Ayn Rand and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


Recommended Posts

Another three card monte move:

"Why is this possible development so dreaded by many..."

Dread defined as ...to fear greatly; be in extreme apprehension of, for example to dread death.

Now let us look at the "dread" expressed by Ayn through her characters in the quote provided by Ba'al.

Dagny: "I keep thinking..." and "I remember wondering then what it would be like in the last days of the world. It would be ... like this. Growing colder and things stopping."

WOW! Look at all that dread! Where is the weeping, hand wringing, falling to ones knees and wailing at the fates?

Oops, did I see a card drop on the table?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Another three card monte move:

"Why is this possible development so dreaded by many..."

Dread defined as ...to fear greatly; be in extreme apprehension of, for example to dread death.

Now let us look at the "dread" expressed by Ayn through her characters in the quote provided by Ba'al.

Dagny: "I keep thinking..." and "I remember wondering then what it would be like in the last days of the world. It would be ... like this. Growing colder and things stopping."

WOW! Look at all that dread! Where is the weeping, hand wringing, falling to ones knees and wailing at the fates?

Oops, did I see a card drop on the table?

Adam

Dreaded by many refers to people I have talked to on the subject, but since I'm always collecting data, you can tell me here if YOU dread it too, and if yes, why.

Yo needn't stick to the word "dread" which was a stylistic variant I used, you can use "fear" or whatever suits you from the English language's rich selection of synonyms.

Imo the thought sure upset Rand's characters in that both Dagny (in p. 171 in my edition of AS) and Rearden rejected the possibility of the human race being extinct one day; Rearden even by flat-out calling the prospect a mere "story" - as if it were fiction. :rolleyes:

Oops, did I see a card drop on the table?

And the card isn't supposed to be there, you mean? Out of nowhere? Hmm Selene, that sounds a bit spiritistic, downright spooky! :D

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dreaded by many refers to people I have talked to on the subject, but since I'm always collecting data, you can tell me here if YOU dread it too, and if yes, why.

Yo needn't stick to the word "dread" which was a stylistic variant I used, you can use "fear" or whatever suits you from the English language's rich selection of synonyms.

Imo the thought sure upset Rand's characters in that both Dagny (in p. 171 in my edition of AS) and Rearden rejected the possibility of the human race being extinct one day; Rearden even by flat-out calling the prospect a mere "story" - as if it were fiction.

I've got other things to worry about.

--Brant

killer asteroids

cholera

dog food

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again, as if I did not clearly state and quote that nothing either character said remotely showed any upset or any dread by any standard and yet Mrs. Goebbels

continues to repeat the false implication.

"...the thought sure upset Rand's characters in that both Dagny (in p. 171 in my edition of AS) and Rearden rejected the possibility of the human race being extinct one day;"

They did not reject the idea, they approach it as solvable. Kinda like the folks who did not fall off the flat earth. No one knows whether or not existence can "end". The point Ayn was making is that man would find a solution.

It is called having a rational hope that man will find a solution and it is based on characters who surmounted problems based on their judgments of their own minds.

Yet you wish to sneak in a completely different spin and hope people will get weary calling you on it.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again, as if I did not clearly state and quote that nothing either character said remotely showed any upset or any dread by any standard and yet Mrs. Goebbels

continues to repeat the false implication.

"...the thought sure upset Rand's characters in that both Dagny (in p. 171 in my edition of AS) and Rearden rejected the possibility of the human race being extinct one day;"

They did not reject the idea, they approach it as solvable. Kinda like the folks who did not fall off the flat earth. No one knows whether or not existence can "end". The point Ayn was making is that man would find a solution.

It is called having a rational hope that man will find a solution and it is based on characters who surmounted problems based on their judgments of their own minds.

Yet you wish to sneak in a completely different spin and hope people will get weary calling you on it.

Adam

It is you who sneak in a spin by calling me Mrs. Goebbels.

There is no false implication. Since Dagny and Rearden don't even go there to think human life might be extinct one day, means they reject the idea of this possibly happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

I will make this real simple using small words.

First, you made the statement about dread and Ayn's characters, e.g., "Why is this possible development so dreaded by many..."

Second, you singled out Dagny and Henry.

Third, you applied the word dread to the words in the quote from Atlas.

