Subject: Re: Objectivity

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 03:29:00 -0400

On 4/21/07, Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > No it is not. In my reality this definition sucks. You may buy into
> > this definition, because you subscribe to some absolute truth. I
> > don't. We don't have to agree, and our world view is therefore
> > different. No proof necessary or even possible.
>
> If no proof is possible, then I cannot accept your claim, because it lacks any
> reasoning. So you might have well not said it.

Oh. So you totally deny the value of a formed opinion. I guess you
don't have a favorite color or a favorite dish either, because you're
unable to prove that Sushi is better.

I think that definition sucks. I don't accept it. In my reality it is
invalid. You are entitled to your own opinion. Saying that I am not
entitled to one dismisses me in an offensive manner.

-- Arik

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:54:58 +0300

On Saturday 21 April 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
> > If no proof is possible, then I cannot accept your claim, because it
> > lacks any reasoning. So you might have well not said it.
>
> Oh. So you totally deny the value of a formed opinion. 

I do not.

> I guess you 

I do. But such opinions are ammoral. Whether I prefer blondes or brunettes (or 
both) or Perl or Python (or both), or prefer chocolate icecream or vanilla 
icecream etc. is not a matter of Ethics. This is a matter of taste, which 
varries according to many factors, and is useless to argue about.

However, if someone thinks that 2 + 2 = 5 (i.e: [**] + [**] = [*****]), then 
this opinion is illogical. It can be proven to be incorrect. He is entitled 
to his opinion, but everyone can tell it's a lie.

Likewise, Randians believe that Ethics is a matter of logic and very basic 
facts of existence like the biological nature of men and women.  

> I think that definition sucks. I don't accept it. In my reality 

In your reality? Arik, in my reality, I didn't receive this message of yours 
and didn't reply. Sorry, but we share the same reality. Or else interaction 
between us would be impossible.

> it is 

Where did I say that you're not entitled to your own opinion? You are of 
course. You are also entitled to think that 2+2=5, or that A = NOT(A) but 
don't try to base a mathematical proof on it or mathematicians will laugh at 
your face. 

You have made a claim. You didn't prove this claim. Since it is without a 
proof, and I have some counter-evidence (see my message to Nadav), I can 
assume that this claim is false until I am given some evidence to prove it. I 
can say such claims as "Perl does not scale to large codebases", "All Arabs 
are evil", "Drugs be illegal", etc. but until I prove them, they will remain 
as unproven. If you think otherwise, then you might as well say that "Foreach 
A, A is true and NOT(A) is true", and become all-knowing and get done with 
it.

Don't take it personally, you are entitled to think what you want, but I'm 
also entitled to expect you to prove such claims. I won't accept any claim 
without a good evidence, reasoning or proof. Unless, of course claims like "I 
like Mint-flavoured Ice Cream the best", which are ammoral, and a matter of 
taste.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      [email-masked]
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

---

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:55:54 -0400

> > Oh. So you totally deny the value of a formed opinion.

In my opinion you do :-)

> varries according to many factors, and is useless to argue about.

Exactly

> to his opinion, but everyone can tell it's a lie.

Can't argue with you on your math exercise. Just remember that what
you take for granted (2+2=4) is based on a set of axioms [1], which
you accept on faith.

> facts of existence like the biological nature of men and women.

In that case I guess I am not a Randian, because I believe that ethics
are derived from moral values and these have no logical basis, are not
uniform across our society, other societies and along time. Actually
that's not entirely true - there is some logic to moral values -
having moral values enables our existence as a society.

> between us would be impossible.

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.

> don't try to base a mathematical proof on it or mathematicians will laugh at

When did I ever try to prove it? Perhaps I made arguments but not all
arguments are based in logics.

> A, A is true and NOT(A) is true", and become all-knowing and get done with

No. I simply deny your ability to arbitrate moral rules with logic.

> like Mint-flavoured Ice Cream the best", which are ammoral, and a matter of

You are not entitled to expect me to prove it. I do not agree with you
on your premise that it is either provable or disprovable.

-- Arik

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number#Peano_axioms

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:42:54 +0300

> > > Oh. So you totally deny the value of a formed opinion.

Prove it! ;-)

> > I do. But such opinions are ammoral. Whether I prefer blondes or
> > brunettes (or both) or Perl or Python (or both), or prefer chocolate
> > icecream or vanilla icecream etc. is not a matter of Ethics. This is a
> > matter of taste, which varries according to many factors, and is useless
> > to argue about.
>
> Exactly
>

OK.

> > However, if someone thinks that 2 + 2 = 5 (i.e: [**] + [**] = [*****]),
> > then this opinion is illogical. It can be proven to be incorrect. He is
> > entitled to his opinion, but everyone can tell it's a lie.
>

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 
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.

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. 

>
> > Likewise, Randians believe that Ethics is a matter of logic and very
> > basic facts of existence like the biological nature of men and women.
>

OK.

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.

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.

> > In your reality? Arik, in my reality, I didn't receive this message of
> > yours and didn't reply. Sorry, but we share the same reality. Or else
> > interaction between us would be impossible.
>

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, 
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.)

> > don't try to base a mathematical proof on it or mathematicians will laugh
> > at your face.
>
> > assume that this claim is false until I am given some evidence to prove
> > it. I can say such claims as "Perl does not scale to large codebases",
> > "All Arabs are evil", "Drugs be illegal", etc. but until I prove them,
> > they will remain as unproven. If you think otherwise, then you might as
> > well say that "Foreach A, A is true and NOT(A) is true", and become
> > all-knowing and get done with it.
>

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.

