The single most important political principle ever

[Phenia]

I get dirty looks sometimes when people ask "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" by pointing out that "no, technically, it doesn't since sound is 'created,' for us at least, when vibrating air molecules strike our ears. If no ears are around to be struck with said molecules, it therefore makes no 'sound.' Exceptions, of course, exist if it is recorded somehow and said sound strikes said ears later."

At that point I usually get shouted at for being a pedant, but I'm right, dammit!

Actually, I think sound is defined as the actual vibrations in the air rather than the perception of said vibrations.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I would say that without functioning ears, 'sound' doesn't exist. A deaf guy could be walking around in the forest, but the vibrating air molecules are of no know-how to him. I'll agree that the cause of sound relies on little more than the vibration of the molecules, but without someone there capable of perceiving it, it's not technically 'sound.'

No. 'Technically,' sound exists regardless of perception. Sound is not the same as hearing. Sound is a quantifiable, verifiable, physical phenomenon just like light. Just because I might be blind doesn't mean light no longer exists.

[United Technocrats]

Pretty much, and because we need it for anything resembling a rational evaluation of actions and their consequences, which is a necessity for organized civilization. I believe in absolutes because reality is full of them. 'Absolute' doesn't mean that it never changes or is always the same; it can of course change as the environment around it does. It just means that it's identifiable within said environment and context.

I just don't see how morality exists in the same way an electron does. It seems nothing more than something we impose with our minds. Sure, the concept of morality is useful, but so is the concept of Newtonian mechanics, and we know that the latter is technically incorrect.

Well, you know an electron is also just "something we impose with our minds." We explain it by saying it's spread over an area of space, and we calculate "how much" of it is there as ABS(Psi^2), the Psi(x,y,z) being its wave function at (x,y,z), and the "how much" having a meaning of the interaction strength at the given point. But for other purposes, we can interpret it as a particle akin to a very small ball. The "ball" and "wave" are only the ideas from our, macro world, that we "impose with our minds" when we try to think about the micro world, that we cannot really understand, as we have no reference in our experience to make an association.

[United Technocrats]

I'll agree that morality is a construct of sentience; that it wouldn't exist in our minds without the ability to comprehend/theorize it. But the same can be said of mathematics and physics; but that doesn't make them less objective than they are.

I understand what you're saying though, since one is a component of nature that we simply didn't learn about until we had the tools; morality, meanwhile, has been pondered pretty much since the dawn of civilization and with varying degrees of success.

Physics? Planets orbit stars even if there's no-one to see them.

Physics requires a well defined observer. An observer moving with acceleration, for example, perceives things differently from a static one. Also, physics is dependent on experimental observation, which cannot be made if nobody is watching, so it may as well be that the planets don't orbit stars if nobody is watching. You can only *believe* they do, which is not physics, but faith. Last, but not least, the wave function cannot collapse without an interaction with an observer, which means, quantum physics also requires an observer.

I'd also agree that morality is a construct of sentience, the sentience being an emergent phenomenon in a complex, live system. Mathematics and physics, on the other hand, are different: other beings could develop their own understanding of them, and if their models are correct, their mathematics and physics would be the same as ours (albeit, perhaps, formulated using different notation or no notation at all).

I get dirty looks sometimes when people ask "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" by pointing out that "no, technically, it doesn't since sound is 'created,' for us at least, when vibrating air molecules strike our ears. If no ears are around to be struck with said molecules, it therefore makes no 'sound.' Exceptions, of course, exist if it is recorded somehow and said sound strikes said ears later."

At that point I usually get shouted at for being a pedant, but I'm right, dammit!

Actually, I think sound is defined as the actual vibrations in the air rather than the perception of said vibrations.

At the risk of derailing the thread, I would say that without functioning ears, 'sound' doesn't exist. A deaf guy could be walking around in the forest, but the vibrating air molecules are of no know-how to him. I'll agree that the cause of sound relies on little more than the vibration of the molecules, but without someone there capable of perceiving it, it's not technically 'sound.'

In a way though, now that I think of it, this is at least tangentially on topic, since it does more or less deal with the circumstances under which objective fact exist.

Truthseeker is technically right, sound is usually defined as the propagating vibrations. Or, more accurately, it's propagating pressure oscillations in air and other gases, and propagating deformations (collective vibrations of particles) in solid media (since sound exists in solid media as well -- see "Speed of sound in solids" on Wiki).

However, sound can also be heat. For example, in the case of sound waves propagating through a solid object, if we raise the frequency sufficiently. The speed of sound decreases as the wavelength shortens (increased frequency), and the speed of sound finally reaches near zero when the wavelength gets close to the spacing in the crystal lattice. The sound gets "stuck" as standing waves between individual atoms, and the atoms seem large and produce wave scattering. So, a very very high frequency sound propagates very very slowly. Also, if another object touches the one with such sound, the sound will "pour" into the other one. This sound is called "heat." Hence, essentially, heat can be viewed as a form of sound. It's all a matter of interpretation...

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Nonsense, 'moral law' doesn't (have to) care for flat time-space symmetry.

Indeed, I'd consider it a pretty odd moral law if it DID have dependencies based on flat time-space symmetry.

We are talking about an infinitely accurate, 100% contradiction free set of moral laws that apply everywhere. It must take into account neutrino fields because their presence or absence will cause the direction in which it is most moral to walk to need to be adjusted by an imperceptible fraction of a second of an arc.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Last, but not least, the wave function cannot collapse without an interaction with an observer, which means, quantum physics also requires an observer.

The "observer" needed to collapse a wavefunction does not need to have a mind.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Well, you know an electron is also just "something we impose with our minds." We explain it by saying it's spread over an area of space, and we calculate "how much" of it is there as ABS(Psi^2), the Psi(x,y,z) being its wave function at (x,y,z), and the "how much" having a meaning of the interaction strength at the given point. But for other purposes, we can interpret it as a particle akin to a very small ball. The "ball" and "wave" are only the ideas from our, macro world, that we "impose with our minds" when we try to think about the micro world, that we cannot really understand, as we have no reference in our experience to make an association.

Electrons exist. That their nature is not quite analogous to any classic object does not make them any less extant. In fact, they exist on a lower level of abstraction than you or I.

[Melkor Unchained]

This is where you lost me (but AHA! I got you to say the words 'my absolute moral principle' ). A species cannot survive unless its individuals do. Of course some 'inter-reliant social constructs and complexities' are to be expected if we're to live together under anything calling itself 'civilization,' but strictly speaking the 'survival of man as a species' isn't necessarily dependent on civilization to begin with. It may not be necessary for our survival, per se, but it I'll grant that it is how we have flourished.

I recognize that the requirements of civilization necessitate 'inter-reliant social constructs,' to borrow your term. I just don't believe those constructs possess the authority to mortgage/redistribute the results of my labor for someone else's direct benefit. I'll pay taxes for services the private sector can't readily provide, but not to subsidize my neighbor. I made about ten grand last year, and I have more than enough of my own problems without taking on hers.

Actually I used those on purpose...

I say out species IS in fact dependent on civilization... Sure, a single ant can do things, it can even gather some food... but it dies... and when it's dead, nothing... Civilization is not dependent upon the survival of a single component... But continues and progresses as a whole... Therefore the "survival" of man is in fact dependent upon civilization... Because there is no real "survival" apart from civilization...

Humans and their ancestors have not always been civilized; but it is the vehicle by which we achieved dominance over the rest of nature. I'll go so far as to grant that yes, the average person is probably dependent on civilization for his/her survival; indeed, it would be a minority of people who could survive for very long if dropped into the middle of the Amazon with no supplies. But the species as a whole? It would hardly be what I call a pleasant life but if civilization collapsed tomorrow I have a hard time believing we'd actually go extinct in a few years. With six billion of us milling around the Earth I would guess that a few would figure out how to go on living.

I believe those constructs DO possess the authority to redistribute resources... In fact, I think that is the primary reason for their existence. Resource distribution within the civilization for the purpose of overall survival, resources such as Defense, Security, Protection, Health, etc...

Hearing this doesn't particularly surprise me; and it is of course the root of our subsequent disagreements. I'll grant its necessary to a limited degree, but I think the level of genuine 'need' is (in this country at least) quite a bit less than it's often made out to be.

Property is an ok thing... but really labor means more than property... I'd argue, in fact, that property doesn't really exist... it's merely an artificial boundary created for selfish reasons... real value is in labor, which must be constantly exercized.... Which highlights the primary problem with our modern capitalist system... More value is given to the nebulous "capital" than is given to labor...

The "Free-Market" is inherently coercive, its system advocates capital as value, and utilizes capital to coerce work from others... Those with the capital, reap the most rewards; and those with the labor, reap the least... Really, the opposite should be true...

This is what I call 'chicken or the egg' territory. I'm a laborer myself--I handle freight at a UPS hub on the west side of Columbus, Ohio. But if some guy didn't start my company 100 years ago, I wouldn't be working there and would (probably) have a job that wasn't as good as what I've got now. I think there's some give and take on both sides, but I would advance the theory that the laborer would get a better deal if he didn't lose chunks of his paycheck for services he may never use. If I actually made $11.57 an hour instead of the $9.75 that I end up getting, I'd be a lot better off. I agree that laborers get less than 'those with the capital,' but that's the way the cookie crumbles. There are far more people in any given society that are capable of providing labor than those who are capable of providing capital.

I think the government and the private sector should compete along the same guidelines. Taxes can/should be utilized to pay for the basic needs of civilization; justice, administration, defense, and some roadways. Anything beyond that should be funded by the will of the people through the marketplace.

[Tekania]

I think what needs to be highlighted here is that "Observation" =/= "Reality"... Reality exists with or without an observer, and observation is our subjective understanding of reality... So, an "objectivist" philosopher paints his observations as that which is real (And missed A.Einstein's "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."...) not grasping that his "observation" is not in-fact "Reality"... but merely an illusion within our limited capacity of observation of what we perceive as reality from the context of our reference frame... This differs from objective philosophy, in that from its working OBSERVATION is reality, and ignores the presence of reference frames...

And I'll leave this with a quote from Linda Ellinor, "What you perceive, your observations, feelings, interpretations, are all your truth. Your truth is important. Yet it is not The Truth."

[Fnordgasm 5]

Bluth wrote..

Yes--just as with any other property, the transfer is a private agreement between two individuals. No state is necessary to legitimize.

The state is not needed in order to make the transfer "valid" or "proper" or "legitimate," but only to help protect the claims of the legitimate owner after he acquires the property.

The absence of a state to help me protect my claims to my legitimately-held property in no way diminishes the legitimacy of my ownership of the property; it just means that it might be easier for others to get away with things they have no legitimate authority to do because they are not the legitimate owners of the property.

How exactly can the state protect your rights?

edit: bloody quotes..