Brant Gaede

Members
  • Content count

    23,199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Brant Gaede

  • Rank
    $$$$$$

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Brant Gaede
  • Description
    Born in 1944 in Tucson, AZ. SF Aidman Vietnam combat veteran. Autodidact. Can drive the big rig. Hike and fly. Weep and write. Shoot and scoot.
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Rand novels, The David, Shane, The Ox-Bow Incident, Forbidden Planet, Things to Come, The Wild Bunch, Oliver, Star Wars, Charade, North by Northwest, Psycho, Vertigo, Red River, Empire of the Sun, etc. Music: only the good stuff--e.g., Lynyrd Skynyrd "Simple Man"
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tucson, AZ
  • Interests
    All kinds of stuff

Recent Profile Visitors

45,277 profile views
  1. O.J. Simpson once again in the news

    Like this contrary view. --Brant but OJ never came forth in any public way proclaiming innocence much less at his trial--so he got run over by his cowardice?
  2. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    What did Einstein do but incrementally improve on Newton? He self-confessidly stood on Newton's shoulders. Was that phony modesty? I doubt it. QM: nothing to do with Newton or Einstein. Right? --Brant my grandfather, Irving Newton Brant, was given Newton as a middle name because his parents thought he was collaterally descended from Isaac (who had no children)--even if true, it was crap; Newtons don't beget Newtons nor do the Newtons' brothers and sisters; Newtons stand alone--not sad and quite true
  3. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    It's a given we're stuck with two theories when it seems we ought to have one. 1) Why one instead of two? 2) Why gravity instead of QM? 3) Gravity doesn't explain QM. It seems a dead end. 4) QM might explain gravity. QM seems to be open to expansion. So, I layman say, ignore "gravity" and focus on QM. --Brant
  4. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    By replacing gravity as commonly understood with another idea--even an empty set--one is left free of all the gravity intellectual baggage that might obscure instead of illuminate. (Of course, to gravity we'd likely return, but maybe with a better understanding.) You can get so invested in your ideas you get stuck. Might be gravity is just another expression of electromagnetic force? You'll say "No"?-- and I say, "I dunno." I'm always looking for a fresh perspective--on all subjects--and you seem to want certainty. (Old time Objectivists like Barbara Weiss liked to say, "Absolutely!") --Brant
  5. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    If they want a unified theory why not drop explaining gravity by replacing gravity with a hypothetical? --Brant
  6. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    The ultimate verification is technology that works. What does Higgs Boson have to do with that? It'll be interesting to find out future advances in particle physics as a result of this statistical technique. In the meantime Bayesian inference applied to particle physics sounds to self referential for my taste. But my taste and particle physics doesn't matter a whit. Nor should it. --Brant
  7. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    Aesthetics is not part of the Objectivist philosophy. Many think that because Rand wrote a lot about aesthetics it's part of Objectivism. They also think anything she wrote was Objectivism. And if she didn't write it it isn't. There are two reasons it's not part of Objectivism: It's subjective and there is no logical connection to the four basic principles all linked by the philosophy's essential individualism--that is, the individual thinking and judging mind (metaphysics and epistemology) to rational self interest in ethics/morality to protection of individual rights in politics (freedom). It's objectifiable. That's my take. This is not official Objectivism, whatever that is, insofar as I understand it. I differentiate between Objectivism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Thus I no longer call myself an "Objectivist" and it's for the same reason I don't call myself a "Randian." (A Randian, of course, doesn't have to study Objectivism much, but an Objectivist is implicitly obligated to study and re-study everything Rand wrote if not said over many decades. If it took that long for Leonard Peikoff to get on top of the subject, don't expect to be any faster.) I use Objectivism as I think Objectivism is and should be with the capital "O" because I like it even though the lower case is more justified for clarity. --Brant
  8. Aristotle's physics properly deconstruct

    Thank you. --Brant
  9. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    You, as usual, respond to a small fraction of what I write. Unfortunately, I don't do intellectual charity. --Brant or fortunately
  10. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    So, philosophy for you is metaphysical only? Does this leave science without reality? --Brant Think Twice
  11. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    Okay. You are saying science is either philosophy free or free now of Aristotle's wrong philosophy making it a right philosophy? If it's philosophy free what is the scientific method? How does science lead philosophy? Facts lead thinking? I realize, but do you, that we are asking looking about us whether the chicken came before the egg? Scientists and their hangers' on are privileged in this society to pull up the drawbridge and, like the little boy in his crib clutching his teddy bear, pretend how autonomous they are. Do you know of evil scientists, engineers, industrialists, businessmen--all whom deal/dealt with facts (physical reality)--coughing up all the Zyklon B Hitler needed? Or do you just strike "evil"? Nazi philosophy lead those folk around and about by their collective noses. The "science" followed philosophy--for evil. When it follows philosophy for good we understand science is not, per se, beyond good and evil. Philosophy rules science because men have free will and they need standards of choice for their choosings. Thus ethics--morality--should be part of science--and more so than merely the scientific method. --Brant
  12. A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

    Wrong. You ignore the philosophy of science. Are you telling us science has no philosophy? Reality and reason--with explication--are the basis of both Objectivism and science qua science. The only divergence is when Objectivism goes into ethics and politics. Science and scientists need not follow, although perhaps a scientist should. But that's personal. Objectivism, properly rendered, has no conflict with science. I can't say the same about many Objectivsts. Please note you keep declaiming about how Aristotle screwed up science--with philosophy. The implication is he wouldn't have if he had had the right philosophy. You keep trying to eat philosophy and have it too. --Brant
  13. Galt Motor=agraviational

    Everything is energy. --Brant
  14. How to respond to those who slander Objectivism

    Regarding slandering Objectivism: bad publicity is good publicity (unless you're Fatty Arbuckle). --Brant