From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Foundations of Objectivism
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:59:21 GMT

In article <C0CyqE.8z@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

>First, let's examine the statement that A is always equal to A.  This does
>actually sound intuitively correct.  A few years ago, nobody would have
>argued this point.  Then along came this new field of physics called
>quantum mechanics.  And suddenly, seemingly irrational truths emerged - 
>a thing could be both true and not true at the same time.  A particle
>could occupy two different points in space at the same time.  No longer 
>can we be so sure that a is always equal to a.  Physicists now turn to
>mysticism, or sometimes even to religion, to explain the fundamental
>nature of the universe.

Yes, but quantum effects do not extend into human interactions any
more than relativistic effects do.  It requires several levels of
indirection for us to observe such effects.  We must use reason in our
everyday dealings, because we cannot walk around with particle
accelerators.  It may be necessary to abandon reason and notions of
causality when quantum effects are to be understood.  It is
unnecessary to abandon reason when higher-level effects are to be
understood, just as it is unnecessary to abandon Newtonian physics
when interactions at the superatomic level are concerned.  Even if you
went through all the trouble of analyzing superatomic phenomena using
quantum mechanics, you would come to the same conclusions that
Newtonian physics gives you, just with a smaller margin of error.

There has been some speculation that Godel's Theorem proves that
Objectivism must be inconsistent or incomplete.  If this is so, I
would claim that Objectivism breaks down below the level of normal
human interactions.  At the subatomic level, particles wink in and out
of existence.  Would you stand in front of a speeding train in the
hopes that it, too, winks in and out of existence?  At the human
level, A is always equal to A.

>Second, there is the argument that human reason is the ultimate
>teller of good and evil.  What Ayn Rand really meant was that it was
>_her_ reasoning ability that was the ultimate.  In fact, she was so
>convinced that her own reasoning ability was flawless that she would not
>tolerate anyone who questioned any point of her "philosophy", as has been
>pointed out in other discussions here.

Just read "Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand".  Toffler questions many
conclusions of her philosophy.  In every case, she calmly reasons them
out.  I'm sure she was not so patient with people who made arguments
against her philosophy on irrational or emotional grounds, or who
repeated arguments she had already addressed adequately.

>  While we may in fact recognize
>that human intelligence is all we have to go on, how many times have you
>encountered a person who had less than perfect reasoning abilities?  Were
>they self aware enough to realize their flawed logic?  Have you yet met
>a perfect person?  Was Ayn Rand's reasoning ability perfect?  As it
>turns out, very well thought out logic can be argued very compellingly
>on both sides of an issue.  And until the very last variable has been
>examined under the logic of both sides, the winner is often the more
>skilled debater and not necessarily the one who is arguing for the
>truth.  And yet how many times do you get to examine every single
>variable?  On most issues, most of us do not have the time or inclination
>to become experts and thus we rely on the interpretation of the facts
>as given to us by others.  Certainly, reason is the best we have but it
>is by no means perfect, and no one individual's reasoning ability is
>perfect.

I agree.  It is easier and more realistic to rely on the
interpretations of others sometimes.  This is often the only way to
resolve courtroom battles, for example.  Perhaps the best way to
proceed in such cases is to do your best to rely on reliable sources,
keep in mind that there is a chance they are not reliable, and to
accept their failure when it is proved they have failed.  If new,
reliable knowledge tells you your conclusion is wrong, don't hold on
to the conclusion for sentimental reasons.  Certainly reason is not
omnipotent.  It cannot reveal to you a past or a future you have not
seen, but it is the most powerful tool we have to maximize our
knowledge of reality, and this is why we should always use it.
-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism