Message boards :
Politics :
Fun with Economics in One Lesson!!
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Fuzzy Hollynoodles Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
The Principle of Supply and Demand: A little history lesson: The Viking Age succeeded the Iron Age, so yes, the Vikings are my ancestors. The Germanic Tribes, which were the ones who were trading amber for things as the Gundestrup cauldron and gold and silver, never crossed the North Sea. They couldn't in their dugout canoes, they never went out on open sea (See link in my earlier post and you'll understand why). "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Yes..I checked your link after you corrected my assumption and saw what you meant. Us in the UK didn't have much truck with your Germanic ancestors but we still tell horror stories about the Viking ones. Reality Internet Personality |
Fuzzy Hollynoodles Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
But yet a lot of Brits are proud of being descendant of the Vikings, from what I have been told. Maybe the Viking blood in them caused the creation of the British Impire with conquering the countries they included in it? Anyway, the Vikings also were traders, and they also brought things, again most amber, to trade with. Again, demand and supply... Nice to exchange words with you, but I have to get ready for my dinner date tonight with a very good friend of mine... "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
Well it depends on how fast she was moving at the time I guess. Not to the person standing right next to her. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Well it depends on how fast she was moving at the time I guess. So her age depends on where you are observing her from. Reality Internet Personality |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
There is a conundrum I'll grant you, if the act of observation changes the nature of that which is observed, which, given all that I understand of modern day physics is taken for granted, then how can one say that one is objective? As for the micro not affecting my macro life, nothing could be further from the truth! My livelihood depends upon the micro (as it does for a good many people nowadays), and life itself depends upon the split identity of subatomic particles (if photons did not sometimes behave as particles we would not be able to see, plants would not be able to photosynthesize, etc, etc). The supposed macro limitation on quantum events, may just be, as Rush has alluded to, merely our inability to be able to percieve how those events play out on the macro level, further, what we perceive is merely an approximation to actual events, admittedly good enough for life to go on living. However, what happens at the quantum level does impact political life when players in politics reach for science to assert a position when science does not suggest such a position exists. The idea of an objective observer falls foul of this, not only on a quantum level but also on a relativistic level. Again going back to our current understanding of physics, there is no special place in the known universe that gives one a vantage point that is any better than another, and all places in the known universe will see things happening differently, for instance, in one place a star may appear to have a blue hue, in another the same star may appear to have a red hue. Thus, from physics, we establish that there is no objective observer in the "real world". I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
Well it depends on how fast she was moving at the time I guess. Not when you are making principles to deal with the universe around you. Those effects on her age are too small to have an impact in the macro/classic world. And don't you notice the discrepancy of noting how something actually "is" in order to make the point that nothing actually is? Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
The supposed macro limitation on quantum events, may just be, as Rush has alluded to, merely our inability to be able to percieve how those events play out on the macro level, further, what we perceive is merely an approximation to actual events, admittedly good enough for life to go on living. Especially given that whatever paradox might have been, has long since collapsed, long before a human could see the light reflecting from the box... However, what happens at the quantum level does impact political life when players in politics reach for science to assert a position when science does not suggest such a position exists. The idea of an objective observer falls foul of this, not only on a quantum level but also on a relativistic level. Again going back to our current understanding of physics, there is no special place in the known universe that gives one a vantage point that is any better than another, and all places in the known universe will see things happening differently, for instance, in one place a star may appear to have a blue hue, in another the same star may appear to have a red hue. Thus, from physics, we establish that there is no objective observer in the "real world". And that makes a difference to the original article exactly how? Does the broken glass fallacy suddenly change? Reverse itself depending on the outcome of Erwin's special box? Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Actually that is just wrong. Sorry. Relativity does have a significant effect on the everyday macro/classical world. Ask an airline pilot. And don't you notice the discrepancy of noting how something actually "is" in order to make the point that nothing actually is? ?? I've never made the point that nothing actually is. It clearly is (well to me at least..but I can't be definite about what actually is)..and it's isness depends on where and how and who is looking at it. There is no objective place to stand and view the universe. It doesn't exist. Reality Internet Personality |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
Not when you are making principles to deal with the universe around you. Those effects on her age are too small to have an impact in the macro/classic world. And his response would be that a dead woman's age at death changes by nature of the fact that one of our eyes registered the light reflected off her body? And that would somehow impact the broken window fallacy exactly how? And don't you notice the discrepancy of noting how something actually "is" in order to make the point that nothing actually is? So how does this impact how humans derive principles to live by? How exactly does that prevent humans from deriving principles? Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Sorry. I don't get what you saying.
