QUANTUM PHYSICS: Objective or Subjective Universe?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

To start with, what on earth are you talking about? The only environmentalist project that was mentioned so far was one by the Brazilian government trying to protect the new fish colonies by halting clean-up of the reservoir, and I ridiculed that. Maybe I should ask, who are you talking to? Me?

I think that if we value industry, and all the contributions you said technology brings us---and if we value our very lives, we must never align ourselves with environmentalism, no matter how alluring a particular environmentalist project may seem.

This is where I drastically disagree with you. I am much more individualist. I value truth and my own mind far above any so-called movement. If there's a mess, let's clean it up. I really don't care about who points the finger. If there are unjust restrictive laws, let's overturn them. I really don't care about who points the finger there either.

Q. Am I for environmentalists or am I against them?

A. Frankly, I don't think about them enough to say. My focus is on issues, not tribes. I am not a collectivist. I am only against a tribe when it gets in my way.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael

I said, "I think that if we value industry, and all the contributions you said technology brings us---and if we value our very lives, we must never align ourselves with environmentalism, no matter how alluring a particular environmentalist project may seem."

My God! How did you get some sort of "anti-individualist" rub from this statement? You think *I'm* some sort of join-the-gang tribal guy?? I only say this because you, well, quote me...and then you take great pains pointing out what an individaulsit you are [as if I weren't]. Hey, when you look in the dictionary and look up "individualism"---my picture is there! [or am I thinking of the word "ugly"?]

Edited August 25, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Anytime I see a group of people targeted and someone tells me essentially to scapegoat them, even when they are right, I smell collectivism.

For the record, I think environmentalist crusaders are misguided and some of them become dangerous. But I don't ever want to let that opinion get in my way so much that I no longer look at the facts of an issue.

This particular form of collectivism (scapegoating) happens way too often in Objectivism. For example, mention Christianity on an Objectivist site and watch the mocking start.

Other traditional Objectivist scapegoats are mystics, altruists, subjectivists, intrinsicists, evaders, and so on.

I am not saying we should agree with such ideas. I am saying that I detest scapegoating such people as a kneejerk reaction, usually accompanied by low-level mocking.

That is a collectivist mentality, despite the individualist ideas Objectivists preach.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Do we really differ on this issue?

Yes, there is a lot of simple recycling green-thumb type of folks who would—in all innocence—describe themselves as an “environmentalist”--using the term in a most benign manner. They think of environmentalism as a “global sanitation department” and are oblivious to the anti-human element within the “Green movement”. I am speaking of the Green-Unabomber types, and that’s really the focus of concern here, isn’t it?

You said: “Anytime I see a group of people targeted and someone tells me essentially to scapegoat them, even when they are right, I smell collectivism.”

Well, I think we might have a different definition of “collectivism”, and, by the way, if one points out the dangers of these types of people for censure, I hardly think that’s “scapegoating” them. If you mean this in the manner of the way the Jews in Nazi Germany were scapegoated and blamed for the economic and cultural paralysis that Germany suffered at the end of WWI.

You also said: “This particular form of collectivism (scapegoating) happens way too often in Objectivism. For example, mention Christianity on an Objectivist site and watch the mocking start.”

Well, I hear ya, that's not too good. It depends. But, by the way, I’m one of that rare Objectivist who can actually differentiate between that little old lady clinging to her God while playing Bingo, and an Eco-terrorist who destroys lives and property---and this being a fact, it does happen, what would constitute “scapegoating” them? What’s going on there?

"Toleration" is not an unbounded virtue.

I say openly denounce them---and I would, yes really, have them punished to the fullest extent of the law. And if that makes me an “Orthodox Objectivist”, I’ll make the most of it. Feel my Objectivist rage. ;)

Victor

Edited August 25, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Dragonfly]

What scientists don't think much of Rand? It's not the ones I know. Names please.

The ones I know or have met on Internet forums, mostly physicists. They're definitely not impressed by the "A is A" statements that some Objectivists like to throw about. Some of them have compared Rand to Ron Hubbard. Perhaps that's not fair, but it's an indication that Objectivists could improve their PR; telling physicists that their philosophy is corrupt, that they are mystics who don't know how to interpret their own data and banning them from their forums when they are not immediately converted is not the most efficient way to convince them.

[bmacwilliam]

The italicized excerpt is from an essay on axioms from the RoR site.

Third, we have the axiom of causality. This may be taken to state that everything in the universe has a cause in the general Aristotelian (rather than the limited modern) sense. If some particular entity has certain characteristics at a given point in time, or some particular event occurs, there is a reason for it. It doesn't "just happen." This is equivalent to saying that the contents of the universe are related, that they in some way interact. Of course, if they do, they must do so in accord with logic, that is, there must be a reason for the behavior to occur as it does. Just as the axiom of identity asserts that logic applies to the properties of entities; so the axiom of causality asserts that the laws of logic apply to the properties of change. Again this is undeniable and inescapable; for if anything could become anything else without restriction, no entity could have an identity. (Cf. Rand 1961, 188.)

(We need not necessarily exclude the possibility of "metaphysical chance"; it is conceivable that causality may apply stochastically. For instance, there might be no specific cause for the decay of a particular radium atom, but a cause for the decay of radium atoms as a class which inclusively causes the decay of each one at some random time.)

I'm thinking the second paragraph would be arguable to Objectivists no, but that's not my point here.

