The Principle of Supply and Demand:

My ancestors, from the Iron Age, among others people from the Jastorf culture, got around. They sailed the rivers of Europe in their dugout canoes, where they brought amber, which they have picked up at the beaches here at home, and traded that for things they were offered for it at the places they got to.

One of the artifacts that has been found is the Gundestrup cauldron, which is an about 9 kg heavy cauldron made of pure silver, and richly decorated. It's most probably made by the Thracians, which the traders from the North have got in exchange for the amber from home.

So the amber, which was not worth much for the Norse, there was so much of it, it was just to take a walk along the beach and then pick up what they could carry, was so much worth for the Indo-European people that they would give such a huge treasure of pure silver in exchange for it. Amber was in demand but in very little supply in those areas. If amber were in supply there, they wouldn't have traded it with such a fine treasure as the cauldron, which got it's name after where it was found, in Gundestrup in Jutland, home of the Cimbris. They would have given less for the amber they were offered.

Same the other way around, glass beads were traded for amber, because glass beads were in demand at home, so a lot of amber were paid for those beads.

They didn't know about economics back then, but they knew about supply and demand, that the more a thing is in demand, the higher price they could charge for it, and the bigger supply there was of a thing, the less it was valued and traded for. Things only became valuable when there were some who would pay for it, some way or the other, with goods or with blocks of silver and gold, which have been that time's money. Those blocks of silver and gold later developed into coins, where the coining were a kind of security for the value which then became fixed, and money economy was born.

Supply and demand always have been and always will be the corner stone of economics.

They were also pirates who raided up and down the British coast. So I guess your analogy to capitalism holds fair.

Actually they didn't. They never crossed the North Sea, they couldn't do that in those canoes.

My apologies..i remember you saying your ancestors were viking before.

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

My apologies..i remember you saying your ancestors were viking before.

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 (See link in my earlier post and you'll understand why).

My apologies..i remember you saying your ancestors were viking before.

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 (See link in my earlier post and you'll understand why).

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.

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Well it depends on how fast she was moving at the time I guess.

Well it depends on how fast she was moving at the time I guess.

Not to the person standing right next to her.

Maybe this will work: but is it what it is? No matter what we call it, no matter what it's doing, is it itself?

>snip the single particle interference experiment<

To be clear though, the law of identity is a philosophical principle created long before Ayn Rand was born.

Rush. You don't get it. According to physics the observer and observed are linked. There is no objective universe because the mere act of looking at it changes it.

In other words your statement "No matter what we call it, no matter what it's doing, is it itself?" is not actually accurate or correct.

The conundrum here is that you believe that your claim that "observing the universe changes it". Of course it does. Because there's no such thing as an 'objective reality'. Only objective observers. As has been demonstrated to you sooo many times, ESME, the micro does NOT affect your MACRO life that determines our political systems, our lovers, our day to day lives , our choices of which countries to invade, or whatnot.

You continue to claim and assume that you are objective while denying the existence of objectivity in the first place.

You're a silly girl.

It's funny because a while back you agreed with me on the telephone about this very topic....good funnies!

Well it depends on how fast she was moving at the time I guess.

Not to the person standing right next to her.

So her age depends on where you are observing her from.

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".

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?

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.

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.

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?

So how does this impact how humans derive principles to live by? How exactly does that prevent humans from deriving principles?

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?

Sorry. I don't get what you saying.

So how does this impact how humans derive principles to live by? How exactly does that prevent humans from deriving principles?

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.

... Erwin's cat ...

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

... Erwin's cat ...

Erwin's cat???

Who's Erwin and what special is there about his cat? Has it been declawed?

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?

Sorry. I don't get what you saying.

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?

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.

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.

... Erwin's cat ...

Erwin's cat???

Who's Erwin and what special is there about his cat? Has it been declawed?

Erwin had a famous cat.

Though Eugene had a less well known friend and a cat.

... Erwin's cat ...

Erwin's cat???

Who's Erwin and what special is there about his cat? Has it been declawed?

Erwin had a famous cat.

Though Eugene had a less well known friend and a cat.

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

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 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. ;)

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)

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.