> > Don't take it personally, you are entitled to think what you want, but
> > I'm also entitled to expect you to prove such claims. I won't accept any
> > claim without a good evidence, reasoning or proof. Unless, of course
> > claims like "I like Mint-flavoured Ice Cream the best", which are
> > ammoral, and a matter of taste.
>

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.

Like I said, when someone makes an assertion, the burden-of-proof is on him.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

--

---

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:58:03 -0700

> 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.

> 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'.

> induction from many experiments, and from general practice. So we can assume

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.

There is no induction here. Induction is proof. 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.

> 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)

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> end up killing me.". Thus, we're eliminating some falsified ethical rules

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.

> 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.

> 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.

-- Arik

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 11:12:48 +0300

On Saturday 28 April 2007, Arik Baratz 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
>

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

> > contradictions so far. So I can accept them not based on "faith" but
> > based on intuition, proof-by-induction and practical science.
>

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.
>

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 
> 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

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.
>

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.
>

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.

> > 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, 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.)
>

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.

> > 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.
>

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.
>

Right.

> 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

---

From: "Nadav Har'El" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 11:59:01 +0300

> indeed happens or happened.

In this discussion, you guys digressed from the philosophical area of Ethics
which was previously discussed, into Metaphysics, namely Ontology (what
entities really exist) and Epistemology (how can we know anything about these
entities). I think that its problematic, even dangerous, to confuse these
subjects. The fact that you believe in "objective reality" doesn't immediately
imply a certain choice of Ethics.

Let me give you a simple example: your choice of Ethics apparently hinges on
the axiom "it is wrong to deny a human's biological needs", expanded into a
full ethical system using some sort of Utilitarian [1] method. But how does
this choice stem from your "objective reality" understanding of metaphysics? 
I believe it doesn't. Who says we should use your axiom and not, for example,
one that gives meaning also to the biological needs of other creatures, not
just humans? Who said we should use a Utilitarian ethic, and not something
else (Preference Utilitarianism, Deontological Ethics, or whatever)? And even
if we're to use your axiom (paraphrased by me), perhaps we should take it
literally to imply that a person's biological need is to have his kin
procreate, so Gingis Khan's biological need was to kill his enemies and let
his own people procreate? (to this day, you can see a lot of Mongolian-looking
people in Iran, and other places you wouldn't expect to see them).

[1] If you don't know what this, or other capitalized word in my mail, means,
feel free to look it up in your favorite source of information.

> killing tens of millions of people or he was not.

Even if there is one "reality" (in the sense of Ontology), there may be more
than one way to understand it (in the sense of Epistomology), and certainly
more than one way to put a "value judgements" on it (in the sense of Ethics).

For example, in the book of "reality", you can find that Mao, Stalin, Hitler
and Churchill, all caused millions of people to be killed. So are these 4
people all the same? We can't dispute the "reality" that in each of these
people's leadership, millions of people got killed. But we can dispute the
way we look at it - e.g., the obvious objection to what I just said is to
say "yes, but please look at *why* these people did it", and we can fish
up more nuggets of "reality", such as "Hitler killed 6 million innocent Jews"
and "Churchill went to war to stop Hitler". Exactly which of these nuggets
of reality you pick when you describe each of these 4 individuals is what
Arik called the "subjective reality". For one, Stalin might be someone who
"Caused 20 million russians to be killed in WWII, and afterward had 3 million
killed and caused the rest of the russian become misrable". For another
person Stalin might be someone who "Courageously stopped Hitler, and tried
to bring about better equality in the USSR". This is not different reality -
it's different interpretation of the same reality.

And these different intrpretations can bring to different moral judgement -
if you take the first interpretation, Stalin is "guilty", an unethical
mass-murderer. If you use the second, Stalin is ethical, and his actions
the lesser of two evils.

Of course, even if you look at the same reality, and the same interpretation
of reality, even then you can use different systems of ethics to give the
same actions different moral judgements. I think I gave plenty enough examples
of this.

-- 
Nadav Har'El                        |       Sunday, May 13 2007, 25 Iyyar 5767
[email-masked]             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Topologist, n.: A person who cannot tell
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |a doughnut from a coffee mug.

---

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:50:05 -0400

> it's different interpretation of the same reality.

I put that the interpretation is more important than a would-be 'same reality'.

-- Arik

---

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:49:29 -0400

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

So I reject their "very basic assumptions". I don't know what they
are, but when I'll see them I'll reject them. The reason for this
preposterous claim is that I'm sure that there are no assumptions I
would agree with which can derive absolute morality by logical means.

> concluded that I still believe Neo-Tech is true.

That's no proof, and you have take  what they said to be true for a
fact. I don't have a problem with that as long as you admit it's not a
proof and it's a belief that you're holding.

> indeed happens or happened.

And as I see it, objective reality, if it exists (and I believe it
exists I just can't prove it) is highly overrated. We all live in a
subjective reality and perhaps objective reality is what allows us to
communicate but that's pretty much it.

> killing tens of millions of people or he was not.

You say you have the book, and I believe that you believe you have the
book. Maybe you are hallucinating. Maybe you are hypnotized. Sometimes
I can tell.

Mao may have even pulled the trigger himself. The question is, is he a
bad person. My answer is, according to my moral values he is. There
are moral systems where he's not.

> less that God is muslim. It is hard to believe the soul can persist without

But he "knows" he'll go to heaven and that "god" is a muslim. You
can't beat that. Unless you use a heavy stick.

> does - we're in deep trouble).

I'll leave figuring out why this past paragraph is talking about
subjective reality as absolute reality as an exercise to the reader.

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

How can you tell? You don't know that and can't know that or even know
whether it's probable or not.

> more substantial than that. Not everything I'm saying is true.

It was an example of subjective thinking. I'm asserting that
everything I say is right and using that as my axiom in proving pretty
much anything. It's as good as other axioms.

-- Arik