A) "If some particular entity has certain characteristics at a given point in time, or some particular event occurs, there is a reason for it."

It is clear from the context that the statement could have swapped "cause" for "reason" to illustrate my problem clearer. Either way though, the meaning doesn't change. So we'd have...

A) "If some particular entity has certain characteristics at a given point in time, or some particular event occurs, there is a cause for it."

B) "For instance, there might be no specific cause for the decay of a particular radium atom"

My question is how can these two statements be reconciled??

Now, the second part of the B sentence goes on to say "but a cause for the decay of radium atoms as a class which inclusively causes the decay of each one at some random time"

No way, these two paragraphs describe causality in totally incompatible terms. Cannot have it both ways.

So, my point is that IF this is in fact the Objectivist view of causality (although I'm not asserting that this is the "official" view), then it is self-contradictory.

Bob

Edited August 25, 2006 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Which article did you get that quote from?

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

Which article did you get that quote from?

Michael

Axioms: The Eightfold Way

by Ron Merrill

Bob

[Guyau]

Ronald Merrill wrote his essay "Axioms: The Eight-Fold Way" for my journal Objectivity. I published the essay in Volume 2, Number 2, which was in 1995. Here is the Abstract of Ron's essay that I have written for the new Objectivity_Archive site:

Merrill proposes a new organization of Ayn Rand’s philosophical axioms, which were three: Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. In the new organization, there are eight axioms. There are three logical axioms, which identify the rules of reasoning; three metaphysical axioms, which root our knowledge of reality; and two epistemological axioms, which are presumed when we assert anything to be known.

Merrill’s logical axioms are (i) the law of excluded middle, (ii) the law of non-contradiction, and (iii) the law of truth preservation by double negation. His metaphysical axioms are (iv) existence exists, (v) existence is subject to the laws of logic, and (vi) change is subject to the laws of logic. His epistemological axioms are that (vii) we have consciousness of existence and (viii) we have free will.

Rand’s axiom of Existence is in (iv), her axiom of Identity is in (v), and her axiom of Consciousness is in (vii). Merrill’s axiom (vi) is Rand’s law of causality. Merrill stresses the importance of expressing Rand’s three axiomatic concepts in propositions, his axiomatic propositions. He criticizes the treatment of the law of causality and the reality of human free will as “corollaries” of Rand’s axioms.

[Guyau]

Bob,

You quote this statement in Ron's essay: "If some particular entity has certain characteristics at a given point in time, or some particular event occurs, there is a reason for it."

At the time he wrote this essay, Ron may well have thought of this as a statement of the "law of causality," but in any case, that is not quite right. This statement is in fact a statement of the Law of Sufficient Reason, from Leibniz. It is more general than the law of causality.

The statement of Rand's that "the law of causality is the law of identity applied to action" is perhaps equivalent to the Law of Sufficient Reason. Be that as it may, the well-known statement of Rand's that I just quoted is not her statement of the law of causality. It was not her understanding of what is "the" law of causality. If you look in her essay "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made," you will find her statement of the law of causality.

Here's little bit from my 1991 essay "Induction on Identity," that is pertinent to your interests:

Hume's commonsense principle that same causes yield same effects was endorsed also by Aristotle: "It is a law of nature that the same cause, provided it remain in the same condition, always produces the same effect" (GC 2.10.336a27-28). Ockham endorsed the principle in a form close to Hume's: "Causes of the same kinds are effective of effects of the same kinds." Ockham took this principle to be necessary and self-evident. As the principle is formulated by Ockham or Hume, it is subject to two interpretations. One, a broad one, I shall endorse in a moment. The other---and this is what both Ockham and Hume most likely meant---is just the principle as stated without ambiguity by Aristotle. I think we should be wary of Aristotle's principle. Hereafter, I shall refer to it as the narrow mode of causality. Although it obtains throughout vast regions of our experience, throughout much of existence, it evidently does not obtain for physical processes in quantum regimes. . . . I suggest we reformulate the principle more broadly, thus: "Identical existents, in given circumstances, will always produce results not wholly identical to results produced by different existents in those same circumstances." Application of the law of identity to action or becoming would seem to require only this much (contrary to Peikoff 1991, 14-15).

It is not always the case that identical things placed in the same circumstances yield a single (repeated) result. Some existents yield single distinctive results; others yield distributions of distinctive results. Only if one allows for the latter possibility in one's construction of the principle that "same causes yield same effects" is it universally true. Within the realm of classical mechanics, which covers billiards, Hume is correct in saying that same causes yield same (single) effects. (Boydstun 1991, 25)

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

You quote this statement in Ron's essay: "If some particular entity has certain characteristics at a given point in time, or some particular event occurs, there is a reason for it."

At the time he wrote this essay, Ron may well have thought of this as a statement of the "law of causality," but in any case, that is not quite right. This statement is in fact a statement of the Law of Sufficient Reason, from Leibniz. It is more general than the law of causality.

The statement of Rand's that "the law of causality is the law of identity applied to action" is perhaps equivalent to the Law of Sufficient Reason. Be that as it may, the well-known statement of Rand's that I just quoted is not her statement of the law of causality. It was not her understanding of what is "the" law of causality. If you look in her essay "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made," you will find her statement of the law of causality.

