Rights

[TortoiseDream]

Originally Posted by obtuseobserver

what's 2 divided by zero? same answer? what's the square root of -2?

Yes, 2/0 = 1/0 = SETS, where SETS is the collection of all sets.

For the square root of -2 that depends. Is that -2 the real number or -2 the complex number? There is a difference. There are a few number systems we use, the natural numbers, the integers, the rational numbers, the real numbers, and the complex numbers. They are all different kinds of beasts, in fact.The natural number 0, the integer 0, the rational number 0, the real number 0, and the complex number 0 are all not equal to any of the others. If you mean real -2, then the answer is SETS. If you mean complex -2, then the answer is i*sqrt(2).

Originally Posted by obtuseobserver

I believe the 1/0 deal but isn't that more of a squishy definition of what it isn't?

You won't have to merely believe it. I can prove it.

[obtuseobserver]

Originally Posted by TortoiseDream

For the square root of -2 that depends. Is that -2 the real number or -2 the complex number? There is a difference. There are a few number systems we use, the natural numbers, the integers, the rational numbers, the real numbers, and the complex numbers. They are all different kinds of beasts, in fact.The natural number 0, the integer 0, the rational number 0, the real number 0, and the complex number 0 are all not equal to any of the others. If you mean real -2, then the answer is SETS. If you mean complex -2, then the answer is i*sqrt(2).

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.

Originally Posted by TortoiseDream

You won't have to merely believe it. I can prove it.

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).


so.... pick a right. they are not all equal. even specific rights have varying degrees of enforceability.

[Ignoramus]

Originally Posted by TortoiseDream

Mathematics is absolutely a creation of the human mind. Agreed 100%. However, I strongly disagree that there are undefined elements in mathematics. The short justification is that if you propose to have an undefined element, then you simply aren't doing mathematics at all. Believe it or not '1/0' is defined (it's equal to the collection of all sets, if you're curious), as well as other "undefined" objects.

Originally Posted by TortoiseDream

A little off topic, but, well, I am a mathematician....

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
　
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.

Now you are touching on a very important thing. Just like in mathematics, definitions are very ambiguous. It's not so much the name for the concept that is important, but the concept itself. We have the name of the thing we want to define ("rights"), but so far I see no concrete defining characteristic or concept that we want to associate to that name.
In short, defining "rights" isn't so much the crucial point; it is more so agreeing upon just what concept we are associating to the names "rights" when we discuss them, i.e. rights that "derive from law", rights that "come from nature"? Just what are we talking about? I'd be happy to discuss either, or if you my definition of "statement of morality" may lead to fruitful discussion we can define it that way.

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.

[White Rabbit]

Originally Posted by TortoiseDream

I don't see it as anything other than trying to logically ground the conversation. You can't talk about "X" until you know how "X" is defined, it's really that simple.

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?

Originally Posted by TortoiseDream

You're putting the cart before the horse. I'm still waiting for someone to propose a definition of "rights". How about to speed things up a bit, I'll suggest something that has been flying around my brain:

1. A right is any statement that defines moral, ethical behavior.

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.

Originally Posted by Nemo

All rights exist only by law.