>>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.

Its fuzzy in the way that how natural selection works is fuzzy.

We can say something like "There are purple dragons on the dark side of the moon" or we can say "there are infinite points on a continuum between two points in space." This last sentence can actually be stated as a mathematical proof.

Both are statements of language, the first one English the latter mathematical. How they relate to reality depends on what criticisms can be made of the statements. And even when we have a judgement, the judgement is merely tentative. A new criticism, or a solution to an existing criticism may come along and we'll have a new game to play.

Its only fuzzy because it is continually evolving.

>>>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" :).

Ah, ok. I agree about the marketing bit. Thats why we hear about "string theory". The superstrings makes no actual scientificly verified predictions. Its status of as a theory is widely taken with a grain of salt. But it is known as "string theory" because that is the marketing term developed for it. And its worked pretty well, despite the theory being regarded as little more than fashion or fantasy by critics in science.

>>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.

I don't hate my work. I'd just rather sit outside and play guitar for the college girls around here. Is that so wrong? :-)

>>I'll make sure to have a Jag toast in Phoenix for you!
>
>And don't forget to have one for yourself, too :)

We'll see. Its been quite some time since I've had any drink.