Here's little bit from my 1991 essay "Induction on Identity," that is pertinent to your interests:

Hume's commonsense principle that same causes yield same effects was endorsed also by Aristotle: "It is a law of nature that the same cause, provided it remain in the same condition, always produces the same effect" (GC 2.10.336a27-28). Ockham endorsed the principle in a form close to Hume's: "Causes of the same kinds are effective of effects of the same kinds." Ockham took this principle to be necessary and self-evident. As the principle is formulated by Ockham or Hume, it is subject to two interpretations. One, a broad one, I shall endorse in a moment. The other---and this is what both Ockham and Hume most likely meant---is just the principle as stated without ambiguity by Aristotle. I think we should be wary of Aristotle's principle. Hereafter, I shall refer to it as the narrow mode of causality. Although it obtains throughout vast regions of our experience, throughout much of existence, it evidently does not obtain for physical processes in quantum regimes. . . . I suggest we reformulate the principle more broadly, thus: "Identical existents, in given circumstances, will always produce results not wholly identical to results produced by different existents in those same circumstances." Application of the law of identity to action or becoming would seem to require only this much (contrary to Peikoff 1991, 14-15).

It is not always the case that identical things placed in the same circumstances yield a single (repeated) result. Some existents yield single distinctive results; others yield distributions of distinctive results. Only if one allows for the latter possibility in one's construction of the principle that "same causes yield same effects" is it universally true. Within the realm of classical mechanics, which covers billiards, Hume is correct in saying that same causes yield same (single) effects. (Boydstun 1991, 25)

Well, I must say that your description makes sense to me. It certainly does not dictate the nature of causality that has been argued follows from Rand's ideas. And as Micheal outlined, it leaves the details of causality squarely in the realm of physics.

Bob

[Paul Mawdsley]

Well, I must say that your description makes sense to me. It certainly does not dictate the nature of causality that has been argued follows from Rand's ideas. And as Micheal outlined, it leaves the details of causality squarely in the realm of physics.

Bob

The details of causality are squarely in the realm of artists. In particular, they are in the realm of fiction writers, which can be any of us. It is up to philosophers and scientists, or the philosopher-self and scientist-self in each of us, to test the causal fictions that are created on the canvas of the imagination.

Paul

[MBM]

I am making my way through this very interesting thread. I know that I have only read a fraction of the thread so far and that the conversation has probably advanced light-years beyond this point, but I think I'd like to throw in a few comments here and there about points that interest me...otherwise I'll never get a chance because I'll never catch up.

Now, when it comes to people (and consciousness) things get really messy. I am Bob today, I was Bob yesterday, and hopefully I'll be Bob tomorrow, but why? Certainly not for the same reason. My physical matter has totally changed multiple times in my lifetime. It partially changes every day. I am most certainly NOT 3-year-old Bob in any physical way at all. Well, then why am I Bob? What about psychological continuity? I "am" the same person as 3-year-old Bob because of psychological continuity, I mean what else is there? But wait, that doesn't work either...

Now lets say I am on the starship enterprise and I get transported to the surface of a planet. My atoms are disassembled and put back together the same way, so to me I'm fine and off I go. What if they were only copied? Well the guy on the surface wouldn't know, he'd have total continuity but he wouldn't really "be" me would he? What about the guy left behind he would really "be" me right? But they BOTH have psychological continuity and good luck convincing the guy on the surface that he's not me. In a psychological sense they are both "me". But not physically, but then physicality(matter) doesn't matter for people (at least sometimes) - problem here.

So that doesn't work either (continuity) when it comes to consciousness/people. So when it comes to people and consciousness how and when is Bob=Bob??? The answer just ain't that simple is it?

This is certainly not the only identity problem either.

Bob

You can raise the same issue using inanimate objects rather than conscious people.

Some years ago on another "Objectivish" discussion list there was a discussion about an ancient wooden ship. Suppose, in the maintenance of the ship, you replace a broken plank. Its still the same ship, right? And then later another plank gets replaced. Still its the same ship, most would agree. But what if this process continues for many years, and eventually, one piece at a time, every single piece of the ship has been replaced. Is it still the same ship? If not, then which particular act of replacing a part made it a different ship? I think this is the same issue as "am I the same person as I was 20 years ago even though every single atom in my body has been

replaced?"

But wait, it gets even better. Suppose you start with the same ship -- call it ship A. Suppose, one piece at a time, you replace a part of ship A as before. But instead of discarding the old piece, you begin building a second ship, ship B? Each part removed from ship A is put into ship B in the exact same arrangement as it was in ship A. So eventually (as in the previous paragraph), ship A contains none of its original parts. And ship B is a complete ship, consisting of all of the parts that were originally in ship A. Is ship B the same ship that ship A was? Or is ship A the same ship it originally was? (Maybe this is one case where we can plausibly say "A is not A".)

MBM

[MBM]

I have reached a similar conclusion. I wouldn't say it is reason, per se, that is lacking in the case of understanding QM. We have used reason to create a mathematical description of the quantum world. The breakdown seems to be in matching our mathematical descriptions of reality with our intuitive/experiential descriptions. Is this breakdown caused by a fundamental inability to grasp quantum reality in intuitive/experiential terms? Or is it because we have not yet grasped the underlying principles that will allow us to build the right intuitive/experiential model? I think it is the latter. I also think that it is the concepts of identity and causality that have to be made more precise and more inclusive. This requires that we abstract and integrate specific principles of identity and causality from the evidence-- an a posteriori approach to identifying metaphysical laws and epistemological principles.

I think a causal account and an intuitive/experiential account of quantum reality is possible. I also think an intuitive/experiential account of relativity is possible with the right principles. But I tend to be a bit of a dreamer.

I don't think its likely we can ever get an experiential account of anything on the scale of quantum phenomena. In order to do so, we would have to shrink ourselves down to a size such that we could directly percieve quarks and such (like the way the characters in the movie Fantastic Voyage shrank themselves down to enter a bloodstream, but even smaller). The best that can be done is to "experience" them indirectly via tools that are designed for the purpose of detecting these phenomena and mapping them onto some kind of display that we can sense. [Actually, it occurs to me that in a sense we *DO* experience quantum phenomena directly -- e.g., the interaction between a photon and a retina is a quantum interaction, right? And we see light. But of course thats not what we're talking about].

As for an "intuitive" account -- sometimes we can get a close approximation to that via clever analogies. For example, the way the relationship between our three-dimensional space and a supposed higher-dimensional space is sometimes conveyed via analogy of the relationship of the inhabitants of "Flatland" to our three-dimensional space.

MBM

[MBM]

Right. But if you do the hard work by really studying the subject and working with it, you will develop some intuitive feeling for it. However, there is no shortcut to translate it into our intuition we use in daily life. Take for example the notion of spaces with more dimensions than the 3-dimensional space we live in. If you work with such spaces they'll become in a sense familiar. But can we really visualize for example a 5-dimensional space, not to mention an infinite-dimensional complex space, like we can visualize a 3-dimensional space? I don't think so, we're just not equipped for it, these things are outside our direct experience. In the same way the world of subatomic particles is outside our direct experience. It is not reason that is lacking, on the contrary, it is reason that tells us how this world really is, it is only our imagination that can't handle it well.

Oops, looks like more than a week ago you made more or less the same point that I made in my previous post, and in a more articulate manner, too. One of the hazards of reading these threads in a non-timely manner.

[MBM]

Sure, Victor. It is now clear to me that Einstein, for instance, who in later life acepted the existence of God, -- which you point out is not an innocent error, although you don't explain how you know that -- entered the rational field of science for the purpose of hijacking it and undermining it entirely. And just as clearly, he was a subjectivist cry-baby who just could not abide the fact of a cold, hard, objective reality against which false beliefs and wishful thinking have no effects.

Gee, and all my life up until this moment, I've regarded Einstein as one of my heroes.

Well, Einstien *did* famously exclaim (in objecting to the implications of some interpretations of quantum theory): "God does not play dice with the universe". If thats not evil subjectivist whim-worshipping mysticism, I don't know what is.

I'm getting silly, time for bed I guess.

Edited August 31, 2006 by MBM

[Paul Mawdsley]

I don't think its likely we can ever get an experiential account of anything on the scale of quantum phenomena. In order to do so, we would have to shrink ourselves down to a size such that we could directly percieve quarks and such (like the way the characters in the movie Fantastic Voyage shrank themselves down to enter a bloodstream, but even smaller). The best that can be done is to "experience" them indirectly via tools that are designed for the purpose of detecting these phenomena and mapping them onto some kind of display that we can sense. [Actually, it occurs to me that in a sense we *DO* experience quantum phenomena directly -- e.g., the interaction between a photon and a retina is a quantum interaction, right? And we see light. But of course thats not what we're talking about].

As for an "intuitive" account -- sometimes we can get a close approximation to that via clever analogies. For example, the way the relationship between our three-dimensional space and a supposed higher-dimensional space is sometimes conveyed via analogy of the relationship of the inhabitants of "Flatland" to our three-dimensional space.

MBM

MBM,

You have mentioned two approaches to getting an intuitive/experiential perspective of things we are unable to observe directly. Neither one is exactly what I have been talking about. I am talking about something I have called causal or intuitive reasoning. We all use it everyday. What we generally do not do is question the concepts of identity and causality that such reasoning is based upon and apply it systematically. Aristotle did. Ayn Rand did. Nathaniel Branden did. I believe this to be a powerful root to their insights. It is the process by which AR wrote her fictions and developed the details of her perspective well beyond the normal development of intuition. This higher state of intuitive development is generated by creating entities in the imagination based on evidence and the principle of identity, and setting these entities in motion according to the principles of causality. Think of it as theory development on a grander scale. It acts like a microscope creating the possibility for exploring underlying reality to a greater depth than the strict logical and mathematical connections we use to connect observations. Think about how AR created characters and environments in her imagination, set them in motion, and observed the details unfold according to her view of causation. She learned a lot reality from this process. What she learned from it became Objectivism.

Paul

[Victor Pross]

A New Direction for Physics?

Lewis Little discusses his Theory of Elementary Waves

http://www.prodos.com/archive071lewislittle.html

[John Dailey]

Victor:

~ I know, I know: 'took ya long enough!' (So many threads; so little time...)

~ 1st off, I see ya got a lot of flack re your starting post. Overall, I don't blame 'em. You did deserve it.

There's an 'attitude' that seems easy for Rand admirers to acquire re a condescending, insult-filled contempt that seems to be a feeling of 'need' to convey to all, re any/all 'professionals' who disagree with her/(or their) points as though 'the disagreers' [de facto-in-past, or actually-in-present] OUGHT to know better' (re points A, B, C, etc); and, since 'the disagreers' have shown otherwise in their writings, well...Rand-admirers turn into wannabe Rand-'style'-Emulators. (There's a whole forum filled with those...in case you haven't noticed.)

~ Hey, I been there too...a while back. One's ignorance of detailed understanding makes for mentees attempting to role-model the 'style' of their accepted mentor, regardless the difference in knowledge which may give the mentor justification for hard judgement on others. --- Here, I got no prob with Rand having/showing the attitude of 'contempt'; she was a 'professional.' But, that's a subject for other threads covering it. But the rest of us? *I* don't know that others OUGHT to know better (ie: *my* view is so obviously correct, that those who don't 'see the light' are [as Scherk would say] E-V-U-L!...or at least contemptible. At any rate, ya really wanna be careful with that kind of thing. Only the likes of Stephen Hawking has a place to have such an attitude (and he's shown it at times, subtly, in his books); and, not too many of us are of his calibre...especially in this territory. O-t-other-hand, the likes of Feynmann never seems to show it (well, when he publicly argued about the O-rings, ok...but that was about a specific situation). Must be a personality-bent re anger-venting me thinks (or, is it generalized 'Rage'? Oops; another thread!)

~ What I'm saying is, you came across stressing your tone more than your arguments (as another noted Forum practically advertises itself as focussing upon; not a worthwhile admirable 'style', lemme tell you.) Stress the arguments (more specifically, their logical connections) re what's wrong with the views you criticize: not the one's holding them. The 'subject'...not the 'subjects'. The 'Song', not the 'Singers.'

~ I do sympathize (unlike some others here...surprisingly!) re your concern about how QM has been handled, at least (I presume, since this is where I got most of my awareness about QM and it's 'explanatory' "theories") in popularized-for-lay-peoples (like us) about how and why QM works. In short, it's popularized plethora of "theories" like the Copenhagen one, 'many-worlds', etc. I have The Tao of Physics, In Search of Schrodinger's Cat, and a couple others promoting a non-rational ('mystical' or not, I'll not debate definitions here) view of the fundamental cosmology of 'reality.' --- However, if ya look around (yeah, you gotta search), there're some that aren't oriented that way, and don't even try to 'explain.' The Strange Story of the Quantum by Banesh Hoffmann isn't bad.

~ Unfortunately, clearly, too many people confuse the actual 'science' of QM with the speculations called the 'explanatory theories' (ie: 'QT'). Properly, at best, they should be called 'hypotheses', not 'theories.' To my mind, properly speaking, there is no QM theory. QM has the status of Newton's Mechanics. It describes accurately, to the point of some predictability, what's going on. It has no Einstein yet (except, maybe, Lewis Little?) to give a bona-fide explanatory base to work MORE and deeper useful, practical predictions from, as Al did with Newton's mathematical observations. As things are, QM's mathematics is useful enough in 'science.'

~ I'm a bit surprised this thread got segued into discussing 'science' per se, rather than staying on your subject of false/unreal 'theories' about QM. I think you should have specified a distinction between the 'scientists' per se who actually work in the field, vs the 'theorizers' (popular and professional) whom you seemed to really be talking about. I didn't see you as arguing against the obviously established 'science' of it, so much as backing up Einstein's claim that there's more to this QM than meets the...uh...instrument's eyes (and, the instrument-interpreter-'theorizer's brain!)

~ So much for your 1st post...and, in general, responses to it.

~ In your post #7, you comment "...I suspect they [physicists] just don't think of information as real in the same sense that matter is real. This is an example of compartmentalization in science." --- I think that you're onto something there. There was a time that 'energy' was considered as a subject/concept that was unavoidable, but was ntl considered on a par with sqr-rt of 2: 'practically' meaningless, apart from the math ('not on the same par', one would say.) Nowadays...

~ You continue therein: "There is so much that could be said on this matter and with Objectivist epistemology...such as the complexity theory and emergence." --- Agreed. Indeed, *I*'ve argued the concepts' relevence to volition elsewhere and seen NOTHING re the subjects mentioned by ANYone. O-t-other-h, maybe the two already were brought up elsewhere? Like, in one of the expensive tapes I haven't bought where ARI lectures DO (I've gathered) include some thoughts on QM.

~ In your post #27 you say "Quantum theory demolished cherished 'commonsense concepts' about the nature of reality." --- To be accurate, given there are several, so-called, Quantum 'Theories' (aka: hypotheses), the gist of all of them did do so, true. Methinks such may need to be done, as Al did re Isaac; but, not down the tracks all these new 'theories' are going, granted. To be clear, here we're no longer talking about QM, but, 'QT.'

~ You continue therein: "By blurring the distinction between subject and object, cause and effect, it introduces a strong 'holistic element' into our world view. This was seen as a 'loop hole' for certain mystic types to enter." --- Little disagreement (though some would argue with the Randian term-useage of 'mystic'), but for the cause-effect part. No 'blurring' there; can one say complete eradication? --- To be sure, though I've read/found little on this subject, an Einsteinian-'level' (vision?) version of 'causality' (empirically speaking; and, maybe, 'philosophically'!) may have to be conceived to 'sensibly' supercede the Galileonian (Galilian?) version of "Necessary and Sufficient"...or at least a more sophisticated definition/explication of the latter concept than heretofore has been blithely accepted.

