Rights

Sep 2010
16
0
Canada
Ignoramus, White Rabbit, et al,

"Rights", in this context, has no universal meaning. They are subject to change with time, government enforcement, and the human ecology.

"Rights" are a human construct, subject to all types of influences.

Most Respectfully,
R
Please read the thread before you [respectfully] accuse people of holding absurd views.

My position in this thread is 100% agreement with the OP... (and has been stated quite clearly).

All rights exist only by law.
 
Aug 2010
862
0
Oh heck, TortoiseDream, you mathematicians can't even define the square root of negative 1 without drifting into ephemeralism. Admit it. I've had this discussion with Brat Two, who studied physics with a nano-something emphasis. You nerd-types (my kid included) remind me of sorcerers. No offense intended.

Regarding rights, most of us understand the basic ones almost instinctively. Those rights have been evolving for millennia, at least in Occidental society. For instance, I assume you know, without requiring definition, that it is wrong to steal from a neighbor, and that it is right to help an elderly lady by opening a door for her -- there are no mathematical formulae involved. The same developed set of mores also tells us that we have a right to retain the fruits of our own labors; and to protect our families and friends from harm; and to develop our own thoughts (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, et cetera). We haven't yet reached Hari Seldon's era of psychohistorical prediction and control of human behavior via mathematics, and I hope we never do.

Those are interesting comments. Iv'e often tried to explain the concept in organic terms. Rights are natural and we're discovering how they work and interact etc. It is an ongoing process with plenty of movement for the better and worse to be observed and many people who'll disagree about which is which.

If electrons exist, where did they come from?

You're comparing a particle to a concept.

That's like comparing love to a shoe.

Ignoramus, White Rabbit, et al,

"Rights", in this context, has no universal meaning. They are subject to change with time, government enforcement, and the human ecology.

"Rights" are a human construct, subject to all types of influences.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rights as a human construct has been tried several times, mostly in the 20th century with consistent results. The number of dead people is about 100,000,000. Pretty impressive number from the communists in about 75 years.

By the way, is God aware of the usurpation?


Whoa.... you made me laugh.

Runs to check forecast in hell
 
Last edited:
Aug 2010
92
0
NH
And that's with math - a well defined system. A system that depends on strict adherence to rules.

So, can you accept at least in part that "rights" which are part of living breathing society are messier?

They really do require context to discuss meaningfully.

I do think rights will be harder to define. However, simply referring to them in a vague, unclear way sheds no light on any progress towards knowledge or truth. I think its important to know what we are talking about.

lol - I accepted your proof as true perfectly valid and frankly wouldn't know how to object if you were bullshitting me.

If we can get a "depends" response when discussing math think how much mopre often when we through human action into the equation (if I may use that word).

It wasn't a "depends" response in the way you're characterizing it. You simply didn't provide me with a well defined object to talk about, i.e. there were two possibilities. There are no "depends" answers in math, there are provable statements and refutable statements. That is all.
 
Aug 2010
92
0
NH
Apparently you don?t consider geometry mathematics. It is my understanding that "point", "line" and "plane" belong to the set of undefined elements in geometry. This cite may give an example

http://www.emis.de/monographs/jablan/chap11.htm

You are right, I would not consider Euclidean Geometry mathematics, as in modern mathematics founded upon set theory. That is when I say mathematics, I really mean set theory (I probably should've said this earlier).
 
Actually mathematics may be divided into

(1) Undefined terms and definitions.
(2) Axioms or postulates.
(3) Theorems
At least that is my understanding.
You may have a bit of a point, I took geometry at an earlier age. Then they called an undefined term an undefined element. That was before set theory became commonplace.
I should have used undefined terms instead of undefined elements. However, even in set theory, there are undefined elements.
By the way, I am not a mathematician.;)

Describing some arbitrary "division of mathematics seems highly subjective, but we can certainly talk about essential elements it must contain. Contrary to the common textbook view, sets are not undefined objects. The real undefined object in a truly rigorous mathematical system is the "mark". Once people are comfortable with the idea of a mark, undefined, you can do all of mathematics completely rigorously. From there you develop a syntax and a list of rules using marks. Next you write down all of the axioms. Then you proceed to play the game by using the rules and the axioms to prove theorems.

