I wasn't going to define 'intuition' since doing so seemed besides the point of what I was trying to state. If a person wants to know what intuition is he'll have to reflect on his own thought process and track down the points where his thoughts 'leaped' towards certain conclusions. This 'leap' could be understood to provide a person with a grasp of a complete model, though it can't prove this understanding in any absolute sense. The problem with certain logical propositions is that even an infinite number of calculating power cannot reach a conclusive verdict on whether they're true or false, though I appreciate your attempt to get this discussion back on economics . Let's do just that.
ScottD, sure she socialized .. how about the next step - love life and family? Just making a point - I know the history details. Also, sure they are all some type of individualists - some force, alienated by their surroundings - others are stronger intellectually, like my Objectivist friends - who are long-time politicians even. About logics - you should understand what a logic is - see deductive system, soundness and model theory. Aggression and sustainable development - see system science. I doubt you know anything about what I am talking about. If you see a backlog of messages I have made on ET, you will see MANY links and explanations to what I am talking about. Your LACK of insight and knowledge is not my fault. I understand and know what you are talking about, but you have no clue about the fields of study I am mentioning. It really stops there - you should look more into it - because to me it's like talking to someone who doesn't yet get how to do maths... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science
Bah! Propositional logic is the simplest and weakest of them all with regards to expressive power. And you even dragging bivalence into something ... that is just so WEAK! Your attempts to define ANYTHING in a modern context when we know so much is simply astounding that you go back to Aristotle - maybe the only logic you know, but anyway... "Stand on the shoulders of giants!" Much has happened since the days of Platon and Aristotle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic
Alright here we go. Ayn Rand uses Aristotle's argument that A = A in her epistemology. To translate this into trading terms: "$10,000 lost equals $10,000 lost" Could you create a profitable trading system if you were to deny the absolute truth of that statement? This is exactly the argument that Rand makes when it comes to a society that's falling apart. According to her the members of such a society have created values which contradict with laws of existence.
You just mentioned that the axiom is relative to propositional logic ... Dude, take a look at the attempts to formulate ALL mathematics - ZFC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFC The look into cardinality and large cardinality, self-similarity ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_cardinal_property The proposition that such cardinals exist cannot be proved in the most common axiomatization of set theory, namely ZFC, and such propositions can be viewed as ways of measuring how "much", beyond ZFC, one needs to assume to be able to prove certain desired results. In other words, they can be seen, in Dana Scott's phrase, as quantifying the fact "that if you want more you have to assume more". It's all relative - and to understand what IS a logic - you need to understand soundness of a logic model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness I studied this stuff, and later in life I explored much more. Look into the stuff between "nothingness" and "infinity" - and you will understand epistemology. It REALLY seems like you didn't even bother to follow ANY of the links I provided to you - since you don't even comprehend that there is more than one logic model.
Hank Paulson as Wesley Mouch Ben Bernanke as Eugene Lawson George W. Bush as Mr. Thompson And I deal with the Rearden Metals and the John Gaults of the country. I talk to Private Business owners who own our steelmills, Chemical cos, Timber cos, all the manufactures there in between. About 90% of my client's who participate in our Private Equity Ventures, have pulled out of the Stock markets. At least 70% of the Private Business owners I speak with day in and day have either pulled their money out of the markets or have lost a boat load with investments in Hedge Funds. The "Rearden Metals" of our country (Private Business owners with companies producing 50 to 100 million) are chugging along, much like Rearden did. However they know of the lies by Paulsen and the FEDs. They see the Crushing of the dollar and the illegal constitutional moves, trying to be pushed through congress as we speak. They know of the Public Co's and the Political Corruption. Only one of my clients has opted to move his entire Manufacturing Operation to China. He stated "It is in my best interest as a Capitalist to make this move. My company has to survive and I can not compete in a "fair" game, while being squezzed to death by "Unions", Crazy Regulations and Tax burdens beyond anyone's wildest dreams." He also stated, "China is a place to make money but not a place to be the common worker. It's a perfect place if your the owner." You would be surprised how many, who own our countries back bone have yet to read Atlas Shrugged. I have purchased a few copies (Penguin.com) and sent them out to current clients as gifts. It is crazy to see Ayn Rand's novel unfold in front of my eyes. At times I am in disbelief that what is going on, transpiring in the last few weeks, or even months can be real. Of course, I doubt the ultimite end will be that of which becomes "Every day life" in Ayn's story. However, I can not predict the future. All I know, is my industry is solid, our firm is on pace to set a record growth quarter, Private Business Owners are getting involved in Private Equity deals and we are selling out shares to our projects in less than two weeks. We, have yet to see any slowdown in funding Domestic Energy Joint Ventures. Not sure how long this will last.
It goes without saying that you are incredibly gifted in mentioning fields of study... Tell me, exactly how far can a person look into a field of study before Godel's incompleteness theorem starts to break down the axioms that define that field of study? I just gave you a simple tautology, relevant to this thread since it lies at the basis of Rand's epistemology, and you still owe me an answer as to why it's not absolutely true.
And that's great. But we seem to be making very slow progress. Does this identify a suitable corollary to Cuffy Meigs? And, as a side note, the absolutism works precisely until you get to aesthetics. Then she goes into lala land. But if you disagree with her ethics, then try to survive by fasting. The questions with her arguments don't arise because of logic. She's got it nailed. The questions arise because she avoids the complications involved in discerning immediate self interest vs enlightened self interest. Which brings me to Tinky Holloway. Any thoughts?