~ In your post #82 you say "I am not attacking the scientific community, I am properly targeting the 'fringe' groups this theory [or body of thoughT] has attracted like flies to excrement-but I'm not attacking QM as such." --- I must say, I thought this was clear in your 1st post, and, in your later explanations; but, clearly, one's tone stands out and that is why you've been mis-understood by others, I'd say. Well, not totally why. You DID come off as sounding like you were 'attacking the scientific community' (if for no other reason, like really 'peaceful Muslims', their apparent acquiescence to allowing such crap to be published to the lay-public). Ntl, you were clearly 'targeting the 'fringe'groups'...which have been, as you imply (but not clarify) the most published (popular, anyway); I repeat, all said and done, truly, I agree. And, like the 'radical' Muslims, they DO stand out.

~ Finally, in your last post, you comment on Lewis Little's ideas (talk about 'RADICAL'!) on QM with his 'reflective wave'...hypothesis (properly, again, NOT a 'theory'.) All...ideas...on the frontiers of anything (especially science) are silly to grab onto and defend, except for the 'theorist' of course. But I've caught Prodoss' web-site interview with him (and the referral to Little's web-site animated explanation) a while ago, before a falling-out 'twixt Prodoss and a certain forum's INSULT-LEADER when the latter was clearly anti-ARI. For those interested in the frontiers of QM, definitely a worthwhile check-out.

~ Since this post is so long, I'll comment on others' comments separately.

LLAP

J:D

P.S: Remember, especially in cyber-worlds, careful with the tone. (unless your button really gets pushed, as mine have.)

P.P.S: How this thread slowly segued into concentrating on 'environmental' debates I don't know. I'll not get into those...in this thread.

Edited September 21, 2006 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Paul (Mawdsley):

~ YOU are quite 'thought-provoking'! (My best compliment, btw.) Ok, 'nuff flattery...

~ In your post #2 you say (to VP): "But your post is overflowing with traditional Objectivist arrogance. You are looking at the world through a particularly narrow version of an Objectivist lens, using only narrowly Objectivist language, and make narrow Objectivist pronouncements on the value of other perspectives. The specific aim seems to be at devaluing other perspectives rather than understanding and evaluating them against an objective standard-" --- Agreed. I additionally castigated him for that, but, you put it all fairly well and concisely. I say 'fairly.' I take issue with 'traditional Objectivist arrogance.' Properly, it's 'traditional Emulative (superficial CopyCat) arrogance-style'...which is actually HYPER-arrogance (ie: arrogance one hasn't earned the 'right' to, unlike Donald Trump); in short, a personality-affectation for others (and usually, for one's self), or, a desired 'face.' I'm not insinuating any 'lying' thereby, merely a reaching beyond one's...present...grasp, and, unfortunately, advertising it (as so many on another forum do...and keep reaching farther before they grasp their present reach-limits.) I'm sure that Victor will 'tone-back' a bit.

~ You add "It is the devaluing of other perspectives, which seems to be so entwined with the Objectivist tradition (which goes back to Rand herself) that makes me..." --- Uh, no argument. Rand did it. I've suggested 'reasons' in my last post to VP as to why I accept her as being so 'arrogant.' However, the innuendo that she may have promulgated it to and through her then-admirers, insinuating a fault on her for their second-hand Keating-esque 'copying,' I think is a false connection of moral-evaluation insinuated upon her.

~ You finish that line-of-thinking with "...cringe at the thought of calling myself an Objectivist." --- A-n-d, rationally, logically, sensibly, what has your acceptance/rejection of the 'name' of the philosophy got to do with your evaluation (justifiable or not) of h-e-r?

~ You do follow-up with a 'thought-provoking' point: "Labeling a group of individuals as 'subjectivists and mystics' has only one purpose: to devalue their perspective so the information about reality they symbolize can be ignored." --- Depends on how one values/dis-values those terms, no? Rand followers would dis-value them, ergo, all we're talkin' is 'preaching to the choir.' Others, however... --- True, 'labels' are used with purposefully-intended meanings, indeed, more or less just as you've described the purpose, whether others are called Klansmen-in-suits, or Nazi-sympathizers, or Anti-Semites, or Black-isolationists, or Femi-nazis, or Islamo-Fascists, or 'terrorists', or murderers or hijackers or thieves or...pick it (there's a plethora to choose from nowadays); but, just as true: sometimes the 'labels' ARE accurate and justifiable, no? The 'rational' concern is just when which term properly applies to whom, and most especially, 'why', no?

~ Oh boy; now for QM.

~ In the same post, you get back to this, apparently (hard to say, actually) defending the Copenhagen Interpretation.

~ You say "If we assume [say wha'?] we cannot say anything about reality without the evidence on which to base and support our claims, and there is a point beyond which we are physically unable to observe events, it is the height of objectivity to accept that reality contains an element of randomness at its root." --- Well, apart from our NOT agreeing to 'ass-u-me' (MUST it be 'assumed'?), the consequent of your antecedent really isn't the 'height of objectivity'; indeed, to frame the consequent with that evaluative prelude smacks a bit of the 'height of "disagreers are not objective" self-assumed arrogance.' <My point is: asserting such is not showing such.> Ie: the consequent doesn't follow.

