bmacwilliam

I do not assume he is unintelligent, lazy, snarky or anything for that matter. I'm just illustrating another misuse of the identity concept- nothing more. I do not think you can "use" the concept of identity for anything. Bob

"Darrell is right in saying that logic is unassailable" Dragonfly, I don't understand what you mean here? Bob

I don't disagree with this above. Right, like: "Dragonfly, can't you see how you used the principle of identity to counter Bob's ideas about logic?" And about a million other examples. Not so sure about these ideas. Can't say I can confidently disagree though either. Bob

First of all, he didn't "counter" anything. Second, he didn't use the principle of identity for anything. He said: "That some of the results seem to be contradictory doesn't imply that they are contradictory, it just means that you should check your premises, as Rand would say." In essense, that's just a clearer way of illusrtating my point. Bell's thoerem seems logically airtight on it's surface, but reality rudely throws us an apparent contradiction. Therefore something is not right. The logical process and rules we used to arrive at the conclusion must be called into question. It is a perfectly valid question to ask if OUR logic is sufficient. But the question of whether logic itself is questionable is not what I was getting at. Bob

I can't agree with this. Fundamental research in physics for example can affect philosophy just as much as vice versa. After all, arguably it is physics research that is far more rooted in reality than Objectivism is. If Objectivism guided scientific thought, anti-Newtonians would have been hanged long ago. Bob

Can we kick this dead horse any harder? Identity is a totally empty and meaningless concept. "consistent with its nature" means nothing. This constrains the properties of something how? This guides our thinking how? It is equivalent to saying that "anything can be anything but it can't be what it's not". There is no context where the concept has any teeth. An empty tautology is worthless. In fact it's worse than worthless when it's used to defend a position (causality for one). In fact, this empty idea POLLUTES thinking. Bob

People attempt to make things more "profound" than they are in order to make them sound mysterious, that is mystical. There is nothing mystical about the laws of nature, even if they involve randomness. "Neither logic nor reality are on the table. " Oh yes they most definitely are. "If logic is on the table, then I can say anything I want and you cannot refute it. You cannot debate anyone. You cannot know anything at all. You cannot even know that you cannot know anything. You are verging on the embrace of a contradiction." Nope, you're way off base. It doesn't mean this at all. What it means it that our logic is perhaps incomplete. Why is it not possible to have a 3 valued logic? Not just T and F, but maybe another value like "I" - indeterminate - or others too? It most certainly does not mean that you "cannot know anything". It just means that what we think is logic, isn't REAL logic. "Reality simply is what it is and it could not be otherwise. It is not contingent on any observation." Like I said, you can argue against the Copenhagen Interpretation, but lots evidence seems to be against this position. As I understand it, the "concious" part of observation might not be required, but observation does seem to change reality as does the POSSIBILITY of observation in some cases it seems(gotta find that reference). The first sentence of the quote is meaningless, the second is wild, unfounded and according to current evidence, a dead wrong assertion. " Moreover, no contradictions can exist in reality" Well, that's the whole problem with the Bell's inequality violation isn't it? Something is wrong with one or MORE of... - Locality - Logic - Reality independent of observation Two men say they're Jesus, one of 'ems gotta be wrong - at least. Bob

If you're saying that reality dictates philosophy and not vice versa, I agree. Many folks will argue that you must have philosophy first in order to interpret anything. Perhaps, in a sense, but you also must be prepared to ditch the philosophy if it doesn't correspond to reality. Bob

"An electron must still behave in accordance with its nature." The problem I have is that I see the above as a meaningless assertion. I have never seen an Objectivist causality argument that was anything other than classical. And while there is perhaps plenty of arguments against the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, the classical notion of causality is that much more suspect - dead as a doornail would be more accurate. And I think the Bell's problem calls more than just locality into question. Logic itself is on the table now, along with whether or not reality has any meaning separate from observation. The latter is clearly an extreme Objectivism violation of the highest order. I've heard the quantum weirdness of the Bell's problem described more profoundly as if you're doing an experiment on classroom students height and weight, and the mere act of measuring some students height "causes" the weight of others to change. Bob

I'll venture out on a limb and say that I think that all three have been experimentally violated - in one case more than a hundred years ago. Bob

Let me see if I get this right (at least in non-math lingo)- another way of looking at weirdness... QM accurately predicts correlations (electron spins, and photon properties) that have been experimentally confirmed - lots of times. These observations violate Bells Theorem which then I believe means that AT LEAST one of the following must be false: 1.) Locality (supraluminal connections between widely separated particles is not possible) 2.) Logic works 3.) Reality exists independent of observation One or more of these must be wrong, not according to theory, but according to observation. And if I remember correctly, there's good arguments that they ALL might be wrong (or at least 2 out of three). QM theory violates this, but so does REALITY and hence the deep problem. FWIW, logically Bell's Theorem is not that tough to understand, and violations truly make one think "What the *&@#^! is happening????" Bob

"The image of an electron comes much closer in my mind." More later, but images of electrons cause me as much consternation as anything else. For example, an "orbiting" electron (the term orbit is not a good one because it doesn't really describe what's going on) has a probability distribution that is zero at the centre. In effect, the electron can travel from A to B without traversing a point in between. It doesn't go around it though, it travels through it, but without ever actually being there. So the questions that arise because of this are numerous. Wave properties help to some extent. I can picture an electron as a 3-D standing wave with a node at the nucleus, but that's not good enough. Other properties are not explainable like this. "If the double slit experiment were conducted by varying the temperature of the emitter, there should be a corresponding variation in the intensity of the fringes. Those fringes furthest away from the path predicted by classical physics should reduce in intensity as the temperature is reduced because the interference waves carry less energy, or pressure, to change the particle's trajectory." Not sure about this. Doesn't the energy of the waves determine the geometry of the interference pattern, not the intensity? What I mean is I don't think it matters how energetic the individual emissions are with respect to pattern intensity. Bob

I've only seen it explained "away" by Objectivists, using alternative theories (hidden variables usually) that makes absolutely no sense to me. This however doesn't mean that it doesn't actually make sense :-) Bob

Here you should also be careful with the interpretation of the EPR/Bell experiments, this is rather tricky stuff. But it is certain that it is not possible to use EPR correlations to transmit information faster than light, and the principle of special relativity is not violated. Man, I'm rusty on this stuff and I gotta reread my old texts some day but I agree. The fundamental issue is that indeed you cannot apply anything "classical" to the concept of "where" the electron is or how it possibly interferes with itself. If I remember correctly, a cause/effect relationship happens supraluminally (sp?) but information does not travel faster. However, I do think that there was a relativity violation here no? Damn, I gotta dust off those books! Bob

"I'm trying to figure out what water this holds if any. Any ideas?" To answer this question is pretty simple but the implications aren't. It holds water completely in the sense that experiments show results that have no common sense or conventional explanation. Basically if QM (Copenhagen) is correct, the cat is truly both alive and dead. Or at least, no knowledge of the system inside the box will ever be sufficient to predict the outcome - it is truly indeterminate. This is very different than us just not knowing because we haven't looked yet. The actual act of observation forces the cat into one state or the other. Certain things can be in two places at once. Observation, and the possibility of observation, affects reality. Even logic itself is affected. "it may be that it is not enough to say that a statement is either true or false, we may have to introduce a three-valued quantum logic which allows the additional status of 'undecided'. " Some "things" can travel faster than light. The idea of non-locality has been shown where particles "communicate" over large distances totally instantaneously. Anyway, physicists argue about all aspects of this stuff, and not much seems clear to me other than this: Causality is not what we think it is... Time is not what we think it is... Distance/motion is not what we think it is... and the list goes on... Mostly as I see it, contrary to O'ism. Edit: I have argued, and I still believe, that Quantum Mechanics is not compatible with Objectivism, and even with just an undergraduate education in QM I can confidently conclude that an Objectivist Physicist is a contradiction in terms, but I've been challenged on this. There are alternate interpretations, but none that really "hold water" in the sense that QM does. Personally,I believe Physics first when it contradicts philosophy. Bob

"The weird part of the experiment is that when you decrease the intensity of the beam so that only one photon or one electron at a time passes the slits, you still get an interference pattern." In other words, in a very real sense, the single electron must have been in two places at one time. In order to create an interference pattern, the electron must pass through both slits and interfere with itself. "Now it is true that an appropriate measurement will destroy a superposition (like the measurement in the double-slit experiment), but in many cases the superposition has already been destroyed by decoherence long before, one could say that the environment has made a measurement of the system." Also, I've heard it described as the POSSIBILITY of conscious observation changes the outcome and collapses the probability function, NOT the observation itself - wierd stuff. Edit: Actually I don't remember how or if the consciousness matters in all of this - I'll have to look that up, but what was very interesting was that the observational POSSIBILITY was important, not the observation itself. In other words "What quantum mechanics tell us is that nothing is real and that we cannot say anything about what things are doing when we are not looking at them. " So it seems the Copenhagen interpretation of QM is not compatible with Objectivism. Bob

He originally saw no parody. He says it was a joke. It wasn't. Rereading the original post it's perfectly clear he was dead serious. This kid's a giant red flashing beacon of danger. I think he needs an intervention, and sadly that's not a joke. Bob

Jeff: "Basing it off their premise it is believable enough," Hmm... Do you know the story of where the "book" came from? Besides, everything you need to know about this and other crackpot religions like scientology etc. is covered quite nicely in South Park episodes. Bob

Stephen, That's excellent! Thanks for the summary - very helpful indeed. Thank you so much for that. Now at this point, I have a few more disagreements with some of her ideas, but more importantly I'm stuck with the moral quandary of not wanting to associate with Rand's ideas because of my negative perception of her. I find her very difficult to read now. I'm quite interested to learn what ideas of hers you conclude are "original, true, important" and why. At this point, I suppose I could benefit intellectually from discussing some of my objections that you outlined, but on the other hand I'm not sure if I can temper some of my distaste. It also leads me to question whether or not it's reasonable for me, or fair to others here to continue discussions on a forum dedicated to Rand's ideas when I openly disagree with many of them, and have honest contempt for her, and by extension, others here when these same ideas are expressed. To it's almost like a schoolyard bully situation where Rand is an intellectual thug and bully. As in the literal bullying situation, I feel compelled to punch back. I'm just not sure if that's appropriate, and the right thing to do might just be to leave. Bob

Paul, I enjoyed reading your thoughtful and interesting responses. I will try to respond to some of this later today. Your thoughts gave me much to ponder and I thank you for that. Bob

Understood. I happen to think that one's fundamental moral code is more or less fixed, and at a much younger age. I don't think people here are idiots at all, but I do have a big problem with the attitude/mindset exemplified in this statement by Laure: -------------------- RAND("Nobody can be certain of anything" is a rationalization for a feeling of envy and hatred toward those who are certain.) Laure: The truth hurts, doesn't it, Bob? ----------------------- It is perfectly valid to question the concept of certainty in relation to human beings, but regardless of what one might conclude, it is illogical to assume a motivation of hatred and/or envy. So while I wouldn't call anyone an idiot for thinking this, I would conclude - for good reason - that this is not a mentally healthy individual, meaning the author or anyone that believes this. So the problem with me staying and discussing further is the impossibility for me to avoid character attacks. Jeff thinks I'm throwing the baby out with the bath water. I understand this position, but I feel that Rand's ideas, and her twisted justifications for them are NOT separable. So for me the "baby" is an 800lb gorilla that can hardly fit in the tub. Bob

Paul, I'm frustrated with myself for not digging deeper sooner when I suspected she was more and more off her rocker as I continued reading and re-reading some things. When I discovered the whole Hickman thing, it threw me over the edge. This is really bad stuff - indicative of her true nature in my opinion. This "fits" very well with my developing distaste for her and her ideas over the last while. When I read Prescott's account of this it made me sick. Some of Rands ideas I find I agree with, but that's simply not good enough. I do not believe that her ideas are original nor unique, so in a very real way the ideas that I do agree with are not hers at all. Her delivery of the ideas is unique, more or less, but in a bad way. I cannot separate her ideas from her delivery when so often they're connected to some kind of threat, intimidation or hatred. Mystics for example are motivated " by hatred for mans mind" and altruists by "hatred for man's life" and on and on. (An Untitled Letter 1973). So what happens is that instead of just arguing against a concept she disagrees with, she inserts a non-existent hatred motivation, which of course exists in HER and not the subject of her scorn. This is dangerous and toxic in my opinion, especially for young people. I guess I just see her now for what she is, and this is not someone worthy of praise at all, quite the contrary. Bob

I could back up each and every line item. Let's just do one - #8 - you said: "Her philosophy was opposed to envy, " #8 says - "OR believes others are envious of him or her " READ #8 AGAIN THEN READ BELOW Here's a quote from an essay (Philosophical Detection 1974) _____________ "Nobody can be certain of anything" is a rationalization for a feeling of envy and hatred toward those who are certain. ____________ This is a perfect example of #8. It couldn't be more clear. You're wrong. It's also a perfect example of how so many of her ideas were connected to hate. Not to mention she's completely wrong in that statement. That alone is enough to put her book down and stop. I could give numerous examples for ALL items. EVERY SINGLE ONE! Bob

Yes, I agree. But my point is that I think it's evidence that Objectivism attracts troubled souls. I honestly do not think an intellectually and emotionally healthy person can be an Objectivist. Bob, do you know of any belief system which has ever been formulated, no adherent of which has committed suicide? If the sheer fact that an adherent of a particular belief system commits suicide is to be taken as evidence that that system attracts troubled souls... I hope you see my point. The "evidence" you cite proves too much, since it would apply to every belief system (I'm aware of). Ellen ___ I see your point yes and you are correct. However, you use the word "proves". I didn't, nor did I imply it. I just said "evidence" and qualified it with an " I think". I was outlining a suspicion, nothing more. Bob

Hey, maybe you'll make it to the big leagues - best of luck. Yes, my post was largely ad hominem - on purpose. I have made my objections to the more technical aspects elsewhere. If you take the time to understand Philosophy in a more academic light, you'll see that you can drive trucks through the holes in Objectivism. It was not my purpose to point out specific errors. I can attack the beliefs AND those who believe them when Rand is defended. The corollary to most of Rand's grand pronouncements was that dissenters were evil/stupid and other various insults. If you believe these "ideas", then yes you will be judged as well. I think the evidence is clear that she was a deeply disturbed individual. Her ideas were often connected, inextricably sometimes, to hate-filled judgements. Gotta run for now. Bob