It doesn't stop them deriving principles. But if those principles are somehow based on the idea that there is an objective way of seeing things, then those principles are flawed from the outset. Reality Internet Personality |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
Read back through the thread, it's not that hard. First you were on about some erroneous ideas you have about o'ism. Then it was something about not being able to form principles because of Quantum Mechanics or something or other. You seem to think these things change simple economics or political realities or something. So how does this impact how humans derive principles to live by? How exactly does that prevent humans from deriving principles? They aren't because you state that they are--principles are based on the observable world around us. I exist. You exist. It is OK to derive principles from such positions because within the context in which we live our lives, Erwin's cat and the rest do not have enough of an effect to invalidate most of them. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
darthvader Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 14 Credit: 3,566 RAC: 0 |
Has anyone here ever read Marx? If so, for ten points, differentiate between the body of laws and policies known as Reaganomics and the Economic Principles of Karl Marx. |
Fuzzy Hollynoodles Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
... Erwin's cat ... Erwin's cat??? Who's Erwin and what special is there about his cat? Has it been declawed? "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
|
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
It might not be hard..but your sentence had nothing to do with Quantum mechanics. So I have no idea what you are talking about. It just seemed like a random comment. You still haven't explained what you meant by it. My ideas about O'ism assume that I wasn't lied to when i was told that objectivists aspire to logical thought and following logic over emotion. Everything else i have said followed from that..clearly I left out some of the steps as they were obvious. At least I thought they were obvious if I were speaking to a logical person and not an emotional one. ;) So how does this impact how humans derive principles to live by? How exactly does that prevent humans from deriving principles? Who is Erwin's cat? Your principles leave out a huge part of the human experience. That is what I have been trying to say. When I think of the objectivist way of thinking I think of an amputee. (I would try to phrase it nicer..but I am tired and can't be bothered and I am sure you can take it) Reality Internet Personality |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
|
Fuzzy Hollynoodles Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
... Erwin's cat ... Ahhh, that Erwin (Schödinger)! I'm not that familiar with him that I call him by his first name. Besides he wouldn't be a welcome guest in my home, my cat doesn't like him! "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me |
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 |
Read back through the thread, it's not that hard. First you were on about some erroneous ideas you have about o'ism. Then it was something about not being able to form principles because of Quantum Mechanics or something or other. You seem to think these things change simple economics or political realities or something. It's not worth explaining, but between you and Bobby, you seemed to be making the point that deriving principles for dealing with the universe is not possible because humans can't possibly know things. My ideas about O'ism assume that I wasn't lied to when i was told that objectivists aspire to logical thought and following logic over emotion. Everything else i have said followed from that..clearly I left out some of the steps as they were obvious. At least I thought they were obvious if I were speaking to a logical person and not an emotional one. ;) I don't know what you were told, or the context of the discussion. O'ism holds that the individual must live according to principles that are derived according to living in the world, and that, for example, wishing one could drink poison is irresponsible. Similarly, it holds that if one comes to the conclusion that they CAN drink poison, and do so, they cannot use force against others to make them help. Others can choose to help, but they may not be forced to. That doesn't mean anyone must come to the same conclusions, using the same logic, or evaluating costs/benefits the same way--it means that they are responsible for the choices they make, given the options available to them. Your principles leave out a huge part of the human experience. That is what I have been trying to say. When I think of the objectivist way of thinking I think of an amputee. (I would try to phrase it nicer..but I am tired and can't be bothered and I am sure you can take it) If my principles do that (and they don't) then according to o'ism, that is my problem, and my problem alone. I can ASK for help, I cannot FORCE anyone to help. Your way of thinking about o'ist thought is in error, and yet even when I try to explain it, you seem to want to continue to cling to your admittedly rudimentary knowledge thereof. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
It's not worth explaining, but between you and Bobby, you seemed to be making the point that deriving principles for dealing with the universe is not possible because humans can't possibly know things. Well, I for one was quite happy to let you lead back the thread back to your original lesson on economics, but then Scary came in with a couple of statements that took us back to modern day physics, and you joined in with an "Idiots...Mother Theresa...", so it seemed fair game to carry on with a discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of o'ism. FWIW, I'd say that any set of principles should start with what is knowable, rather than encompass all things regardless of whether they're applicable, but that's just me. If, my understanding of modern day physics (for instance the precise energy and position of anything cannot be known simultaneously) means that, as Scary asserts, "They know somehow that their system is mystical just as ouija boards are, or psychics, or faith healers, or islamists" then I'm guilty (though I think he's wrong). But it's a leap from there to "They share the fanatical theolgian/mystic view that reality is maleable and subject to votes/whims/whatever", a leap that I do not believe is supported by modern day physics, though I'd have to say that reality is subject to votes, at least as far as the reality of an elected official is concerned. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.