The problem with mainstream mathematicians, in my opinion, is that they don't recognize that English and mathematics are two different languages. When they prove things, they prove things in English. Formal proofs, which you can find from logicians, are in the actual language of mathematics.

I believe I mentioned the two common divisions of rights. Those created by man made law and those derived from natural law. I don?t deal in morality, at least in the conventional sense. Legal rights are easy, and I don?t believe it is really necessary for me to address them. Rights derived from natural law are not easy. What you seem to want is a definition in the linear mode for a subject that I feel is really very difficult to define in the linear mode. Since natural law derives from the nature of reality itself, we have an ontological question. There are two modes of thought which deal with this, one the linear and two, the intuitive. That is, if we are using Robert Ornstein?s terminology. In Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, there is really no terminology directly compatible with Western terminology. However, there the issue is addressed as well.
In Taoism, we have the Tao and then our Tao. The way of all being, and the way within that way which is unique for each individual.
However, the words that I have just used are linear, and inadequate to the task for they indicate separation. Truth is continuous and infinite, and so it cannot be divided and isolated. However, once again, words have reached their limits, or I should say, my words have reached their limits.
Fundamentally that is the limitation of written language, because written language, by its very nature, is linear.

I'm not sure what you're getting at... I don't mean to be annoying, but I'm sort of playing dumb for a reason. Assume I am stupid, I've never heard of the idea of "rights" before. How would you explain to me what they are? - natural, lawful, whatever?
 
Aug 2010
92
0
NH
I believe former Secretary Rumsfeld defined that as a "known unknown". ;)

Besides, for those of us who don't actually believe in 'rights', which definition of 'rights' one wants to use doesn't really matter. The discussion will always come down to the same issues of existence and origin regardless. That is to say, if rights do exist, where did they come from?

I should caution you that there is a difference between rights "existing" and "believing in rights". Personally I don't believe rights exist as tangible, physical things. Where are they? However I am a believer in rights as they aply to man, i.e. he is entitled to certain intrinsic things such as the right to his life and to act upon his free will.

With that definition, and the wonders of subjective relativism, you can define just about anything and everything as a 'right'. And so can everyone else on the planet. :)

I respectfully submit that is a non-functional definition.

As far as I'm concerned, the OP defines 'rights' as perfectly as they can or ever will be.

Well I never claimed that I was defining it that way, and I think your criticism is spot on. I was only trying to initiate some discussion on how we can define rights at all, even if our first attempts are silly.
 
Aug 2010
92
0
NH
Oh heck, TortoiseDream, you mathematicians can't even define the square root of negative 1 without drifting into ephemeralism. Admit it. I've had this discussion with Brat Two, who studied physics with a nano-something emphasis. You nerd-types (my kid included) remind me of sorcerers. No offense intended.

Hey, I'm just trying to be rigorous! Start with this task: define the numbers. What is the number 2?

Regarding rights, most of us understand the basic ones almost instinctively. Those rights have been evolving for millennia, at least in Occidental society. For instance, I assume you know, without requiring definition, that it is wrong to steal from a neighbor, and that it is right to help an elderly lady by opening a door for her -- there are no mathematical formulae involved. The same developed set of mores also tells us that we have a right to retain the fruits of our own labors; and to protect our families and friends from harm; and to develop our own thoughts (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, et cetera). We haven't yet reached Hari Seldon's era of psychohistorical prediction and control of human behavior via mathematics, and I hope we never do.

But I'm not advocating or suggesting that we need to use mathematics to understand rights. I'm saying that mathematics requires a certain level of precision, i.e. all things must be defined and the rules are clear and unambiguous. If we're going to enter into a discussion about rights, I don't think it's too painful to ask "what are rights" to start off - in the mathematical spirit of being rigorous and clear. Am I wrong?
 
Aug 2010
92
0
NH
I agree, that there is such a thing as a "null set;" a set consisting of nothing or "zero" elements; or a "measure-zero set."

