazies”). Who’s perception of the reality was completely separate from ours. Would that make us the “crazies”?
I recommend not thinking in terms of words in the first place. Fleets of philosophers have tried to reason out what “reality” is or what “truth” is, but that whole endeavor is just chasing after semantics. They might as well try to reason out what “oogabooga” is.
A more useful question would be, “What are we trying to get at when we say such words?” …always remembering that they could be just made up words pointing vaguely to incoherent concepts that may break down under more careful scrutiny.
We of course start with the realization that “this could all be a dream,” but notice that that’s just a statement about the afterlife or the possibility of leaving this life somehow, or of paranormal intervention. As long as the dream continues, we are experiencing pain and pleasure as we go and in the end that’s all that really matters to us.
We know from experience that the accuracy of our reasoning is a major factor in determining the levels of pain and pleasure we will feel in the future. I submit that that is all we really know “factually”, and all we ultimately care about.
This is a good point, too. People rarely seem to notice the obvious: Words are specialized for communication. Hence the term “consensus reality.” We would surely shorten it to just “consensus” if not for the fact that the confusion we’re now discussing is prevalent among people. We don’t talk of “consensus people” or “consensus prevalence” or “consensus is,” but insofar as we are communicating to be understood, I suggest that that is indeed what we mean.
However, the thinking process that goes on inside our own minds needn’t have that communicative aspect. We can apprehend sensation directly as it appears to us. You may argue with yourself over whether you are really reading black text on a white background now (sure that background isn’t blue?), but we would never argue with ourselves that we aren’t perceiving the visual sensation of black on white.
Therefore, we can always make an accurate statement if we attach “It seems that…” to the beginning of every sentence we utter. Most importantly, notice that doing this doesn’t actually change the meaning or effect of anything we say. There is an important clue in that.
So how anyone claim an objective anything?