Fourth, somehow, you chose to conclude that Ayn through her characters was expressing dread of the end of our solar system.

Fifth, I corrected that conclusion.

Six, you chose not to address that issue.

Seventh, you chose to repeat the original false representation.

Eighth, I chose to point that out by linking your behavior to the person who practiced repeating the falsehood over and over again until a person would believe it.

Finally, I will not stand silent while you continue to post a false interpretation without pointing it out.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

I will make this real simple using small words.

First, you made the statement about dread and Ayn's characters, e.g., "Why is this possible development so dreaded by many..."

That is a deliberate distortion: it is of course clear that the phrase "dreaded by many" does not refer specifically to Dagny and Rearden but to people in general. After the first time you come up with that distortion, Xray makes that even more explicit by saying "Dreaded by many refers to people I have talked to on the subject", but that you conveniently ignore, as your only purpose is Xray-bashing and therefore you have to distort her words. About Rearden and Dagny she only said that the idea upset them, and that is quite right as they deny the possibility ("I never believed that story"). Does being upset imply "weeping, hand wringing, falling to ones knees and wailing at the fates"? Are Objectivists never upset (or even fearful!) about the idea of their own death? Oh, but they're not weeping, falling on their knees and wailing at the fates, so they can never be upset about dying, let alone fear it! Of course this is nonsense, but in bashing Xray every method is admitted, even calling her "Mrs. Goebbels". Such personal attacks instead of rational arguments are typical for the Objectivist wolfpack on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

I will make this real simple using small words.

First, you made the statement about dread and Ayn's characters, e.g., "Why is this possible development so dreaded by many..."

That is a deliberate distortion: it is of course clear that the phrase "dreaded by many" does not refer specifically to Dagny and Rearden but to people in general. After the first time you come up with that distortion, Xray makes that even more explicit by saying "Dreaded by many refers to people I have talked to on the subject", but that you conveniently ignore, as your only purpose is Xray-bashing and therefore you have to distort her words. About Rearden and Dagny she only said that the idea upset them, and that is quite right as they deny the possibility ("I never believed that story"). Does being upset imply "weeping, hand wringing, falling to ones knees and wailing at the fates"? Are Objectivists never upset (or even fearful!) about the idea of their own death? Oh, but they're not weeping, falling on their knees and wailing at the fates, so they can never be upset about dying, let alone fear it! Of course this is nonsense, but in bashing Xray every method is admitted, even calling her "Mrs. Goebbels". Such personal attacks instead of rational arguments are typical for the Objectivist wolfpack on this forum.

Wow. You are quite an emotional person Dragonfly.

I guess rhetorical flourishes are only permitted to the chosen ones like yourself and xray - but what fascinates me is how territorial both of you are.

I was just enjoying the argument. You wish to make it personal.

No thanks.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just enjoying the argument. You wish to make it personal.

No thanks.

Calling Xray "Mrs. Goebbels" is not a personal attack?

Have you ever formally debated or listened to the British House of Commons?

Do you seriously not see that the tiny comparison was repeating a falsehood?

Do you not understand bombast and rhetorical flourishes?

Do I think xray is a Nazi of course not. You had better stay out of politics because you sound like a bleeder to me! < satire non personal>

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a deliberate distortion: it is of course clear that the phrase "dreaded by many" does not refer specifically to Dagny and Rearden but to people in general. After the first time you come up with that distortion, Xray makes that even more explicit by saying "Dreaded by many refers to people I have talked to on the subject", but that you conveniently ignore, as your only purpose is Xray-bashing and therefore you have to distort her words. About Rearden and Dagny she only said that the idea upset them, and that is quite right as they deny the possibility ("I never believed that story").

It's amazing how oblivious Dragonfly is to Xray's distortions.

Imo the thought sure upset Rand's characters in that both Dagny (in p. 171 in my edition of AS) and Rearden rejected the possibility of the human race being extinct one day; Rearden even by flat-out calling the prospect a mere "story" - as if it were fiction.

The following is what was said:

"I keep thinking of what they told us in school about the sun losing energy, growing colder each year. I. remember wondering, then, what it would be like in the last days of the world. I think it would be … like this. Growing colder and things stopping."

"I never believed that story. I thought by the time the sun was exhausted, men would find a substitute."

"You did? Funny. I thought that, too."

Neither Dagny nor Rearden say anything at all about the humans becoming extinct. Yet in Xray's deliberate distortion, they do. Does Dragonfly even notice that distortion? Yes or no, he posts nothing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I keep thinking of what they told us in school about the sun losing energy, growing colder each year. I. remember wondering, then, what it would be like in the last days of the world. I think it would be … like this. Growing colder and things stopping."

"I never believed that story. I thought by the time the sun was exhausted, men would find a substitute."

"You did? Funny. I thought that, too."

Neither Dagny nor Rearden say anything at all about the humans becoming extinct.

Another example of Objectivists who cannot read: "I remember wondering what it would be like in the last days of the world.

The last days of the world of course implies extinction of the human race (how could they survive if these were the last days of the world? As ghosts?), even if the word "extinction" is not explicitly mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh you are right! Wow. I did not see that ghost argument! Brilliant repartee!

Its a good thing that space travel, shuttle crafts, space stations in orbit where they could dock, colonization of the moon, Mars and beyond could never happen.

I concede. All of humanity would perish. Now I am truly depressed. I think I will dedicate the scant remaining time left to humanity to sex drugs and rock and roll.

Great argument Dragonfly.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another example of Objectivists who cannot read: "I remember wondering what it would be like in the last days of the world.

The last days of the world of course implies extinction of the human race (how could they survive if these were the last days of the world? As ghosts?), even if the word "extinction" is not explicitly mentioned.

This is another example of Dragonfly imposing his selected meaning of a word, this time "world", on what somebody else says. Here is the first part of the definition of "world":

1.1. the planet earth

1.2 the whole universe

1.3 any heavenly body thought of hypothetically as inhabited worlds in space

2. the earth and its inhabitants

3.1. the human race; mankind

3.2. people generally; the public a discovery that startled the world

(source)

The passage in A.S. is obviously ambiguous. But if Ayn Rand meant 1.1, it does not imply the extinction of the human race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a good thing that space travel, shuttle crafts, space stations in orbit where they could dock, colonization of the moon, Mars and beyond could never happen.

You're a master in missing the point, namely that Dagny and Rearden were talking about the last days of the world which necessarily implies extinction of the human race, that was of course the point of my post. Not the question whether humans will become extinct, nor the fact that Dagny and Rearden apparently don't believe so. I find in incredible that I have to explain such elementary points in all details, you see a few trigger words and whoop, there comes the kneejerk reflex.

Now to the entirely different question whether humanity will become extinct: of course it will. If you think that your shuttle crafts, space stations and colonization of Mars will help you, I'd suggest you read the original post by Ba'al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.1. the planet earth

1.2 the whole universe

1.3 any heavenly body thought of hypothetically as inhabited worlds in space

2. the earth and its inhabitants

3.1. the human race; mankind

3.2. people generally; the public a discovery that startled the world

(source)

The passage in A.S. is obviously ambiguous. But if Ayn Rand meant 1.1, it does not imply the extinction of the human race.

Typical Objectivist sophistry, "the last days of the world" obviously means the end of mankind, that's namely precisely the point of the dialogue, that they "don't believe that story". Don't they believe that the sun one day will become exhausted? Of course they do (never mind that the Earth will be vaporized before that time), no, they don't believe that mankind will become extinct, they believe they'll find some substitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a good thing that space travel, shuttle crafts, space stations in orbit where they could dock, colonization of the moon, Mars and beyond could never happen.

You're a master in missing the point, namely that Dagny and Rearden were talking about the last days of the world which necessarily implies extinction of the human race, that was of course the point of my post. Not the question whether humans will become extinct, nor the fact that Dagny and Rearden apparently don't believe so. I find in incredible that I have to explain such elementary points in all details, you see a few trigger words and whoop, there comes the kneejerk reflex.

Now to the entirely different question whether humanity will become extinct: of course it will. If you think that your shuttle crafts, space stations and colonization of Mars will help you, I'd suggest you read the original post by Ba'al.

"...which necessarily implies extinction of the human race, that was of course the point of my post l

"...which logically, or inevitably results in the extinction of the human race, that was of course the point of my post."

Really?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant:

I've got other things to worry about.

Don't we all, Brant.

But still despite the demands of everyday life, the question interests me why many people don't even want to go there. Even atheists seem to be reluctant to consider that one day all life (not only on earth) may be extinct.

Are we biogically programmed to think that "life has to go on" and that's why it is so hard to accept?

Even for believers, it is often tough, although they could argue that "God the almighty" is at work here. But somehow this does not work in the face of natural law indicating that a certain event is gong to take place in the (albeit distant) future. This goes in the direction of insentient nature.

Even the Buddhist model of reincarnation gets technical problems, for where can a soul "reincarante" itself when there is no life left to make this possible?

While you guys are arguing, I'm building a spaceship. Go ahead, laugh. I'll have the last laugh as I power away from the doomed planet, with my dog Saga, and you learn what it means to be burned!

Brant

laughing already

If you are into science fiction, manybe there's some nice movie you could settle down to watch with Saga at your feet. Who was that guy with the pointed ears? Spock? :)

BTW, speaking of dogs, there's a discussion where it seems to be disputed that dogs don't have have the mental capacity to categorize. Of course they can. These people can't be dog owners. ;)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5703&pid=79149&st=20entry79149

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another example of Dragonfly imposing his selected meaning of a word, this time "world", on what somebody else says.

DF was not "imposing any selected meanings" on anything; he had read thoroughly what was written and explained to you and Selene in clear words what it was about.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All life" extinct one day. Based on current understanding of the universe, yep. However, humans really don't yet have their brains around reality. The universe is a weird place. All we can do with time is look back in wonder and wonder at what we don't see and understand and might never understand.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All life" extinct one day. Based on current understanding of the universe, yep. However, humans really don't yet have their brains around reality. The universe is a weird place. All we can do with time is look back in wonder and wonder at what we don't see and understand and might never understand.

--Brant

Precisely Brant... and that is so clear, even Ray Charles can see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting in that context: the Second Law of Thermodynamics applied to what is going to happen in the universe has been rejected by official Marxist ideology for a long time.

In a lexicon lexion dated from as late as 1975 (!), one can still read:

"Der Endzustand, dem ein ein solches System zustrebt, wird bei Extrapolation des Entropiesatzes auf das unendliche Weltall vielfach als Wäremtod des Weltalls interpretiert. Diese Schlußfolgerung is physikalisch unzulässig und philosophisch falsch".

Quelle: Klaus/Buhr, Philosophisches Wörterbuch, Band 1, S. 332 (Leipzig 1975).

Translation: "The final stage this system is going to reach (verbatim transl: "is headed for"), is, by extrapolating the entropy law to the infinite universe, mostly interpreted as "heath death if the universe". This conclusion is physically inadmissible and philosophically false."

Source: Klaus/Buhr, Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 1, p. 332 (Leipzig 1975).

In short, what didn't fit the picture of the ideology was arbitrarily rejected as "false", even if it was a fact.

The principle at work here is precisely the same as which drove the dominant ideologists of past ages to "reject" what Giordano Bruno and Galilei found out.

The above example illustrates that ideologies are belief systems; whether they assume a transcendence or not makes no difference.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting in that context: the Second Law of Thermodynamics applied to what is going to happen in the universe has been rejected by official Marxist ideology for a long time.

In a lexicon lexion dated from as late as 1975 (!), one can still read:

"Der Endzustand, dem ein ein solches System zustrebt, wird bei Extrapolation des Entropiesatzes auf das unendliche Weltall vielfach als Wäremtod des Weltalls interpretiert. Diese Schlußfolgerung is physikalisch unzulässig und philosophisch falsch".

Quelle: Klaus/Buhr, Philosophisches Wörterbuch, Band 1, S. 332 (Leipzig 1975).

Translation: "The final stage this system is going to reach (verbatim transl: "is headed for"), is, by extrapolating the entropy law to the infinite universe, mostly interpreted as "heath death if the universe". This conclusion is physically inadmissible and philosophically false."

Source: Klaus/Buhr, Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 1, p. 332 (Leipzig 1975).

In short, what didn't fit the picture of the ideology was arbitrarily rejected as "false", even if it was a fact.

The principle at work here is precisely the same as which drove the dominant ideologists of past ages to "reject" what Giordano Bruno and Galilei found out.

The above example illustrates that ideologies are belief systems; whether they assume a transcendence or not makes no difference.

Too late to edit the typos, like. e. g. "heath" death: I meant to write "heat death" of course. :)

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now