~ What RATIONALLY 'follows' from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is that we cannot know...simultaneously...the position and direction-of-movement of certain low-level (ergo lower, such as 'quarks' and whatever later) atomic particles (photons, electrons). Implication: there's always some level of uncertainty (can we say Epistemological?) re 'higher' particles, re the same problem, however trivial (the larger, the more trivial). This, of course, is as long as electrons/photons are used to 'measure' the territory. To ass-u-me such will forever be our engineering limits in 'measuring', methinks is a bit presumptuous. Heisenberg's principle did not inherently imply such. His limits apply to measuring certain combined elements/aspects...not to methodology of such, per se. Regardless, maybe we'll never get beyond having to use photons/electrons to measure, hence, an 'uncertainty' thereby has to be accepted.

~ Here's *my* prob with the Copenhagen 'interpretation' (need I really stress that word using quote marks? ergo, what it means [like, there could be 'other' interpretations?]): Uncertainty, Epistemologically (ergo, no discernible 'pattern' to predict from), does NOT logically imply 'randomness' Metaphysically. The Copenhagen Interpretation...'interprets'...otherwise. It never really 'logically' explains exactly 'why?'

~ Cripes, a bird hits my car's windshield. Since we don't know the 'cause' of their 'random' meeting, macroscopically speaking, obviously the cosmos operates 'randomly'. THIS is the 'logic' behind the Copenhagen Interpretation. Oh, 'in principle' it could have been predicted (meaning if we knew enough earlier re the bird and the car); uh, same for atomic particles...if we knew enough about quarks, etc. Everyone assumes (ahem) we WON'T find out more about dealing with (dare I say 'around') this limitation-at-THAT-level (ergo, pushing it further 'down'). We MAY NEVER do so, granted. But, let's not say that thereby we've got 'logic' justifying the belief that "Here there be MAGIC!" --- Hawking's got better arguments for his black-holes resulting in Alice's Wonderland...and they're not totally coherent (whadya expect from a looking-glass?)

~ You go on with "It is a similar height to that of Einstein accepting that time and space must be relative."

--- Interestingly, this is a contrary (ergo similar) situation. For Einstein's idea, the two are so conjoined that to speak of one, meaningfully, one HAS to refer to the other (else, ambiguity). Technically, 'they' aren't relative as such, so much as each is TO the other. Together, they're as 'absolute' as one could want...like position and momentum. (As I understand things, he was VERY sorry he ever used the term 'relative' or Relativity, but, such are the vagaries of history-and-names.)

~ You finish up with a statement that's a bit...startling...for one thinking you're O'ist-oriented: "They [physicists]...refused...to go beyond objective evidence. This has led them to conclude that causality is an illusion at the quantum level despite how this conflicts with their intuitions about the world. My argument would be that they are not being subjective enough." --- At this point, I'm totally confused as to where you're at. Is this a complaint (being 'subjective' is necessary in rationally analyzing a problem) or a praise (that causality IS an 'illusion')? If the former, you're arguing that science-'theorists' SHOULD be LESS 'objective'? I'd argue, like Victor, such 'theorists' already ARE too non-'objective.'

~ In your post #32, you extemporize, a bit, to VP about your doubts re considering yourself an O'ist: "It's more the psychology of Objectivism than the philosophy. At the root, I think there is a contradiction to having an autonomous perspective and adopting a philosophical system as one's own. Psychologically you listen to the voice of one or the other." --- As you put it, such a concern for you applies not ONLY to O'ism, but to pretty well any other belief-system created by someone else, no? Think about this for a moment. You'd rather 're-invent' the Wheel (autonomously, of course), rather than use it to Invent something it's useable for? That's what you sound like you're saying. (I'm glad that Al didn't look at Isaac's astrophysics-math that way...or Rand to Aristotle, for that matter.)

~ In your post # 48, you respond to Bob_Mac (my next post, heh, heh) with...oh, nm. I agree with practically EVERYTHING YOU SAID. So, why 'comment' here? Re his comment you were posting to (should'a saved it for his, but...) is why.

~ BOB_MAC said: "I know just enough about physics to be inclined to conclude that it its probably our reason that is lacking"...which you agreed with.

~ *I* say: not 'probably'; merely POSSIBLY. Ie: we might have enough information, with just a prob of sorting it out to find the right 'pattern'-answers. Then again, we might NOT. I think that 'probably', akin to Al's searching for The Unified Field Theory, the problem is as Mr. Spock would say: "Insufficient Data, Captain."

LLAP

J:D

P.S: I've not gone into particle-emission decay re radioactivity because my arguments against the epistemological justification of metaphysical 'randomness' apply there as well as to the 'Interpretation' of H's U-P: "We can't figure 'how' it happens, ERGO, there is no 'how'."

P.P.S: I've comments re B-M's and MSK's responses, but, I see them as worth separate threads (the nature of 'Identity' and the nature of 'axioms' [neither really related to each other in this thread...ironically!]) I'll find the appropriate thread or make one for such. Both subjects are worth discussing/discovering-about for those who like deep waters (and MSK sure does!)

P.P.P.S: Ok, both will be in this forum's OBJECTIVIST PHILOSOPHY: 2-Epistemology. --- As McGarrett would say, "Be There!"

Edited September 21, 2006 by John Dailey

[Paul Mawdsley]

John,

Thanks for keeping your flattery short. I blush easily.

I don't think you quite have me figured out yet. There is more to everyone than meets the eye.

