Robert_Bumbalough

Yes I can explain. Objects exist as a result of the interaction between our nervous system and the stimuli acting upon it. The nervous system integrates or abstracts from the the stimuli to produce what we refer to as objects. Thank you Mr. general semanticist for that concise summary. Strongly suspecting you've answered the following question before, I wish to assure you, I'm not trying to be disrespectful despite the possible appearance as such due to simplistic issues involved. First a definition: I'm using the concept of all that is as existence. This is the broadest of concepts encompassing all that is or occurs including all mass, matter, energy, actions, fields, potentials, space, and duration. My question is what is the origin of existence, if "Objects exist as a result of the interaction between our nervous system and the stimuli acting upon it." then wouldn't it be the case that there would have been no existence prior to the evolution of our species or some species of organic beings with a central nervous system and a brain that was capable of awareness of existence? Was there no existence prior to evolution of life capable of conscious awareness? Thank you for taking time to read my scribblings. Best Regards and Wishes

What is unfortunate about that? If we could measure down to Planck Length we would probably find that electrons are not really point charges, but highly localized fields. Wave-Particle duality is a function of the crudeness of our measurements and the limitations of our mathematical ability. Ba'al Chatzaf Greetings Friends: In 1997 Travis Norsen penned Berkeley and Quantum Mechanics (Copyright © 1997) His very informative essay addresses the distortion posted by Mr general semanticist. Norsen points out how Physics by QM has adopted idealism as its control belief. The fact is that measurements have a physical casual effect on tiny particles. Norsen wrote (and I'm only quoting a brief fair use passage) that: Mr general semanticist is also ignoring that which I posted in post #18 last night. I bears repeating. To Summarize: Measurement effects account for some or all uncertainty. de Broglie-Bohm (dBB) theory explains quantum phenomena without resort to indeterminism Consequently there is no justification for adopting idealism as Norsen explained. Cheers and Best Regards

Same to you, however, if you wish to be cordial and friendly you shouldn't say things like 'you and your fellow mystics are making it out to be." Good morning Sir. I apologize for offending you. My fault is in assuming your position to be one of mysticism. Mysticism is defined at Dictionary.com as A1. the beliefs, ideas, or mode of thought of mystics. A2. a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with God through contemplation or ecstasy. A3. obscure thought or speculation. and B1. 1. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God. 2. The experience of such communion as described by mystics. B2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience. B3. Vague, groundless speculation. and C1. Obscurity of doctrine. C2. (Eccl. Hist.) The doctrine of the Mystics, who professed a pure, sublime, and wholly disinterested devotion, and maintained that they had direct intercourse with the divine Spirit, and aquired a knowledge of God and of spiritual things unattainable by the natural intellect, and such as can not be analyzed or explained. C3. (Philos.) The doctrine that the ultimate elements or principles of knowledge or belief are gained by an act or process akin to feeling or faith. Of these definitions, it seems to me, that B2 and C3 would be applicable to your position on the Law of Identity as you accept the Copenhagen interpretation of QM with its explicit assertion of indeterminacy and non-locality. That this is so would follow from consideration of the problem of Universals. If A=A does not hold at the Planck scale, then how is it that it does at larger scales? If a thing is not what it is as you assert by the river metaphor, then where does the form we define as the thing's identity come from? It cannot be part of the thing itself if at the most basal scale a thing is an undifferentiated chaos. Thus Objectivism's solution to Universals would fail as would immanent realism for similar reasons. This leaves only transcendent Platonic realism as the means whereby a subjective consciousness could recognize a thing for what we imagine it is. Therefore B2 and C3 would apply to the position you appear to be expressing. If this is wrong, could you clarify in more precise language what you believe to be responsible for the forms of things we behold in our smudging manner and somehow appear to identify? Thank you for taking time to read my scribblings. Have a fine day. Best; RB

It may be true that the atoms in my body all have multiple states, but the process and compilation of these multiple states is part of the conceptual definition of me. The same is true of a blue toy. Despite all these processes and inability to specifically define the smallest quantities of matter within the blue object, I can define the overarching object under which all these fluctuations exist, and so my definition necessarily incorporates multi-value components. Therefore, A=A when A is a specific fluctuating process of multiple states a1, a2, a3. After all, I can name a star, and a star is also a process of atomic transformations, all of which are guided by probabilities way beyond my grasp. Christopher Thank you Christopher for you salient insight. You point makes good sense.

Mr. general sensticist, Sir, I'm very uncomfortable with the position you specified. If what we take for reality is not identifiable at the most basal foundational rung on the ladder of complexity, then we cannot be sure of anything. I often argue against religious people that if their god is real then existence is not. I think the Copenhagen interpretation of QM would be an analogous case. A trilemma then presents to humanity three unsavory choices. If what we take for existence is at its most simple level not subject to logic, then what we take for reality cannot be resultant from immanent realism as you imply. Nominalism is demonstratively false leaving Platonic transcendental realism as the remaining horn. Impaled as we would then become, we would find ourselves in an intolerable situation. Only here there would be no option to escape by renouncing religion. All of life would be a farce imposed upon our consciousness by what? We could never hope to understand. Our fate would be that of humanity as depicted by Ayn Rand in her novella "Anthem." My brief candle burns low, and I must find my pillow. Good night and good luck.

Thank you for your educational and interesting reply.

Thank you Selene; you are a wise man.

You never step in the same river twice. The name of the river remains the same but the river is constantly changing. This does not mean we can't know anything about it nor any less real. Hello Sir and good evening. I hope you are yours are well. It is my intention to always remain on friendly and cordial relational grounds with those I interact with on message boards. Thank you for the river metaphor. I've always enjoyed those times I had to spend near moving waters. The sound of a babbling brook is soothing. Nevertheless and in spite of the failure of the Theory of Elemental Waves, the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics is being challenged. Although, I suspect you and the regular denizens already are aware of Eric Denis' article at Quantum Mechanics and Dissidents on the Objective Science site. Denis explained with the following. Denis goes on to convey in footnote 11 that: Denis describes how de Broglie-Bohm (dBB) theory explains quantum phenomena without resort to indeterminism. Thus dBB entails that the effort to replace Axioms with mysticism, reason with appearances, morality with altruism, and capitalism with collectivism is unjustified. The following newer work supports Denis' assertions. Time in relativistic and nonrelativistic quantum mechanics by H. Nikolic Nikolic's abstract reads as: I do not pretend to understand what this means save for the last two sentences. Despite my deep and profound ignorance, it seems clear that Copenhagen is not the slam dunk you and your fellow mystics are making it out to be. Best Wishes and Regards for Continued Success

If A is a process, which it appears everything is on sub-atomic levels, then saying A=A makes no sense. By the time you finished saying "A=A" it will have changed. I know this is not what you wanted to hear Thank you for your input Mr. general semanticist. Please don't be offended, but my question was about Identity vs Relativity and not Identity vs Quantum physics. Since I'm still learning about Objectivism, my questions are intended to assist me in elucidating my understanding. However and in a general way, it seems to me that if those who defend the unknowable or the unreasonable or the incomprehensible by constructing a bulwark of Quantum indeterminacy do so at risk of making their stand in the fortress of solipsism and skepticism. If A=A fails, then nothing is knowable and there is no fixed reality. In such a case there would be no possibility of reason, and our whatever we take for existence would not be real. Red Dave and his buddies on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board castigated the few defenders of Objectivity and a knowable reality in part by accusations of question begging in reply to the first Objectivist Axiom. They said that "Existence Exists." was a tautology. Both of those assertions are stolen concept fallacies because they presume to argue against the proposition while having to suppose the Axioms are true. When G.E. Moore held up his hands and recognized them as his hands that was question begging so his critics said. But that was itself a question begging stolen concept. To engage in any activity is to be conscious of something. Isn't the fact that a thing is recognizable evidence that there is indeed Existence, Consciousness and Identity? When people like Red Dave assert proposition P are they not simultaneously also asserting that not-P is not the case? If they are, then isn't that proof reality is real? If they are not, then is reality not real? What then am I and what is this stuff I think I perceive? If your correct, how can you be correct? If there is no Identity, then there is no existence, for to exist is to exist as something specific. As a modus tollens it would go as: If Existence, then Identity. Not Identity Therefore Not Existence Oh yeah, I forgot, without A=A there is no logic, so there would be no modals. Thank you for the time you fantasized that you spent in replying to my question. Nevertheless, I'm still questioning about relativity. It also occurs to me that if you and folks like Red Dave are right, then why should a person not act out their fantasy of being Conan or Attila or Black Beard?

I think this may be close to a stolen concept fallacy because by ruling out the string the alleged physicist is endorsing the known impossibility of a brick flying. This then is an explicit denial of one possible thing (string) for the purpose of establishing something impossible (flying brick).

Greetings Friends Over at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board on Link to Thread a commenter, Red Dave, claims that Relativity Theory disproves the law of identity, A=A. Length Contraction Time Dilation Mass Energy Equivalence Does Red Daves complaint from 2004 have merit? Does Special Relativity imply the Law of Identity only holds in special cases? Many thanks in advance for your input on this issue.

Look here. It's a 34 page thread. Happy reading! Thank you very much for helping me. Best and Good Robert Bumbalough

Greetings from Robert Bumbalough in Mesquite Texas. Please forgive me for starting a new topic. I could not find a current thread specifically about this issue. Moderator, if desired, please relocate this thread to a better place. Thanks. It is my hope all are prospering and in good health. The expertise in Objectivist philosophy on this board prompts me to ask you the following question. On pages 98-101 of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Expanded 2nd Edition, Meridian Penguin Books, April 1990, Leonard Peikoff demonstrate how the Objectivist theory of concepts defangs and neuters the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy. By a fine example of reasoning Peikoff notes the following: I)Metaphysically, and entity is: all of the things which it is. Each of its characteristics has the same metaphysical status: each constitutes a part of the entity's identity. II)Epistemologically, all the characteristics of the entities subsumed under a concept are discovered by the same basic method: by observation of these entities. III)... a concept subsumes and includes all the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known. IV)....a concept is an open-end classification which includes the yet-to-be discovered characteristics of a given group of existents. All of man's knowledge rest on that fact. V)Whatever is true of the entity, is meant by the concept. VI)It follows that there are no grounds on which to distinguish “analytic” from “synthetic” propositions. Whether on state that “A man is a rational animal” or that “A man has only two eyes” - in both cases, the predicated characteristics are true of man and are, therefore, included in the concept “man”. The meaning of the first statement is: “A certain type of entity , including all its characteristics (among which are rationality and animality) is: a rational animal.” The meaning of the second is: “A certain type of entity, including all of its characteristics (among which is the possession of only two eyes) has: only two eyes.” Each of these statements is an instance of the Law of Identity; each is a “tautology”: to deny eityer is to contradict the meaning of the concept “man,” and thus to endorse a self-contradiction. My question is what are the counter arguments used by those opposed to Ojectivism to assert the ASD? and how are those counters disposed? Robert Bumbalough