Being a huge Varley fan, My girlfriend and I went to see Millenium when it came out. We’re sitting there watching the scene where Cheryl & Kris are having dinner and Kris asks her where she’s from.
Also being a huge classic SNL fan, I turned to my girlfriend and said, “She’s from France!”… When Cheryl actually did say she was from France, we laughed so hard we missed the next 5 minutes of the movie.
But seriously, folks. What Scylla describes in the OP is a classic case of rationalizing a belief system. What is believed is fact, all experiments are then interpreted in such a way as to support that belief.
Of course, any Creationist reading this is going to say, “he’s an idiot, but my belief really is true, so the above doesn’t apply to me.”
Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain.
I would be seriously interested in your honest opinion as to how this kind of non-logic I describe in my little story applies to creationists, and perhaps to some of the problems as I’ve seen them with Libertarianism. Specifically, the absence of support that has been cited.
I might posit that some Libertarian thought and argument as it has been shown to me on this board seems to have been engendered in the same why I’ve shown the scientist. That is, by seeking to prove a theory held in almost religious fervor, rather than seeking the truth.
Just because science today is more rigorous than it used to be, doesn’t mean it’s unsusceptible to this sort of rationalizing.
I think Phillip E. Johnson was saying something like this. It is the assumption of a naturalistic universe, a belief system, that evidence is misinterpreted.
Oh shit, I’m way outnumbered here, I’m gonna run away now…
There is no time travel, because time is not a medium to be traveled IN. A fish can swim in water, you can travel through space. You cannot travel in time because time is an abstraction. It is the constant motion of everything that is the essence of time. When the merest molecule bops to the left or dips to the right, then Universe is irreversibly changed, time has passed. The only way you get “travel to the past” is to relplace every single bit of the Universe to exactly where it was at the “target moment”. Given the momentum of matter in motion, such a reversal would take more energy that exists in the Universe, since the entire Universe must be “wound back”. Patently absurd.
However, its more fun as a SF conjecture: if time travel will be discovered, then time travelers are here. If time travelers arrive, they must necessarily disturb the flow of Time (the old shoot your Grandfather paradox). If they send somebody back, and get away with it, they’ll do it again. Inevitably, being monkeys, sooner or later (snicker), they’ll screw it up and create a future where time travel does not exist.
I don’t really see the connection Libertarians have to the line of reasoning used by the scientist in the story. There are no examples of Libertarian principles being put to work and failing. The country that comes closest to being a Libertarian society is the United States, which is doing quite well, IMHO. So I don’t really see what evidence against Libertarianism we are ignoring.
I can’t speak for Creationists, but I will speak to how your non-logic applies to libertarianism. It doesn’t.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Asking for “proof” of it would be like asking for proof that apples taste better than pears, except for one thing, the nature of the philosophy itself, which states that, so long as you are peaceful and honest, you should be allowed to like apples better or pears better as you please. Libertarianism draws a stark dichotomy between whether peaceful honest people have the right, given to them by God or nature, to pursue their own happiness in their own way.
Or not.
You might wonder then why you couldn’t argue with, say, the libertarian view of the origin of rights. Well, you can, so long as it is the origin of rights that you are arguing about. But you can’t argue that libertarianism, per se, does not recognize these intrinsic rights of man, because that is how libertarianism is defined.
I have noticed this in arguments by antilibertarians. With their giant squid scenarios, they are trying to argue that pears taste better than apples. They are desparate to present hypotheticals where a society might break down if it loses its libertarianism. What if some monster begins lording its will over its neighbor? What if the government becomes corrupt and seizes authoritarian power? What if giant squids rise up from the ocean floor, where they have hibernated for two-hundred million years, to reclaim their property to which they hold original title?
You know. What if an ark was found on top of a mountain?
These arguments are exasperating red herrings. Yes, of course a society which abridges the rights of the people in it fails as a libertarian society because it AIN’T one.
If you want to argue against libertarianism, then what you need to argue about is what it postulates, not how it is defined. Do not argue that apples taste better than pears, or that pears taste better than apples. Argue that peaceful honest people have no right to decide for themselves which tastes better than which. Don’t introduce the straw man that democracy is better than theocracy. Introduce your own axiom that the consent of free people does not matter, because libertarianism allows you to choose for yourself a democracy or a theocracy — whichever you believe better ensures your safety and happiness.
