>There is a hypothetical particle that mediates the gravitational force in particle physics called the "graviton."
>
>The graviton, I suspect, is not real. I'm sure it exists in the objective, fundamental reality, but because it is never observed it is not in our conscious reality, so to us, its not real.

IOW, reality comes in all degrees of uncertainty. From a fully positive impact we feel when we hit our thumb with a hammer, to the perception of graviton, which we assume may be real if these scientists got it right.

>>You know that for me even deities are real in that same respect - as human ideas. But does this human language of mathematics reflect reality (at least when applied as a tool of physics), the one reality that supposedly exists independently from human perception?
>>
>>I don't have an answer to this. I'd be lecturing somewhere if I did :).
>
>As it reflects reality arthmetic seems to accurately describe reality, though calculus seems like a non-reflective larger abstraction who's results only generally apply to reality.

Ditto. The "how real" instead of "real or not". Fuzzy.

>>Well, from what I've read in this thread, Rand's objectivism does its homework - it gives the lassez faire capitalism a brownie point and a feeling that they are justified in whatever they are doing, since even science proves they're doing the natural and desirable thing.
>
>How does science prove this?

Temporarily :). I meant, "they feel justified because they think the science...". It really doesn't matter whether they directly funded or just embraced the theory that suits them. There are theories galore out there; it's just a matter of making the proper ones stand out and become popular. But then, it's more marketing than science, IMO. Note the exactness of the word "proper" :).

>Popper described why this was flawed. He used common sense and realism as his start points although he recognized that common sense is many times wrong. It is not a secure foundation. The idea is to find a starting point and then mercilessly criticize the startpointing. The idea is to identify its weaknesses (where it is wrong) and conjecture up solutions to solve the problems. He suggests a path infinite tentative solutions based on a known to be flawed foundation, unlike the idealistic approach you're describing with the absolute reality of facts.

I like that much better. Specially if it's to be applied later on the general organization of human societies and economy. IMO, the deductive way of building a theory simply can't apply here; in social sciences, there's only one axiom worth mentioning (let me quote Friedrich Engels offhand here): "in any society, the people will do whatever they think is best for themselves". With this level of exactness, it's no wonder all of these big social and economic theories were short-lived. Each one which was put into practice was just a grand experiment performed in vivo on the society.

>There could be a reality-per-se-language, but until it means something to me, I'm going to think that "facts" are statements of language, in any language, and that facts are never known to be absolutely certain: instead we should be critical of our facts at all times, this way we can be in a position to fix problems we find and our knowledge grows, it evolves.

Which is what we already are, or should be doing.

>>Are you sure she didn't mix up her cups around page 200? Lassez faire leads to a free-for-all grab of resources, competition until extermination until monopoly, exploitation unbounded and the human victims along the way don't count as sacrifices, because there's nothing sacred. Now if you start talking of morality, laws etc - that's not lassez faire anymore, that's regulation.
>
>I should have said "Rand believes this is the best match for the premises." I'm not sure if I believe it.

That's why I mentioned mixed cups. Lassez faire was the cause of the great economic crises, because of its cyclic up'n'down nature. And that was the primary reason for creating state (i.e. federal here) reserves, commodity reserves, anti-trust laws, etc etc, i.e. any system is bad if left unleashed.

>Personally, the ideal system would be one where I lived a life of luxary without working. I don't know what the hell Rand was thinking :-)

Too bad if you hate your work. I'd rather like one where I'd live comfortable with the work I do, without fear of tomorrow.

>Also, you're describing the end-game of capitalism. I don't think that criticism is all that important in non-end game situations.

Not end-game. Just that the current (Reagan & Thatcher and onwards) deregulation will need a vast swing in the opposite direction, or into a completely different direction. The unleashed thing that's going on now is bound to become worse, left to its own influence. And we're actually out of the domain of theory here, it's just the way the money is distributed. Unless they come up with another theory to justify the imbalance of this distribution.

>I'll make sure to have a Jag toast in Phoenix for you!

And don't forget to have one for yourself, too :)