A few of hints:

• I disagree with the Copenhagen interpretation but believe that its conclusions can be the height of objectivity given the context of a particular view of knowledge.
  
• Ayn Rand's tendency to devalue perspectives she disagreed with was a point of weakness in her character that was transferred to her moral system as she exemplified it, and was passed to many of her followers. I find I learn a lot from those with whom I disagree. This learning is lost when you class dissenters as unimportant as a means of averting one's awareness of what one does not wish to see.
  
• I am beginning to see Objectivism as an element of my own broader perspective rather than trying to fit myself and the world within the structures of Objectivism.
  
• Understanding other perspectives, even ones I consider evil, is of value.
  
• What rationally follows from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle depends on your view of the nature of knowledge. I consider Dragonfly and myself quite rational but we disagree on what follows rationally from quantum uncertainty. (Note: I do not devalue what he has to say even though I disagree on a fundamental philosophical level. I learn a lot from Dragonfly.)
  
• Take a look at the Epistemology forum under: Imagination and Causality in Quantum Physics. You'll find I'm a little off the wall, and maybe have a few loose screws, but I'm not in agreement many interpretations of the evidence provided by modern physics.
  
• In reference to, "My argument would be that they are not being subjective enough," I am referring specifically to the use of the imagination. Please understand I do think and use terminology outside of the O-ist box.
  
• Reinventing the wheel works for me. At least I know how to invent a wheel, pull it apart, and reinvent it. This doesn't mean I don't use other people's ideas to guide my inventions. It just means I'm not satisfied with just buying them and plugging them in. I'm pretty sure Al, as you call him, was pretty good at inventing the wheel. For that matter, so was Aristotle and Ayn Rand.
  

Paul

[John Dailey]

Paul:

~ Get back to ya on all that...when I'm done with Bob's "Identity", and, finish with BB's "Rage."

~ Suggestion: "Think Twice" about the worth of the idea to USE 'the Wheel', rather than indulging in a felt-'need' to re-invent/overhaul it; saves a lot of (life)time, I'd say.

LLAP

J:D

P.S: Will check out that particular thread (so many threads, so little...time)

Edited September 23, 2006 by John Dailey

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul:

~ Suggestion: "Think Twice" about the worth of the idea to USE 'the Wheel', rather than indulging in a felt-'need' to re-invent/overhaul it; saves a lot of (life)time, I'd say.

I have thought about it more than twice. Reinventing the wheel still works for me. There are many wheels that need some serious reinventing. Sometimes its not about the time you save but the quality of the time you spend.

Paul

[John Dailey]

Paul:

~ Hmmm...over-all, good point. Sometimes an 'overhaul' IS needed on something already there, generally speaking. No argument. But, a 're-INVENTING' of?

~ I just don't see the 'psychological' worth of it, once a 'wheel' has been perceived as being already invented, albeit by an other; 'improving' it (or discovering new uses for it), yes, but...ignoring it 'cause someone else found/made it 1st?

~ Ah, well, I'll not argue this; to each their own. Take care.

LLAP

J:D

P.S: (Waiting for Victor Pross to chime in.)

P.P.S: For those, including VP, interested in this whole QM stuff, without buying new books, check out (apart from Wiki)

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com

Stephen Speicher has some solidly thought-provoking Q&A's in his sub-threads, most of which are on science-theories and philosophy's relevence thereto. He even refers to Lewis Little.

Edited September 24, 2006 by John Dailey

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul:

~ Hmmm...over-all, good point. Sometimes an 'overhaul' IS needed on something already there, generally speaking. No argument. But, a 're-INVENTING' of?

~ I just don't see the 'psychological' worth of it, once a 'wheel' has been perceived as being already invented, albeit by an other; 'improving' it (or discovering new uses for it), yes, but...ignoring it 'cause someone else found/made it 1st?

I never said I ignore other people's "wheels." But if you don't break things down to fundamentals and reconstruct them, you don't know what kind of package deal you have just accepted. Also, it is only by breaking things down to their raw materials, or basic principles, that one can discover and correct the errors in another's view.

One more important point: When you adopt another's language for describing and evaluating the world, that language is embedded with the ripples of subtle meanings and attitudes of the originator and can be adopted subliminally as one's own without knowing it (eg: the creation of the randroid). If you deconstruct the language to reveal its foundations in your own language, then rebuild it in your own language, you can have a fresh start with your own authentic meanings and attitudes.

I think we have come full circle now to where I disagreed with Victor's original post. He was using AR's language with her tone, her meanings, and her attitudes-- at least as he interpreted them. (You say without earning her status but I don't think social status justifies the dismissal of opposing perspectives.) I think this is a very common phenomenon in the Objectivist world. It is accepting Ayn Rand's system as an operating system for ones own mind. A healthy dose of reinventing instead of adopting wouldn't hurt. Her system, or rather, her fundamental principles can still be used as a guide to building one's own system. It should just never be used instead of one's own.

A question to anyone who would like to respond: Is it consistent with the principles of Objectivism to accept another person's philosophical system, even Ayn Rand's, as the operating system of one's own mind. To put it another way, is it consistent with the principles of Objectivism to adopt someone else's perspective at the expense of developing one's own authentic perspective? I guess what I am asking is: should we all not approach our lives authentically evaluating, inventing, reevaluating, reinventing the systems of our own perspective? And shouldn't this be an explicit part of Objectivism?

Paul

Edited September 25, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley