The Fundamentals of Stolyarovian Continuum Theory

                                   G. Stolyarov II

                         Issue XV--  June 25, 2003

During a discussion on the SoloHQ forum addressing my attempts to reconcile Objectivism with anti-abortionism, my position was challenged as fallacious by Mr. Ed Thompson, who did not concur with my labeling of the fetus as an entity possessing the right to life.

The crux of my argument rested on the concept of futuristic certainty, which I had discovered and first introduced on September 2, 2002, in "An Objectivist Condemnation of Abortion." Futuristic certainty is defined as " the particular entity’s ascent to the pertinent condition absent outside intervention." In this case, this concept describes the fetus's inevitable attainment of the defining human characteristic of volitional consciousness given a lack of both human volitional and circumstantial (i.e. non-human or human non-volitional) interference. "However, once conception has occurred, the peculiar genome is already in place, which will result in the inevitable development of a rational creature absent intervention... The fact that that particular man (or child) will, if unhindered, be able to exercise his volitional consciousness, classifies him as a human being." The element of the genome is crucial to my argument, as it defines the form, though not the content, of a man's consciousness. This form, already generated, dictates the development of a man's cognitive and perceptual faculties, the mechanisms which the individual can choose to employ for the purpose of his survival and prosperity. It is only a matter of time before the entity that is the fetus will be capable functioning on its own accord, hence the development of a fetus can be described via a continuum where the fetus's path to self-sufficiency correlates with the quantity, time.

Another key identification that I had made is the arbitrariness of "drawing the line" at the birth of a human being and defining any of the following stages as "life" while classifying the antecedent stages as "non-life," in disregard of the fact that birth is just one of the intermediate points of a single process that, by a single pathway (no longer potential, that is, having a set result instead of being able to follow one path out of a vast quantity), inevitably (absent intervention) results in a human being, starting at conception and completing itself with the being's ascent to adulthood.

This was where Mr. Thompson contended that I had committed the "fallacy of the continuum" in my argument.

"An absurd example (from T. Edward Damer's "Attacking Faulty Reasoning"-p.48) will be illustrative [begin quote]:

Human Being Argument

(Since contraries or extremes, connected by small intermediate differences, are very much the same),

and it would be arbitrary to insist that at some particular point between the extremes they become different,

and conception and delivery are extremes connected by small intermediate differences,

and a fetus is a human being at delivery,
________________________________________

Therefore, a fetus is a human being at conception.

Temperature Argument (Absurd Example)

(Since contraries or extremes, connected by small intermediate differences, are very much the same),

and it would be arbitrary to insist that at some particular point between the extremes they become different,

and the temperatures of 0 [degrees C] and 100 [degrees C] are extremes connected by small intermediate differences,

and a temperature of 100 [degrees C] is hot,
____________________________________

Therefore, a temperature of 0 [degrees C] is hot. [End quote]."

Evidently, in reference to temperature, it would indeed be incorrect to label a tub filled with water at its melting point "hot" just because water at its boiling point evidently is.

But let us pretend that  immersed in a tub of water slightly above melting point, undertaking a therapeutic ice bath. From beneath the tub (which is elevated with an opening under it) a cannibalistic savage lights a fire and sets a protective locked barrier around it so that you cannot extinguish it. Your attempts to preempt this action are in vain.

Do you then not consider the tub to be hot in a futuristically certain mode, and that if you remain in it, your ice bath will turn into a boiling pot for the savages' next ceremonial stew? Having the option to leap out of the tub (as it is not guarded by savages who could not think better) and flee, you should undertake it immediately, under conditions of futuristic certainty, not wait until the water scalds you and then, under the premise of actuality, escape.

So, despite the fact that the water is only starting to rise above melting point, you treat it with the same underlying considerations that would have existed were it dangerously hot. While you should not be perturbed about treating the burns that had not yet occurred (which is a particular, not an underlying, consideration), you should no longer consider yourself to be engaged in a pleasant ice bath. Instead, you should leap out of the tub, as if it were at a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius, and seek to escape inclusion in the primitives' meal.

Despite the fact that the arrangement of possible temperatures per se, and the increase of temperature of a particular body can characterized in the form of a continuum, it is evident that the Fallacy of the Continuum applies to the former and not the latter. There must hence exist continuums of different sorts, of which our metaphysical evaluation and treatment should be correspondingly different. Which category does the development of a human being from an embryo to an adult fit into?

Let us then distinguish between the continuums where my reasoning in regard to futuristic certainty would indeed be fallacious and those where it is applicable.

It is time to define some terms:

Static Continuum: A continuum referring to various objects possessing different magnitudes of the same property or interplay of properties that can be arranged in a linear fashion.

Examples: A comparison of the melting points of various substances would be a static continuum. So would the evaluation of several different tubs of water, each at a distinct, unchanging temperature. In general, static continuums describe properties independent of temporal progression. We cannot say that, because Tub A, at 100 degrees Celsius, is hot, then Tub B, at 0 degrees Celsius (separated by only a small intermediate difference) is hot as well.

Dynamic Continuum: A continuum wherein a particular object or objects shift their magnitudes of a property or interplay of properties.

Examples: A 100-meter race in the Olympics, wherein each runner increases his distance from the start line and decreases his distance from the finish line with the progression of time. This can also apply to a single runner. In this continuum, however, any runner can choose to turn back (and lose the race), so direction of a particular object's movement along the continuum is not metaphysically defined. Also, the alteration of temperatures on any given day or week can be arranged on a dynamic continuum, dependent on the movement of wind and clouds, the proximity of the Earth to the Sun (time of year), factors governed in part by already known scientific principles as well as by ones that have not yet been fully explicated, where probability estimates are the best tools man has available for the time being.  

Futuristic Certainty or One-Way Continuum: A continuum wherein a particular object or objects shift their magnitude of a property or interplay of properties in a single direction only.

Examples: The very progression of time is such a continuum, with all of us changing in the magnitude of this property at the same rate. This is also true of the growth stages of the child and fetus, as well as the hypothetical "human stew in a tub" scenario that I had described.

Note that no matter how hard any doctor will try, he cannot reverse the fetus's development process. He can only abort it. The movement may have been averted, but it cannot be reversed.

Now, the fallacy of the continuum is clearly committed in Mr. Thompson's presented temperature argument, as we are dealing with a static continuum. In a dynamic continuum, the judgment of whether the fallacy is committed depends very much on the situation.

Is it a volitional dynamic continuum, such as a race, wherein we can expect, under standard conditions, for the runners to follow the track and head in a certain direction? Then, we can state that, say, in under a minute, Runner A will have already crossed the finish line, and we can be prepared to hand him a garland celebrating his accomplishments. Here, we can already assume that the runner will finish, hence the fallacy of the continuum is inapplicable. However, should we observe that the runner had suffered a sprained joint two meters prior to the completion of the stretch, and would need to be carried away into an emergency vehicle, then we cannot be prepared to treat his two-meter difference from the finish line as insubstantial. Here, the runner's volition had met with unforeseen circumstances, and has thus failed to attain its objective.

Or is it a circumstantial dynamic continuum (i.e. based on non-human or non-volitional human agency) wherein magnitudes can fluctuate to-and-fro? Here, probability calculations play a role, as far as our technological capacity allows. The movement of clouds and wind can affect temperature, and it can be predicted to a certain extent. However, we must be prepared for several alternatives. We can store jackets should temperature decline or keep sunglasses handy should it rise, if both possibilities are high. Thus, responding to hot or cold weather could be logical even in perfectly temperate conditions.

A note on the volitional dynamic continuum: we can presume that a man's objective will be fulfilled should he follow the proper reality-grounded scheme for its attainment, and treat it as such. We cannot presume that an error or unforeseen circumstance will come into play. By definition, how can we (or the agent of the continuum) presume it if it is unforeseen? (Though, if analysis of the situation yields that the error is likely; that is, the runner had overworked a joint at practice yesterday, and has greatly increased his chances of a sprain, then preventive measures should be considered, but this is still irrelevant to the issue of continuums per se.)

The futuristic-certainty continuum, as has been explicated above, is also exempt from what we can now term the Fallacy of the Static Continuum.

Treatment of the futuristic-certainty continuum can be separated into two categories of considerations, particular and underlying. The fetus, because he has not yet been introduced to the principles of capitalism and human rights, cannot be allowed to engage in business contracts. This is a right derived from a particular consideration, the present content of an entity's existence, or the lack thereof. Because the content of a fetus's (or even a young child's) mind is lacking, he cannot be granted these and numerous other liberties. But the form for the procurement of  this knowledge, the cognitive faculties of the fetus's mind, is already burgeoning and moving toward a single, predictable, inevitable (absent intervention) result.

What consideration is inextricably linked to the development of the form of the fetus's consciousness? It is the fetus's very existence, ergo, his right to exist, which is the guarantee that no human being will intervene with his progression toward such a state wherein he will attain the data necessary to engage in a business contract, drive an automobile, and choose his lifestyle autonomously. This is an underlying consideration, independent of temporal progression or the actualities of the moment, given the condition of futuristic certainty.

The two types of considerations can be summarily defined as follows:

Particular Consideration: A condition dependent on the entity's present position on a futuristic-certainty continuum, or the content of said position.

Underlying Consideration: A condition dependent on fact of the entity's belonging to a futuristic-certainty continuum, or the form that exists regardless of its position at a given time and is necessary for the emergence and interpretation of the content.

In the "human stew in a tub" scenario, the temperature of the tub at any given time is a particular consideration, but the fact that the temperature is increasing and will continue to increase to a hazardous level is an underlying consideration. One needs not treat the wounds that were not inflicted upon him at 0 degrees Celsius, but he does need to escape the tub due to the futuristic certainty of their infliction should he linger.

In the context of time itself, today's date, June 25, 2003, is a particular consideration. Pretend that The Rational Argumentator has requested that Author A submit his article for publication by July 2, 2003, a week from today. The author does not need to treat that date as if it were the present and immediately send the article he did not yet write. Yet, given the futuristic certainty of that date's arrival, he does need to initiate work on his promised piece in a manner that will neither strain his schedule nor result in a breaching of the time limit. This is an underlying consideration, since the form of the futuristic-certainty continuum of temporal progression dictates that July 2 will indeed soon arrive.

I have herein endeavored to establish the rudiments of a metaphysical theory of continuums and the distinctions between them, as well as the consequences of such distinctions to human treatment thereof. While it is certain that the continuums I have described do indeed exist, there may yet be variations and subcategories, or new forms altogether, which have not yet been delved into. Should I or another thinker discover these, it shall be a worthy expansion of Continuum Theory, a field that deserves amplification, as it is key to numerous rational analyses of real-life situations.

G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent philosophical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician and composer, contributor to Enter Stage Right and SoloHQ, writer for Objective Medicine, and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Receive updates from the world of Reason, Rights, and Progress. Sign up for The Rational Argumentator's FREE mailing list by clicking HERE. 

Click here to return to the main index.