Yet it is important to remember that this is a conceptual object that exists as a fiction in our minds. On paper the null set '{}' is defined like this:

{} = {x|L}

where L is a generic refutable phrase.

However, I do not agree that (2/0) = (1/0) or that either of these two equations equals zero (0) (null).

Whoa, I never said they equal the null set. I said (2/0) = (1/0) = SETS, where 'SETS' is the collection of all sets. SETS =! {}.

With that said, agreeing and disagreeing is, fortunately, outside of the realm of mathematics. It's not up to debate what (1/0) or (2/0) equals. It's not up to me and it's not up to you. It all depends on how we've defined the objects '1' '0' '/' and '2', and logic carries us from there. Pure. Solid. Logic. I could prove to you that they are equal using formal logic.

They are undefined equations and cannot be graphed (having no coordinate) in any dimension, and have no meaning.

They are very defined. All of the objects '0' '1' '2' and '/' are well defined. Graphs have nothing to do with proofs, nor does meaning. Mathematics is, essentially like all arts, inherently meaningless.

Without meaning, it is hard to imagine a set, unless the set had no meaning and cannot be represented in any philosophical domain (outside science or mathematics). Such a set or construct cannot be used to make accurate predictions in reality.
(SIDEBAR) This opens up to a different discussion on what is the relationship between science, mathematics and philosophy; which is outside your parameters. "M" Theory [AKA: The 11 Dimensions of (unified) String Theory] can be described in mathematics; but is not science - rather in the domain of philosophy.
This is much different than an imaginary number (ie i^2 = − 1), where, by definition, the square of an " i " is a negative real number; and could be a meaningful constituent of a set (criteria dependent). Imaginary numbers have a real world application (as opposed to a theoretical application) and can be used to make accurate predictions in reality (ie Kirchhoff's circuit laws).

Just my thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

I understand your thoughts, but I'm trying to expose you to the mathematical way of thinking. Everything is defined according to our syntax. If you are curious about details I'd be happy to write something about it and share.
 
Aug 2010
862
0
I do think rights will be harder to define. However, simply referring to them in a vague, unclear way sheds no light on any progress towards knowledge or truth. I think its important to know what we are talking about.

lol - ok

I've tried to offer ways to begin a discussion on this topic. You're not biting. I understand that the roadmap you're looking for isn't materializing from me, and you do too. I'd offer that I do have a great deal to contribute to a discussion like this but not if confined to the terms you seem to require. So I'll respectfully bow out an lurk ;)

It wasn't a "depends" response in the way you're characterizing it. You simply didn't provide me with a well defined object to talk about, .

No, that is exactly what I mean with regard to the concept of "rights."

There are so many moving pieces that if you wish to frame the question with any precision simply asking what is a "right" will not suffice.

You need to ask something like.... "when one seeks to define the boundries of the right to free speech with regard to political speech offered by a corporate speaker with specific regard to McCain Feingold and campaign spending what are the limits of those restrictions"

and that was a simplification of the question before the court in Citizens United

the discussion only gets more complicated from there

read Buckley v Valeo if you would be interested in chipping off a small right for conversation like the right to free speech as it concerns spending for political advertising to get the feel of what a right is... they are not all identified in the same we. Rights might be compared to coastal redwood trees, tall and majestic and unique even when they share many similar qualities from a remote perspective.

here's an executive summary of it, it was a 7-1 decision (Stevens did not participate.)

Personally I don't believe rights exist as tangible, physical things.

lol... well thatr is because they are ideas not shoes.

ever put "love" on a scale or measure how tall it is?

Of course not. But you can figure out a shoe size.

Which leads me to ask... what in the world are you getting at here?

Assume I am stupid, I've never heard of the idea of "rights" before. How would you explain to me what they are? - natural, lawful, whatever?

As a general matter they are claims one may enforce (or claim as a defense) at law.

To burrow deeper requires a great deal more specificity... or a smart guy instead of the hypothetical twelve year old
 
Last edited:
Aug 2010
230
0
Hey, I'm just trying to be rigorous! Start with this task: define the numbers. What is the number 2?



But I'm not advocating or suggesting that we need to use mathematics to understand rights. I'm saying that mathematics requires a certain level of precision, i.e. all things must be defined and the rules are clear and unambiguous. If we're going to enter into a discussion about rights, I don't think it's too painful to ask "what are rights" to start off - in the mathematical spirit of being rigorous and clear. Am I wrong?


Normally, I would describe 2 as the maximum number of beers or coffees that can be consumed by an old fart before he is forced to run for the john.

And I'm not going to attempt this early in the morning to trump Obtuse's comparison between shoe sizes and love.
 
Aug 2010
211
12
Reynoldsburg, OH
TortoiseDream,

Clearly, this is an unusual discussion. While I've read the thread, it is obvious that I missed some essential salient point(s).

I understand your thoughts, but I'm trying to expose you to the mathematical way of thinking. Everything is defined according to our syntax. If you are curious about details I'd be happy to write something about it and share.
(ACCEPTANCE)

I would appreciate the opportunity to learn more about this particular "syntax." As I am an old dog, learning new tricks sometimes comes with corrupted view, which I will have to overcome.

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Aug 2010
230
0
Best of luck learning that new syntax, RoccoR. I hope your synapses are less calcified than mine, else you're screwed.
 
Aug 2010
92
0
NH
TortoiseDream,

Clearly, this is an unusual discussion. While I've read the thread, it is obvious that I missed some essential salient point(s).
(ACCEPTANCE)

I would appreciate the opportunity to learn more about this particular "syntax." As I am an old dog, learning new tricks sometimes comes with corrupted view, which I will have to overcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

Alright, this will be fun for me :)

Clear your mind of all you know about mathematics. We are starting fresh, completely from scratch. No numbers, no sets, no graphs, nothing. Blank slate.

Marks: The first thing to understand is that 'a' is a physical mark on a page composed of ink, toner, chalk, marker, computer pixels, etc.

Is 'i' one mark or two marks? The answer is that it is one mark because we agree to treat it like one mark. For many marks this is the case. If we want to play this game we must agree to some standards.

Is the mark 'a' a copy of the mark 'a'? Of course they are not the same mark because they are composed out of different matter particles. However they are copies of each other. That is, they resemble the same thing to a high degree (a degree which we define, just like how we agree to treat 'i' as one mark) that we treat them as "equals".
With this all in mind, we now decree the first rule. Each copy of a mark in the list that follows is a pronoun:

a b c d e f g h j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Tell me if you're holding on.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2010
230
0
Not to be obstreperous, but some folks might argue (and have done so, in similar circumstances) that all of the above are not composed of different particles. This is why some of us pay rabbis to not work.
 
Aug 2010
92
0
NH
Not to be obstreperous, but some folks might argue (and have done so, in similar circumstances) that all of the above are not composed of different particles. This is why some of us pay rabbis to not work.

Then they can't play the game. It doesn't mean they are wrong, though. All I'm saying is that we all have to agree to adopt certain assumptions before we can play the game.
 
Aug 2010
103
0
You are right, I would not consider Euclidean Geometry mathematics, as in modern mathematics founded upon set theory. That is when I say mathematics, I really mean set theory (I probably should've said this earlier).
As a spectator to the mathematics game, I wasn’t aware that it had been reduced to Boolean Algebra. Apparently you didn’t read the cite I posted. It stated all geometries, not merely Euclidean. I wasn’t aware that modern mathematics had discarded non-Euclidean geometry.
Describing some arbitrary "division of mathematics seems highly subjective, but we can certainly talk about essential elements it must contain. Contrary to the common textbook view, sets are not undefined objects. The real undefined object in a truly rigorous mathematical system is the "mark". Once people are comfortable with the idea of a mark, undefined, you can do all of mathematics completely rigorously. From there you develop a syntax and a list of rules using marks. Next you write down all of the axioms. Then you proceed to play the game by using the rules and the axioms to prove theorems.
The problem with mainstream mathematicians, in my opinion, is that they don't recognize that English and mathematics are two different languages.
Yes, but English is the language of this forum. It seems that English is a bit more of a problem for you than mathematics. I didn’t write undefined sets. This is what I wrote.
However, even in set theory, there are undefined elements.
Words are but pointers to meaning. My original point is that in mathematics, not every thing is defined. You have just named an undefined term. Your original position was this.
The thing that prevents me from moving through a discussion on rights is the following question: what is a right? Now I'm a mathematician, and in mathematics everything must be defined rigorously in order to be coherently used - otherwise communication is meaningless, if definitions are not agreed upon. So what I'm looking for - in my own thoughts, as well as from you people here - is a cold hard definition of a "right", otherwise we're just blabbering on about nothing. Here's what I want:
A "right" is a ______.
End quote.
When they prove things, they prove things in English. Formal proofs, which you can find from logicians, are in the actual language of mathematics.
I'm not sure what you're getting at... I don't mean to be annoying, but I'm sort of playing dumb for a reason. Assume I am stupid, I've never heard of the idea of "rights" before. How would you explain to me what they are? - natural, lawful, whatever?
If you will go back to my reply to White Rabbit on page eight, read that, and if you have a question, then post it in the context of that post.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2010
862
0
TortoiseDream,

Clearly, this is an unusual discussion. While I've read the thread, it is obvious that I missed some essential salient point(s).
(ACCEPTANCE)

I would appreciate the opportunity to learn more about this particular "syntax." As I am an old dog, learning new tricks sometimes comes with corrupted view, which I will have to overcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

dude.... compare your post to any other posts on this forum

make yours like ours.... quit with these damn paranthetical comments etc

it is like you arde submitting TPS Reports in the most absurdly useless, redundant and futile bureau in some dystopian bureaucratic nightmare that makes Brazil look like heaven...grrrrr
 
Aug 2010
862
0
As a spectator to the mathematics game, I wasn?t aware that it had been reduced to Boolean Algebra. Apparently you didn?t read the cite I posted. It stated all geometries, not merely Euclidean. I wasn?t aware that modern mathematics had discarded non-Euclidean geometry.

Yes, but English is the language of this forum. It seems that English is a bit more of a problem for you than mathematics. I didn?t write undefined sets. This is what I wrote.

Words are but pointers to meaning. My original point is that in mathematics, not every thing is defined. You have just named an undefined term. Your original position was this.

End quote.

If you will go back to my reply to White Rabbit on page eight, read that, and if you have a question, then post it in the context of that post.

Dear God.... Tortoise.... you've actually masnaged to get me to agree with this guy ^
 
Aug 2010
92
0
NH
As a spectator to the mathematics game, I wasn’t aware that it had been reduced to Boolean Algebra. Apparently you didn’t read the cite I posted. It stated all geometries, not merely Euclidean. I wasn’t aware that modern mathematics had discarded non-Euclidean geometry.

It has not discarded the ideas of Euclidean geometry. We formulate them in different ways within a different, more general, more encompassing framework. For example, Euclid could never do differential geometry.

Yes, but English is the language of this forum. It seems that English is a bit more of a problem for you than mathematics. I didn’t write undefined sets. This is what I wrote.

Words are but pointers to meaning. My original point is that in mathematics, not every thing is defined.

That's incorrect, there are no undefined elements in mathematics. The undefined concept, as I put forth before, is the idea of a mark. If I get far enough with Rocco, you will see what I mean. I'm sorry but I simply cannot explain why this is the case without going into the full blown nitty gritty details of the foundations.

Mathematical words and sentences serve the same purpose as those in English, i.e. pointers. In mathematics they always point to imaginary things (like numbers, or functions). The problem arises when one pretends to do math by heavily relying on English. In informal proofs, English is used to remind the mathematician of a formal proof in the real language. If a formal proof cannot be produced from an informal one, the informal one should be rejected.

You have just named an undefined term. Your original position was this.

End quote.

If you will go back to my reply to White Rabbit on page eight, read that, and if you have a question, then post it in the context of that post.

The conversation about undefined elements and the definition of rights is fundamentally disjoint. I'm not sure why this conversation got blown so far out of context either. I just wanted to know what "rights" were.
 
Last edited:
Top