If you have read the above, you know that Ludwig von Mises did not seek to “prove” the Noncoercion Principle (he explained why it works best) any more than Immanuel Kant sought to “prove” the Categorical Imperative (he explained why it works best). But what Mises did prove, in Human Action, is that an economy (or a society), operating in a libertarian context, will produce the maximum effect that it has the potential to produce, since each element is free from the coercion and fraud of every other element, and therefore can produce its own maximum. Clearly, if every element produces its own maximum, then the society (or the economy) overall produces its fullest potential.
Say that A is the set of {X,Y,X}. If X is capable of 200, and Y is capable of 300, and Z is capable of 700, then the potential of A is 1,200. If you take 250 away from Z and give it to X, then all you will do is waste 250 because X is not capable of 550. You reduce the production of your economy from 1,200 to 950. That is the nutshell foundation of F. A. Hayek’s famous 1970s proof of the intrinsic flaws in socialism for which he won a Nobel prize in economics, and which caused governments the world over to begin abandoning the notion of setting prices by government fiat. Even China understood Hayek’s theories. Only psychotic despots, like Castro, still cling to the notion that breaking Michael Jordan’s legs makes for a more interesting basketball game.
Another implication of the Noncoercion Principle is that rights come, not from magistrates and scribbles on paper, but from God or nature itself, and that rights exist solely in the context of property. It postulates that human beings are autonomous. You have your own consciousness that no one else can experience. This consciousness, this life is your original property. If you believe in God, then you believe that God gave it to you. If you are a naturalist, then you believe that your life is a product of nature.
Now, you may argue that you do not own your own life, and that would be a valid argument against libertarianism. Of course, then the onus is on you to show why someone else owns your life (that is, has the right to call the shots with respect to your life). But given that your life is your property, and that whatever you acquire peacefully and honestly in the course of your life, then what you have rights to is your property, which makes property the context for rights.
This is not non-logic.
Yes, a philosophy can be held with a zeal, and in that sense you can assign a “religous fervor” to its holder. But please consider how silly it is to argue with a man who says, “You’re right — your way for you is better for you.” It is like fighting a man who wants to give you both an apple and a pear so you can choose which you like better. You can say, “Damn you, you zealot! All people should be given only apples,” or “You scoundrel! All people should be given only pears.” But you are silly if you say, “Bastard! Since you have selected apples for yourself, you are forcing me to take the apple over the pear.”
Because of the dichotomy it draws, libertarianism can only be opposed by authoritarianism in some degree, since libertarianism will allow all people who conduct their affairs peacefully and honestly to make their own decisions based on what makes them happy but will not allow Mr. Jones to decide for Mr. Smith whether Mr. Smith’s homosexuality, say, is forbidden.
That is what is so funny about Gaudere’s protest that I present libertarianism as the only way. By its nature, it is every way. It is whatever way makes you most happy. It is libertarianism’s opposite that presents to you America’s way, or Cuba’s way, or Gaudere’s way, or any other arbitrary way, as the only way.
That’s about all I can contribute at this point. I have a new job programming web applications and cannot spend a great deal of time here, except to read the fine posts of you excellent people. I am a libertarian purist, I admit it. Most of the “libertarians” on this board are really constitutionalists who assign significance to the scribbles in America’s founding document, so it pains me to see the true libertarian model go unargued. But as a person who grew up as poor white trash from Appalachia, I have to make a living. But I am fond of everyone here, and will keep in touch from time to time.
I see them as an attempt to answer all the giant squid what if questions. I am of the mind that the founding fathers were very Libertarian, but saw the pitfalls in the future. They felt the Constitution was the best protection to keep us as close as possible to a Libertarian model for as long as possible.
But this did clear up a minor identity crisis I was having.
Good luck at your new job. I had noticed that you were missing recently. I was hoping the Libertarian is a Monster thread did not send you away all pissed off. I’m glad to hear that you are making the big bucks
Think back to a time in the past, when you were thinking of your future. Try to remember your thoughts-what did you think life would hold in store for you? Did you imagine yourself to be a famous person (actor, writer, and public figure)? Or did you think of your future life, as less grandiose-perhaps you wanted to emulate your parents. I remember one such incident very clearly-I was around 8 years old, and I was visiting my grandfather’s house. For some reason, I was in an upstairs bedroom (reading a comic book) while looking out of a window (which faced a main street). The day was gray and rainy-I believe that it was early March. In any event, I had lost interest in what I was reading, and I was looking out the window, at the wet street and the dull gray sky, with the leafless trees. I was thinking about my future-what was in store for me. As any child would, I had some unrealistic assumptions about the future, but I dreamed of having an exciting career as an engineer. Many years have passed since that time, yet I still remember that trivial incident. My thought is that if time travel is indeed possible, then every moment of one’s life is somewhere-can one communicate with one’s past self? And if this communication is possible-can you send a warning to your past self, and thus change your present state? As an example, ponder this:
You communicate back to yourself, 30 years ago, and tell yourself to buy a stock called “MICROSOFT”. Obviously, if you had done this, you would be rich today! But, since you are not rich, some other factor must have intervened (you are in a parallel universe where Microsoft did not exist, or went bankrupt).
Does this type of time travel violate causality?
I would have to say that that is the best post I’ve seen you write. I have never understood where you were coming from before this, and have been frustrated over what I saw a nonsensical standpoint from an obviously intelligent person. I think I now understand your philosophy.
My only real point of disagreement is the following:
"But you are silly if you say, “Bastard!
Since you have selected apples for yourself, you are forcing me to take the apple over
the pear.”
I agree that would be silly. But being “silly” in just that fashion seems to be an inevitable part of the human condition. In any society of more than one I would think it inevitable that just that sort of thing would start to crop up. People would plot ways to get the pears and avoid the apples. They would resent it if they failed to get their way and seek any means fair or foul to get the pear (If you choose the apple than that is what they will plot to get.)
Eventually the biggest and the strongest will begin to devise ways to get all the apples and the pears and eliminate not only choice, but eventually deny those less fortunate or smart with the very means to survival.
I would say that if this were not an inescapable facet of human nature (the desire and willingness to screw your neighbor) than your philosophy would be workable.
Growing up as “white trash” you must have seen some stunning instances of generosity and kindness. You must have also seen humanity at its basest most selfish, and uncaring.
I would posit that both facets will inevitably be with us for the forseeable future, and a society that grants an imprudent amount of freedom upon the individual to abuse the system will inevitably fail, as the potential for gain from such abuse is to great a temptation.
I cannot tell you what it means to me to finally have communicated with someone, especially someone of your calibre. Phil also eventually got it, but by happenstance, withdrew from activity at about the same time. Do you know what it feels like when someone says at long last, “Wow, you’re not crazy after all.”?
So long as you understand where I’m coming from, then if you disagree with me, I respect the opinion you hold equal with my own. It’s the people who base their criticisms of my philosophy on silly assumptions and inane prejudice who are irksome to no end.
Perhaps you will enjoy debating the concerns of 26th century Pope David in the “Are We Eating The Universe?” thread. A couple of people there got it.
The basic concept, Time Travelers going to places which are about to be destroyed so they can meddle without harm.Used in the movie Farscape, its actually handled
quite well, worth watching.
In most of these discussions about time travel, and particularly Egkelly’s post about going back in time and telling your past self to buy MICROSOFT, I notice that there’s a basic assumption that time has to be linear, that it’s a “stream”, one that “flows” from “point A to point B.” I’ve long been troubled by this, especially whenever I hear that business about “Say you go back in time and kill your grandpa, and prevent your own existence. But how could you kill your grandpa if you never existed?”
But what if we think of time not as a river, or a stream, or some kind of lousy burbling brook, but instead, as a pool? Or a continuing expanding, circular pond? In the center of the pond is “the beginning,” with the progress of time measured by the farther you get from the center – like the rings of a tree, if you will.
Now, say you’re a time traveller. You jump in the pond – maybe to tell your past self to buy MICROSOFT, maybe to knock off your grandpa – and you get ripples. These ripples go throughout the pond, affecting not only the future, your future, but the past as well, and then reveraberate back again. Time, as a kind of perfectly closed ecosystem, makes corrections for you.
So you jump in, you meet your past self, you convince it (somehow) to buy MICROSOFT. As you do so, ripples go out, come back, and memories of this meeting between your two selves emerge in your brain. And slowly (or very quickly) you “remember” (ah, but you never really forgot) that you did have this meeting when you were a kid, that you did, in fact, buy MICROSOFT, and that you are, in fact, a millionaire.
The pond has corrected for you, made allowances for your presence.
Ah, now the grandpa thing. Say you jump in, and you ace the guy. Instantaneously, you become “not yourself” – ripples go out, time makes its allowances, and you become not yourself but somebody with some of your grandma’s genes and genes from some other guy. And you become this guy who’s got something against the man who would have been your grandpa, someone who’d be willing to “go back in time” and kill him. Time has made its correction for you.
What’s interesting about this to me, at least, is it sort of fits Scylla’s original post – no proof of time travel is proof.
Also, I guess, it stands as some kind of argument for destiny or predetermination, although maybe a lousy one.
