heusdens

As to environment movement and developing third world countries: I think the fact is that with current usage of gas and oil, since the 1st world countries take a major portion of it, there is simply not enough left for third world countries to develop themselves. That is the real problem, and has nothing to do with wether human induced global warming/climate change happens or not. That increasingly injust distribution of the world's resources is not the fault of the "environementalist" but is the fault of capitalism itself, the neo-colonialist and capitalist world structure, that disables poor countries to develop themselves. Third world countries have a hard time developing themselves, not by lack of natural resources (most developing countries are rich in natural resources) but because the profits of exploiting those natural resources are not reinvested in those countries, but end up in western capitalist countries. Venezuela (and Bolivia) currently is an exception to this, because the oil and gas profits now also go to the ordinary people, and helps develop them (education, healthcare, etc.), not just the elites. Latin america is currently recovering from years of capitalist policy which was detremental. Chavez is increasingly popular and successfull in his policy for developing 21-st century socialism. It sets an example how a poor and underdeveloped country can develop itself, using it's own resources for the benefit of the poor masses, helps them to get education and healthcare, etc. The former example of how a poor nation could develop itself quickly was the former Soviet union, which was a rather poor and unindustrialized country before the revolution of 1917, and developed quickly afterwards, and was a leading nation in the field of science (first unmanned/manned space travel!) and education. The Soviet Union did not collapse just because of internal economic and political problems, but to a large extend the Reagan doctrine and policy to combat the former Soviet Union lead to the downfall and desintegration of the Soviet Union, since this Reagan policy acted on three terrains: - Reducing the oil price based on deals with the Saudi's to pump up more oil, causing Soviet export of oil income to fall down dramatically - Tricking the Soviet Union into a war in Afghanistan by the support of Islamic Jihad/ fundamentalism in Afghanistan (the later Al Queda network) - Starting a new arms race in outer space: the SDI ("starwars") arms program. These three factors induceed the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 80-ies, and caused Michael Gorbatsjov to sign unilateral treaties to reduce arms and give up the control of the eastern part of europe. I don't say that also internal factors played a role (bureaucracy and corruption and inefficient methods of production) but they were not the only factor, and without the Reagan policy, maybe the events at the end of the 80-ies (the downfall of socialist countries and the tearing down of the Berlin wall) maybe would not have happened.

So, it's all a complot? I don't know, but CO2 has something to do with climate and temperature. That is not disputed by scientists. Look at Venus. It's temperatur at surface is higher then Mercury, although Mercury is closer to the sun. Why? Green house gasses (CO2) on Venus add to a higher temperature on Venus. Climate changes always, that is very much true. In fact we are approaching an Ice age. The weather system and climate are very complex systems. Anyway, this is an interesting video, with some interesting points about what causes warming. We do not even know if climate change and global warming (which is a fact) is going to be destructive or beneficial. If arctic and cold regions warm up, this could be beneficial. Large parts of Siberia could become inhabitable. Personally I think that climate change is not the most important problem (that is to say, even to the extend that it is imporant and human actions have a real influance on it, I realy doubt we could avoid these problems), but the problem is how to replace fossil fuels. At least we know is that fossil fuels are going to be depleted in the long run. Which might not be too long from now (even if there is still plenty of coal, but as gas and oil run down, usage of coal goes up, and so this great abundance of coal might decrease much more rapidly as currently is foreseen). I think that (when nothing is done and we simply increase energy usage per capita with an increasing population) this will cause much more problems then the consequences of climate change. The problems are economical, since prices will go up if oil and gas are going to be scarcer. So we should solve that problem: how to replace fossil fuels. And I think that task is for the already industrialized nations to solve since we can develop the tecnique to solve that problem, leaving more oil, gas and coal reserves for developing nations. Coal we have still plenty, but if we replace gas and oil with coal, and increase energy usage, also coal is not plentifull. I am some confident that new technologies will be available in time to solve the energy problem. Like for instance a new solar technology based on plastics, that can be produced very cheaply. (see www.nanosolar.com) Within some 5-10 years this can become available and can provide cheap electricity for households, etc. The technique promises that it pays itself back within a month, and has virtually inlimited usage possibilities (every surface that gets solar radiation can be used). The real problem is that we need to transform the economy to using durable and renewable resources, and this transition has to take place within a couple of decennia (on this short scale of time almost all oil and gas resources will run down). Even if human induced climate change is a lie, it does not change anything to this real problem, and reducing CO2 levels (based on gas, oil, coal) is beneficial in the light of the necessary energy transition.

Thanks for your elaboration. They are quite clear and I agree. When poor people in third world countries are being told to safe wildlife and forests to "save" the environment, this is obviously something absurd. We should value people's life higher as the environment. Protecting the environment is a luxoury the poor can't afford. So, I do agree on that. Beating poverty is actually beneficial for the environment. Poor people also have substantial bigger families and raise many children as a primitive pension plan. To solve environemental problems, the solution is not to go back to the "stone age" but to use better technology to improve recycling, increase energy efficiency and to use durable energy resources. I am convinced every such problems can be solved by technological advances, wether that be nuclear fusion, solar or other energy resources.

I think there is a small misunderstanding here. The mind and consciousness also exist and they are part of existence. They may not be material in themselves, but they reside in material supports or are products of material. I would rephrase the expanded version to say, "the material world, independent and outside of the mind or consciousness, and the mind or consciousness, all exist." I would also make it clear that the material world can exist without consciousness, but consciousness cannot exist without the material world. Michael Michael, Yes, well, obviously there is also consciousness, but consciousness is there only in the epistemelogical sense. I don't think that in the meta-physical sense one can state that there is matter and there is consciousness, or can one? In the meta-physical sense, there is just matter. In the epistemelogical sense, also consciousness exists, but the material is primary over consciousness. (In the same fashion, when we state there are atoms and molecules made from atoms, we don't need to add that Hydrogen exist) In fact that is the point on which Objectivism to me is unclear (or my understanding of it), since if one states that existence consists of both the material and consciousness, what does it mean to say then that "existence is primary over conscioussness"? This would only be meaningfull when existence means only the material. Consciousness can't exist apart or outside or independent from the material world, that is quite clear.

The phrase, "existence exists," is shorthand for the statement that, "the material world, independent and outside of the mind or consciousness, exists." Darrell Ok. No problem with that It would have been much clearer if Objectivism would have stated it in such a manner. But then Objectivism would only restate what already was stated by Materialism, it would be an (almost) identical philosophical position. Maybe Objectivism is Materialism in disguise?

I would think that even Berkeley would agree on "existence exists", just that in the view of Berkeley that refers only to the mental states (mind), not the material world as such. The philosphical issue is not wether there is existence, but what existence is in the meta-physical sense: the material world (independent and outside of the mind) or consciousness.

I agree on this point. In the metaphysical sense there is just one substance. Ok. Here - on the point of matter as the basic ingredient of existence - I would disagree. Science has not eliminated matter, but merely has extended it's model about what matter is. The 'old' perception of matter as point like particles has been replaced by more sophisticated models of matter which better reflect their properties (fields, waves, quantum mechanics, etc.). Still, in any case we speak about matter as something that is in motion and exists in space and time (space and time are merely the modes of existence of matter). This is still valid for for example quantum field theory. We did not get rid of matter, on the contrary! Note however that for physics the term 'matter' stands for matter in baryonic form, while the philosophical meaning of the term 'matter' includes all physical forms (baryonic, radiation, quantum mechanical stuff, fields , etc.). For physics it is quite correct to say that matter (mass) can be converted into enery and vice versa, but then in the philosphical meaning of the term matter, this just means a transformation, not destruction or creation of matter. The point of no metaphysical dualities (since there is basically just one substance) is correct. But about change, we merely ought to conclude that change is everywhere and anytime. It only looks like somethings do not change, because it does not happen in our perception of it. Still, there is change on every scale. So things do have an 'Identity' but that is only a partial aspect of it, since also 'Identity' is subject to change. If we would say that the identity of a fish for example, does not change (a fish is only a fish and only begets a fish) this would contradict evolution, since a fish changes over long geological time scales into other organisms. And not just due to the identity of the fish, but due to the interaction with the environment. As evolution sees it, change in environment drives the change of species. So in the light of modern science, we can not give credit to some 'fixed' identity. Note however that this does not claim that 'identity' is something without meaning, since still at any given point in time, things have some identity. The only point is that such an identity itself is also subject to change. Yes, these are some important points in which I think Objectivism clings onto ideas (like the fixed nature of identity) which can not be held valid in the light of modern science. In this respect the ideas of Objectivism look pretty ancient (more or less a Newtonian outlook on reality). I do not yet understand how this can be fixed.

You are right about that, in some parts of chemistry one can use quantum mechanics to predict outcomes, but I merely added to that that chemistry is still a usefull abstraction and we can not merely get rid of it and use quantum mechanics instead. In theory all chemical reactions can be explained at the basis of quantum mechanics. In practice that is far too complicated in the general case.

I'm not sure I understand what you think the problem is here, although it appears to be tied to point number 4 about consciousness. The main problem here appears to be the statement that, "consciousness is an irreducable primary." I would like to know who said that and in what context. Did Rand herself say that, or is that Piekoff's interpretation of Rand? The statement in question could be considered an error, depending upon how it is taken. However, it is possible to give a positive interpretation of the statement. In my view, the relationship of consciousness (or the mind) to the brain is similar to the relationship of software to a computer. Software has no existence outside of a computer or storage device. It is not a material object. It has no length, width, or height, nor any weight or charge or any other physical property. Yet it exists. Moreover, a piece of software cannot be explained by reference to a computer. The same computer can be programmed to track financial transactions, fly an airplane, or drive a vehicle across country. The only difference between the computers is the software that resides on them. A computer program specifies the state of some region of computer memory, the program memory. Other state information is used to track the progression of the program or to hold the data upon which the program operates. As such, it is a description of the state of a machine. Similarly, the contents of your mind, in some sense specifies the state of your brain. And, just as a piece of software, written in a modern programming language, is a high level description of a program, so, the state of your mind is a high level description of the state of your brain. Therefore, the mapping from your mental states to your physiological states is not obvious. In fact, there may be more than one possible mapping. Therefore, I don't think it is entirely incorrect to state that consciousness is irreducible. The state of your mind doesn't correspond to any obvious physiological state. It is an epiphenomenal description of the state of your brain. Therefore, it makes little sense to try to reduce it to some sort of low level description of brain function. However, I do not like the term, "irreducible primary," as it seems to imply that the mind has some sort of non-physical existence, though it is obvious that the existence of the mind is equivalent to the existence of the brain. If the brain ceases to exist, so does the mind (which is just a high level description of the state and behavior of the brain). Perhaps that is a point on which to criticize certain Objectivists, perhaps Rand herself, though I am not aware of her saying that. I certainly do not believe that she thought that the mind exists independent of the brain. She certainly repudiated the notion of any sort of mind-body dichotomy on numerous occasions. Darrell Thanks for the comments. I should perhaps have not made the statements without backing them up with citations of who and in what context said that where and when, since now we are mere guessing of who to attribute them too. I know I have read them (and I guess they can be attributed to Peikoff). I will do my best in providing an accurate quotation first, so that we can more properly discuss it. Just one remark, I think that such issues could be avoided by explaining what we mean. I hold on to the idea for instance that everything there is, can be explained at the basis of material reality. But such does not mean that for instance social structures (for example take an education institute) can be reduced to the atoms of school buildings, tables, pencils, books and persons. On the other hand, it is clear a school system neither goes without that low level part of physical reality. Such a reduction is obviously an absurd one. We need for different material realities different and suitable levels of abstractions to describe them. Even in the case of chemistry, while it can in principle be satisfactory reduced to quantum physics, no chemist will do that in practice, since it is a too low level of an abstraction. In the same way we reflect on communication in computer networks on different layers of abstraction. For instance using the OSI model, which distinguishes the different levels of communication: application , representation , session, transport, network , data link , physical In the ultimate sense all communication that goes on is physical, and for sure no communication could go on without the physical. Yet we do not reduce anything that goes on inside computer networks in terms of physical interactions, since that would be an inadequate abstraction. In a similar way I think consciousness can be explained, as various levels of abstraction. It has thefefore meaning to talk about some phenomena at some level of abstraction, without being bothered too much about what goes on on deeper levels of abstraction. Like they have independent existence and/or stand on their own without even needing the underlying layers, although they do not realy and must be based ultimately on physical reality.

At this point I don't know whether you really have questions or whether you are actually on a crusade to try to discredit Objectivism, but I will take you at your word and attempt to answer your questions one at a time. The short answer is nothing. But the form of your question is something like: everyone knows that man is an animal and that he has a rational faculty; what does it add to that to say that man is a rational animal? That is, you've started out by stating the meaning of the words, "existence exists," and then you ask what the statement, "existence exists," adds to that. Of course the answer to that question is nothing, but the question is poorly stated. The real question is whether, "existence exists," is tautological and therefore devoid of meaning. But some philosophers like George Berkeley and other solipsists have argued that: existence is merely an illusion. If that phrase has any meaning, then so does the statement that existence exists as it is the opposite of the foregoing. That is, Objectivism rejects the notion that existence is an illusion. If that assertion seems trivial to you, fine. But that is an issue in philosophy. Darrell Thanks Darrell I should have raised the question perhaps more precisely. Objectivism states two things: existence exists and existence is primary. But somewhere (I don't remember where exactly) it is stated that existence consists of both physical/material reality and the mind. If this is somehow not in accordance with Objectivism, then perhaps that is the source of the confusion. The primacy of existence is somewhat confusing because existence is already partly overlapping with consciousness, and in that sence the primacy of existence is less meaning full then stating that the material (that what exists outside, apart and independent of the mind) has primacy (like Materialism does) or stating that consciousness has primacy (like Idealism does). Objectivism (a more recent Philosophy) somehow does not fit in between these two, since Objectivism has a dualistic approach to this. In one way Objectivism sees existence as primary, but then, on the other hand Objectivism states that Consciousness is an irreducable primary too. Objectivism has in common with Idealism that it sees consciousness as irreducable primary. While Objectivism also states that existence is primary over consciousness, and at the same time reflects on existence as consisting of both the material (objective reality) and consciousness (the mind) itself, we can ask: what component of existence then has primacy? Is it matter that has primacy over consciousness, or consciousness that has primacy over the material? If matter is primary, then consciousness can not be a at the same time a primary too. If stated that consciousness is primary, then the next question is: why is there consciousness? In what did it originate? Was it (like matter) always in existence? Where was consciousness then, before living organisms started populating earth? Some 'world spirit' perhaps? The mind of God? This is of course not the position one should attribute to Objectivism, because explicitly all reference to the supernatural are rejected. But then Objectivism would need to conclude that consciousness is not realy a primary, but is in fact conditioned by and dependent on material entities and must have had it's origin in the material, that is the only way it can make sense. At the same time it is clear that an approach which denies the various aspects of the material organisation forms that give rise to the phenomena of consciousness, is not a clever approach. Consciousness and how it relates to the material urges for many levels or layers of abstractions, and these layers of abstraction have seperate meaning (although they do depent on and originate from deeper levels of material reality).

Here is another article on inflation cosmology Growth of inflation

"What environment?" What about the air one breathes and the soil on which your food grows, and the water you drink. If that gets polluted, you get polluted too. If you get sick and can't work anymore, you loose any possibility to subsist yourself. "Pollution is a secondary issue" You might think so, but in many practical circumstances and considerations, such is rather unthoughtfull, since it means practically destroying one's own means of subsistence and one's own health. The practical vision that one needs to adapt to is create one's existence and economic means of sustaining oneself without destroying those same means of subsistence itself. All kind of economic development, when put forward as a strategic target, which aim at manufacturing more durable goods (and only those which are realy needed), recycling waste materials and energy, and utilize durable forms of energy and utilization of other materials and resources are in that perspective the only lasting way of keeping the economy from destroying it's own lasting resources. Such forms of economic development have a better future as short time economic management (short scale profits at the costs of large scale pollution and destruction of economic resources, both human and natural). We live in a world which is in all respect limited (setting up colonies in space, as some think is a way out, is just a fairy tale) in natural resources, while the economy (esp. that of countries like China and India) and population still grows (world population doubles every 25 years!). So what alternative is there in the long run? It's a sensible midway between either having the economy ruining or wasting the economic resources in the long run, or decline human (technological and scientific) development and live human life of the past ( 'back to nature'). Neither is an alternative since the first will destroy human development in the long future, and the second is impossible either, since we can not go back in time, the only way is forward, using rational ways (through scientific and technological development) of producing in a less poluting and less wastefull way. Scientific and technological advancements in the field of production technologies, waste management and durable forms of energy enable a quite reasonable amount of economic prosperity for everybody and at the same time could reduce pollution and other environemental risks. It's the only rational solution I think.

Hi Paul, and hello to you too I am rather new to this forum, and Objectivism as well (must still read some books about it, although I have read a lot of available material about it online --it's basic premisis and political ideas/worldview, and more philosophically how it differs from either Idealism and Materialism and what it's position is towards Dialectics). You (or someone else) might want to educate me on some of the basic premises of Objectivism (as I still have some questions on the basic premises, which I posted as a seperate post). I hope some time later we can have some good discussion about such issues, and in the mean time, I will try to understand some more about Objectivism. Rob

What Stephen Hawking in fact describes in "A Brief History of Time" is that one should reflect on this 'singularity' as just a point on a sphere, like any other. It is like the Northpole, when standing there, the only direction is south (the direction that represents time). Some see in this an argument for saying that time is finite and started at the singularity. A number of physicsist - amongst others also Sir Roger Penrose - adapted at some time this point of view and popularized it (but Penronse now abandoned that vision, and most cosmologists now agree on inflation as the standard explenation of the Big Bang, although the scientific and cosmological debate still continues). But watch very closely at what Stephen Hawing in fact say, because most people only read one part of it, and forget about the other part. Stephen Hawking talks in "A Brief History of Time" not about just one axis of time, but two axis of time: one real and one imaginary (the terms real and imaginary relate to their meaning in mathematics, and relate to complex numbers which have two terms, a real part and an imaginary part. The imaginary unit is the square root of minus one). He mentions therefore that while the universe looks in one axis of time (the real axis) finite in extend, in the other axis (the imaginary) time is however not finite but eternal. Stephen Hawing adds to that that the imaginary time axis is "more real" as the real time axis. So in fact he does not argue that time is just finite, that is a one-sided approach. [ Side note: complex numbers are just a mathematical tool for doing calculations in physical theories, it is used widespread in physical theories, like electronics and quantum mechanics. One should abstrain from the meaning of the words 'real' and 'imaginary' in their ordinary (daily language) use, as something unphysical or unreal or something. ] I added this just to explain that how the general public understands something, and what it in fact means physically, are often two seperate things. This explains to a large extend how all kinds of misrepresentation of scientific theories enter the world, and kind of have a life of their own, while they don't relate to what the scientific understanding says. In fact if one realy wants to know what these theories say and not say, one has to understand the underlying mathematical theory and the strange notions it incorporates for instance about the topology. [ Side note: topology is the study of abstract spaces with quite different properties as our ordinary concept of euclidean space. Topological spaces may incorporate quite contradictionary ideas, like a space with a finite boundary or surface, but an infinite interior. ] In general those formulations are so abstract and require such an enormous mathematical and topological understanding, that it is near to impossible to explain it in ordinary language. But in between the lines, physicists make it clear also for the layman what he means. Stephen Hawking for instance in "A Brief History of Time" makes clear that "physicists do not know how to make physical law from 'nothing'". That means in other words that a physicist, when explaining something physically, always proceeds from a known physical state in which there can be a description of space, time and matter/energy, and in no way can a physicist explain something without that. No advancement in physics ever can change that position. In fact that is the most sound argument ever to tell anyone that a metaphysical position that would resemble something as "everything coming from nothing" can not ever be based on physical theory. And that is the precise reason such metaphysics should be put in the garbage can. Since in the metaphysical sense we can make sense of the universe, and can readily reject the notion of creation ex nihilo, in fact (unless one wants to become a cosmologist) that is what one needs to take in mind, and forget about all these speculate notions (which the not-scientific educated have a hard time to understand what it realy means anyway) which dwell around in cosmological theories. A proper (metaphysical) understanding of the universe is that it has no boundary or edges, so for that reason, it can't have a point of begin or a bounding edge in any other sense. In the layman notions that just says the universe is infinite and eternal, although it is not eternal/infinite in the trivial sense (the euclidean absolute flat spacetime) since that - combined with the cosmological principle, luminous matter distributed homogeneously through the universe - would invoke Olbers' paradox. The best way to think about it is that the universe is an eternal process unfolding in space and time, not limited by anything, and in that sense is eternal and infinite. Your argument that metaphysics is not important, the only things important are facts, I do not agree on. Facts in themselves are quite useless without a proper understanding of reality, and to make sense of reality one already must have some metaphysical understanding about reality. Facts only mean something in the context of a proper theory about reality and having a metaphysical understanding of reality. In fact out brain does that (mostly un- or subconsciously) all the time, since without that, how to make sense of all the sensory perceptions? They would just be meaningless facts if they had no interpretation on what happens in the outside world. For example, look at these graphics. The brain interprets this as motion, but in fact there is no motion at all! Although it is certainly true that our interpretations can be wrong some times, this does not mean that our basic assumptions about reality are wrong or untrue.

It's far too early to say what theory about the origin of the Big Bang is wrong or not, in that regard all theories are still highly speculative. And if physics can't tell us, metaphysics certainly can't tell us anything about it. For example, where does metaphysics get the notion that matter (in motion?) is indestructable? It can only come from empirical evidence, which is the domain of physics. And in fact matter is not indestructable, as we learned a century ago. It's true that mass-energy is still conserved, but the ancient notion that mass is indestructible is just wrong. Further the total energy of the universe may be equal to zero, so conservation of energy isn't necessarily in contradiction with creation ex nihilo. Anyway, below the Planck limit, and that's where the Big Bang starts, all bets are off as the usual laws of physics no longer apply. Perhaps the notion that matter is indestructable/uncreatable is a misunderstanding, since the philosophical meaning of the word 'matter' is slightly different then that in physics. If you refer to the physical meaning of matter, you are clearly right. The early stage of the Big Bang or inflation comes with the concept that 'matter' in the ordinary sense of the word (in the form of subatomic particles and stuff) did not yet exist. Whatever was there at these hight energies was even indistinguisable from vacuum. There were no particles or whatever. In inflation theory, all particles of the current universe emerged after reaching the minimum of the potential and the release of the energy of the potential field. Matter in the philosophical sense is not something specific (it is a catagory of thought, of all there is in objective material reality outside, apart of and independent of the mind). What matter is is up to the material sciences to define. Anything the physicsts builds their model on of what physical reality consists of, is matter in the philosophical sense. The conservation of matter/energy is not something that has get rid of, only that the physical theory about what constitutes matter/energy has changed. Quantum mechanics nor general relativity nor inflation cosmology nor (I suppose) M theory/superstring theory gets rid of those conservation principles, only the way it is defined might depend on the underlying theory. In respect to the universe, the idea that the total matter/energy contents might be zero. In fact one could - for good reasons - have the point of view that the universe in total has no physical attribute at all. Since by definition there is nothing outside the universe, it can not have any of such physical properties. By definition there isn't anything to measure any such physical properties. So in fact one could not even state that (in the absolute sense) there is a universe instead of none. We can't state anything about all of material reality (the whole universe, in whatever form it may exist) in an absolute way. There is only objective material existence within the universe. Relative to us - our existence - other things exist. And for all practical and theoretical reasons, that is the only thing what matters. But who is interested in metaphysical viewpoints? I'm only interested in facts. Are you arguing that a metaphysical position that explains the universe as the creation of a deity, as long as it explains the same facts, goes as well? The notion of a finite time in the past is far from discarded, whatever the current favorite theory may be. As I said, such theories (not the theories about what happened during the big bang, although these are still far from definitive, but at least they are in principle testable) are highly speculative, so the jury is still out, and probably for a long time. Physics, like I explained, doesn't have an a priori viewpoint on this, except that it might be clear that physics can not explain what comes out of an unexisting physical state. Physics explains only how an existing material state changes into a different one. So if you try to defend that it is a 'possibility' that the universe emerged from nothing at all (an inexistent material state) then that view can not be upheld by physics, but that is a metaphysical position. And in fact a metaphysical position which is undefendable. Some point however needs to be clarified, regarding infinity itself. Imagine a line (a mathematical abstract we are all familiar with) without ends. Place any two points on the line. Independent of where you place these points, the distance between this two points will always be a finite distance. However, since we defined that the line itself has not an end, it is clear that wherever we placed the points, we will always be able to place them further apart. That is what in fact the infinity of the line is, it is the posibility for those two points to be placed further apart, no matter where you put these points. The reasoning behind that is that of mathematical induction, and that is the way the infinity of the line can be proved. In no case however can you ever measure the infinite, because that alltogether incorporates the wrong idea about infinity (which for instance the dialectician Hegel calls 'bad' infinity), since an infinity which is totally absorbed, is a contradiction in terms. The reality of the infinite is that it can not ever be absorbed completely. Edit: Note also that such a invalid idea about what the infinite is, has been used wide over in all kind of different contexts, and lies amongst others behind the Kalam cosmological argument that supposedly 'proofs' that time supposedly had 'begun' sometime. The argument runs in this fashion: suppose that time had no beginning, then it follows that already an infinite amount of time should have been elapsed, which is a contradiction and hence, time can not be infinite and must have had therefore a begin. The whole error of this argument lies in the fact that supposedly one started counting at some point on this eternal time line, and counted back from there to now. But wherever one starts the count, this does not matter, since on the infinite time line, this means one already leaves behind an infinite amount of time. This is a famous falacy, because the argument already assumes that what needs to be proven namely that such a point exist at all from which one can start the count. Since the time line is infinite, by definition there is no point on which one can start counting in the first place, and for that reason the above argument is invalid. Since the argument makes use of the impossible fact that such a point (from which one supposedly starts the count) exists, it already rejects the idea incorporated in the infinity of the line, that such a point could exist in the first place.

Why not? The fact that there can't have been a time prior to which anything existed does not imply that the universe is eternal, it's perfectly consistent with a finite-time universe. Now the Big Bang theory describes the situation after the first 10^-35 sec. What happened in that first period we don't know, neither do we know if there was a "before" the Big Bang or not; all theories about that are still speculations. But the Big Bang theory for times after the first 10^-35 can be tested, and if you want to reject it, you'll have to come up with scientific arguments and not with philosophical speculation. There is a parallel with the theory of evolution: this can be tested without having a theory about abiogenesis. The latter may be an extension of the theory of evolution, but it's not necessary to prove the validity of that theory. The vision that the Big Bang theory states that everything emerged from a singularity is put simply: wrong. Although this point of view has been popularized by the media, it is a simple fact that the Big Bang theory does not state that, it is not the subject of the Big Bang theory itself to state anything about the origin of the universe. [ Compare this with evolution. The evolution theory is a theory about how life evolves from simple organisms to more complex organisism, but the evolution theory itself does not state anything about how the first life form developed or even what was the first living organism. That subject is simply not the scope of the theory of evolution, but strictly lies outside of it's domain. The subject field that does try to answer this question is abiogenesis. ] Same for the Big Bang theory, the subject of how this very small, hot and dense 'fireball' or cosmic soup of particles (although the world particles in this state is inadequate because at these energies a vacuum is indistinguishable from particles) is not part of the Big Bang theory at all. The Big Bang theory simple explains how the universe evolved since then, how it cooled, expanded and became larger, etc. Important aspects of the Big Bang theory is that it decribes how this very small, dense and hot initial stage of the universe developed, how the fundamental forces of nature (gravity, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force) condensate out of this enormous energetic early stage, how the known particles condensate out of this, etc. Already in the first three minutes of the universe, many things happened which have been studied in detail and for which particle accelerators that are able to reach these enormous energies can shed some more light on, leading to these so called 'Grand Unified theories'. The understanding of what the Big Bang theory in fact states or not states, has been messed up for the popular understanding of it. Unfortunately this is not only due to the fact that some well known physicist adapted a doctrine, in which it was explained that the singularity is literally the start of everything (spacetime and matter/energy emerging from a singularity), and that there was no "before". Amongst others Sir Roger Penrose made this point of view popular, but currently he has abandoned this point of view, since most cosmologists nowadays have abandoned this point of view. This point of vision is both from a meta-physical point of view and from a physical point of view WRONG. The metaphysical point of view is that matter in motion is itself indestructable and uncreatable. Time and space have no independent existence from matter itself. The emergences of matter, motion space and time from literal nothing would thus be something impossible. For the physical explenation, one has to see that the singularity is a hypothetical point in spacetime (quite literal the 'begin' or 'edge' of spacetime) that emerges from a mathematical formalism, which are the Einstein equations. (The first to solve the Einstein equations which was the first indication that later lead to the Big Bang theory, was the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman, which showed that there were only two solutions to these equations: either a universe that collapses onto itself, or one that expands). Singularities (or infinities) are not only occuring in general relativity, but also Newtonian gravity has such 'singularities'. Take the well known formula of Newton for the forceof gravity (F = G m M / R^2) and you already see that if two point masses touch each other (R is the distance becomes zero) it would give rise to an infinite force, a singularity. In reality however such never happens, for two reasons: 1. masses or not realy points but take up space and 2. at short distances the repulsive electromagnetic force takes over. General Relativity however is known to be incomplete, and in fact the occurence (in the theory, the mathematical solutions of the equations) of the singularity in fact means that General relativity predicts it's own breakdown. For the cosmological scales in the universe, this is not a problem, since it can predict what happens without contradictions. Near the singularity however general relativity can not predict what happens. A complete understanding in terms of predictability has to be based on not only general relatvity but also quantum mechanics. In (almost) all other circumstances we can use either one of these two fundamental theories (with the exception of a black hole in which also these theories need to be taken together). The first approach to explain what happens near this hypothetical point of the singularity was made by the Soviet scientists Starobinsky, who developed a theory about quantum gravity in order to explain the Big Bang. A short time later, the American scientists Alan Guth (a particle physicist) hooked on some similar ideas indepedently from Starobinsky when studying the behaviour of matter/energy in a vacuum (states which are called "true" or "false" vacuum, depending on wether the potential field is at it's minimum or not). Although the first models (based on quantum tunneling) did not work (they would leave the initial state of the universe in a too messy state, which is ruled out by observation), this was a breakthrough in understanding the early universe, and which lead to a seperate theory for understanding how the Big Bang came about, which was coined Inflation cosmology. The central principle of inflation is that a tiny patch of false vacuum surrounded by a true vacuum expands exponentially fast due to the fact that it excerts a repelling force of gravity. Within a fraction of a fraction of a second (10 to the power minus 32 seconds) this very tiny patch grows to enormous size. A major part of the development of inflation cosmology into a realistic theory was done by Andrei Linde. The achievement of this work that he shows that inflation can occur in a chaotic state of the initial universe (thus eliminating the need for special initial conditions), and that once inflation has started it goes on eternally, creating ever more new universe bubbles, and which theory is termed the chaotic eternal inflation. Although inflation itself is an ever ongoing proces, a typical universe undergoes inflation only a tiny amount of time. After that, the inflation field decays, and reheats the universe (when the inflation field whobbles near it's minimum of the potential) and releases it's energy in the form of all the baryonic matter. After inflation ends, the universe expands in a more moderate fashion. The age of our universe in fact is the age of the universe since inflation ended. The theory of cosmological inflation is still under development, and their are various models (different models based on different fields or combination of fields). So far this theory looks good because it makes predictions which on observational grounds can be ruled out, but so far inflation theory stands the test, and which explains why many cosmologists adapt inflation theory as an explenation for the Big Bang. The importance of inflation theory that needs to be stated is that without inflation a number of facts could not be explained. First there is the fact that the universe on large scales is (as is observed) very near to flat (that is Euclidean: parallel lines do not cross) instead of either positively or negatively curved. General Relativity allows for both positively and negatively curved spacetime. This fact can be brought back to the issue of the average density of the universe, which must be very near to omega critical (the criticial density of the universe. A larger density would lead to a universe collapsing, a lesser density to a universe expanding eternally). In fact, without inflation, the fact that the value of omega (the average mass/energy density of the universe) is so near to omega critical is something of a miracle, because any tiny deviation from the value of omega near the first fraction of a second, would have lead to a huge deviation now, into a universe that either would have collapsed long ago, or into a universe which was already smeared out totally and with nothing to be seen. Inflation explains this because inflation drives the density of the universe nearer and nearer to a value of omega critical. Moreover, inflation theory predicts the universe to be enormously bigger then what can be seen, many times greater then the horizon. Second there is the so called horizon problem, which means that different parts of the universe, which could not have been in thermal contact, are in almost perfect thermic equilibrium. Also this can be explained in terms of inflation because it allows for the universe to start out in thermic equilibrium and during inflation spacetime grows that fast that it passes the horizon (which in fact means that this happens faster then the speed of light, which is not in contradiction with relativity because that only refers to things in spacetime) and which explains that regions now far apart in space are in thermic equilibrium. Third there is the homogeneity of the universe, which means at large scales (far larger then galaxy) the universe is homogeneous. In fact that is not the only thing that needs to be explained, since at smaller scales there are in fact inhomogeneities (stars, galaxies, galaxy cluster and superclusters, which are seperated by large voids -- a large scale model of the universe looks somewhat like bubble soap, the interiors of the bubbles represent the voids, and near the edges of the bubbles , where bubbles touch each other is the concentration of matter in the form of superclusters and clusters and galaxies) which also needs to be explained. Both facts can be explained at the basis of inflation, because the universe started out very small and homogeneous, which grew in a very short time to enormous proportions. The inhomegeneities are explained at the basis of quantum fluctuations, which formed the initial 'rimples' in the early universe that seeded galaxy formation in later times. In fact the very precise prediction that could be made at the basis of inflation theory of these quantum fluctuations, which could be tested for in the cosmic microwave background radiation (the oldest relic of the early universe that can be observed, which formed after the universe cooled down significantly so that atoms could be formed and which made the universe transparent to light), is a strong part of the observational evidence that backs up inflation theory, and why it is accepted as the standard explenation for the Big Bang. A fourth point for which inflation gives an explenation is the so-called 'monopole' problem (a monopole would be a particle with magnetic charge, just like there are electric charges). According to high energy physics and grand unified theories monopoles would have to been formed also from this immensely hot and energetic soup, but they are not observed at all. Inflation explains that at the basis that either these monopoles were thinned out so immensily that they are very seldom indeed, or that in fact the whole universe (the bubble that came out of inflation) is one monopole and that we in fact reside within a monopole. Some interesting side notes: Inflation theory now exists for about 25 years, and it shows great explenatory power in telling something about the universe, and makes predictions that can be tested and so far are in good condition with observational evidence. Apart from inflation there are different models that try to explain the Big Bang. For instance string theory or M theory has it's own scenario that explains an ekpyrotic scenario at the basis of colliding branes (branes in M theory are multidimensional surfaces to which open strings are attached). I have not looked into M theory and ekpyrotic much, since string theory is field of study on it's own. For instance, string theory would come with the idea that there is not one unique true vacuum state, but a huge number of them, and all different, invoking in fact different form of physics very much different then the physics in our own universe. Some different attempt has been made by Hawking, Turok and Hartle, who made a (mathematical) model based on instantons, which form the 'begin' of spacetime and form themselves into a universe. The metaphysical problem with this is however that the instantons themselves can not be explained, there is no 'before'. Although such is indeed a metaphysical curiosity, for physical sciences it only matters wether such a model can or can not explain the observations. Physics makes no a priori metaphysical assumptions in that respect. Some objections to it (by Linde) were that these models can be ruled out based on observational evidence. I don't know the current status of instantons, wether or not this theory is still developed or has been abandoned. A majority of cosmologists and physicists accept the inflationary scenario at the basis of it's observational evidence and explenatory power, and has become the standard theory in this field. From a metaphysical point of view, at least it sounds a more satisfying explenation then models which incorporate the idea of a finite past. In general though the resolution of metaphysical issues (eternity/infinity of space time and so forth) at the basis of physics is difficult and near to impossible, since also in inflation the issue can be stated wether or not inflation is past eternal. In theory it is potential past eternal, but investigations show that it supposedly is not past eternal. What happened before inflation? And before that? These are eternal questions that remain, and for which only metaphysics provide answers. But they are untestable assumptions. So far I can say, there is no reason (based on cosmology) to ever doubt the idea that spacetime and matter/energy isn't eternal and infinite, and a barrier which once was there in theoretical assumptions about the Big Bang and how it originated, in fact have been removed and are sufficiently grounded, so I have no doubt that any new barrier that might come up, could also be removed. But then, also on the same metaphyscial grounds, there is no possible way in which all of eternity can be known, so in fact it isn't an absolute. A metaphysical ground for seeing that is that the maxim of existence (the maxim of all objective relations in the material world taking to it's ultimate limit) is itself something that can not be objectively there (it would already incorporate everything and anything, and therefore there would not be anything strictly outside and apart of it on which it existence could be objectively grounded). To assume that is to assume an absolute, for which there is absolutely no objective ground. Some interesting sources about cosmological inflation: http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/1032226.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation And an astronomy/cosmology primer, that has an excellent page explaining the Big Bang theory for the beginners: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

The point of view, that the identity of an entity determines it's actions, has clearly some problems in the light of modern physics (general relativity and quantum mechanics). General Relatvity explains that the cause of the motion of bodies in free fall are determined by the gravity field, the geometry of spacetime, which itself is detemined by the distribution of mass/energy in space. Now what is in this case the entity that is responsible for the action (the motion of a free falling object), it is clear that it is not the object itself. The gravity field on the other hand is not a limited object and for that reason identity can not be applied to it. In quantum mechanics experiments with entangled particles, the point of view that the observable phenomena would be determined by the identity of the particles themselves (wether at a given time those could be observed or know, or not), would lead to an explenation which is known as local hidden variable theory. It has been shown/proved that no hidden variable theory can explain the outcomes of experiments. From that point of view also one needs to doubt the very concept of 'identity' of some entity. I think it is a rather subjective (that is: human centered) notion of reality, and not part of objective (material) reality itself. If we side with objective material reality and side with rational sciences, clearly we see that this point of vision can not be sustained by reason. Apart from this, the Heizenberg Uncertainty principle already disclaims that we can ever know the 'true' identity of an entity with exactness. A vision that is cling on to the idea that objects and entities would have some absolutely fixed (ie. immutable) identity, although such a vision has some relative meaning, is not well equipped for dealing with the reality of the material world in which everything changes and evolves and in which nothing is fixed. It has no explenatory power to explain how the world evolved from a state in which only the lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium) existed into a world full of other material organisation forms, from stars, galaxies to planets to living things to humans, etc. In so far it is true that object or entities have entities, it is also true that there is opposition within such an entity, that is, an object or entity is at any given time equal to itself but also in opposition with itself, which is nothing else as saying that this object/entity is in the process of change, development, etc. That is true for objective material reality as a whole, it is true for the world of living organisms, and it is true for the world of humanity, both in terms of social organisation and productive forces and on the mere individual level. There is nothing mystical about the idea that everything is subject to change and development, it is in fact the only rational point of view.

If a fish is a fish and never begets anything but a fish...... how come we are here???? There ARE no fixed entities or identities in nature, that is an idea contrary to ALL of science! A 'fixed' identity which is immutable, is an invention of subjective mind, but is not a real intrinsic aspect of the objective material world. A body in free fall does not move according to it's identity, but according to the metric of spacetime. Quantum entanglement also shows that the outcomes of such experiments CAN NOT be based on some local hidden variable theory (which assumes a 'fixed' identity for such local particles). Nature intrinsically does not have an objective form of identity. It all takes place in the mind and is subjective.

Interesting subject. What are the implications of outcomes of for instance Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity for epistemology. I think they can be substantial. One of the important outcomes of Quantum Mechanics (EPR paradox; Bell Inequality) is that it does not match with the idea that those subatomic events have an identity. Assuming they do is the proposition that there are local hidden variables. But this was sought for extensively and many hypothesis have been formulated and checked experimently. The end result is, and this is a proven fact, that no such hidden variable theory can account for the experimental results. Likewise in the light of General Relativity. Bodies in free fall behave according to the metric of space time. And NOT according to their intrinsic properties or identity. Assuming identity as the cause for such motion is then quite impossible. Or one would have to assume that spacetime itself has this identity. But spacetime itself is not a finite entity, when regarded as a whole. And another point of view. Evolution. Mankind has traditionally attributed identities to species. The traditional theistic view is that - while most will agree on what is termed 'micro' evolution, which is nothing else but evolution but taking place on smaller time scale - species or kinds are immutable. These are deeply rooted beliefs which for a great part explain the resistence from traditional religious thinkers against (macro) evolution and abiogenesis. It conflicts with the deeply rooted idea that the world exists in the form of distinguisable entities with a fixed identity. In the light of the whole of science, this idea can not be true. The inititial configuration of the Universe shortly after the Big Bang consisted of nothing but (mainly) Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium (and perhaps a few other light elements), of which all material entities (in baryonic form) now in existence are made. The clouds of these light elements, and seeded by the small inhomogenities formed the galaxies and stars which produced the other elements through nucleosynthesis, and these materials ejected by super-novae formed the chemical components through chemical reactions on (proto)planets, astroids, etc., eventually leading to life forms on earth. In the light of this macro scale material transformation taking place everywhere and anytime, a concept of a 'fixed' identity for material entities is simply inadequate, or at least one-sided. I see this (the absence of such a thing as 'fixed' or immutable identities) as a fact of science, and either we side with science, or we are left over to superstitition and/or unfounded and irrational beliefs. I don't see a real problem with it, even when taking to the more human scale of individuality and personality. We know we are changing entities too. We have in fact become someone else in the course of our life, one never stays the same person. At any given time we DO have an identity, but yet such is not immutable to changes. In fact everything changes, society, nature, ourselves. That is how life/nature is folks!

Debunking the argument from "irreducable complexity" (bacteria flagellum) And here's another video explaining the same stuff And a video (3d simulation) which shows how the bacteria flagellum looks like Another video/simulation that shows how the flagellum works and looks like

Dragon fly Excellent post! Excellent ellaboration on this probability issue! The only thing creationists are good in is presenting straw men arguments for the scientific uneducated. They have a whole bunch of such pseudo scientific arguments that supposedly "proofs" creation. Of course they proof nothing, just their ignorance on real science. In fact their only reason they use scientific sounding arguments is to discredit and ridicule science. But here is different approach to rebute those creationists arguments about "design" or "creation". Ask them first what kind of real proof or example they have of what they term as "creation". They will for instance say that a "car" definately is a proof of creation. It is of course a human invention, but this does not matter. Now the idea of creation is that such inventions or design took place in a limited amount of time and was done by a single person or small group of people. Yet, no human inventions are such radical break throughs as they suppose it was. Often inventions are just re-inventions or improvements on things already in existence, or combinations of things already in existence. When you lay out the real history of the invention/design of a car, we do not have a radical new concept designed in a small amount of time, but instead see a very long history of small steps eventually leading up to the car as we are now used to. In fact if you take it down to where the car came from, you need to point out that the car was a combination of the charot and the engine, each with a long seperate history. The charot point back to thousands of years of history, which started with the wheel, and the wheel probably was a concept taken from nature (rolling stones or trunks of trees to move heavy objects), and the engine goes back to an even longer history from the benzine motor to the steam engine (which was first invented by the greek as a toy) which directly relates to the invention of fire, which came from nature. And this is then just a very brief and conceptual description of the innumerous facts that involve the "creation" of a car, and to sum up the whole development process of a car from all parts and materials and concepts that are used to built a car, would be some significant amount of data, probably as large as an encyclopedia. So, even the design of a car does not look at all like some instantanious form of creation of something totally new, but instead can be better described as a process of development, stepwise refinement, combination of things already in existence, etc. Such well documented facts can at least proof them that they in fact misuse and misapply the concept of creation, and that even the history of human made tools and instruments, is not exactly what they suppose it is.

The point about what defines 'the good' and that what defines it's opposite or 'evil' even when worked out in this way makes some absolute assumptions about rationally, namely that all rational minds define and judge upon this in the same way. Point of the matter is that even rational minds can differ about what is rational, and therefore don't need to have the same opinion on what is to be treated as 'the good' and what falls under 'evil'. As will be often the case, the way then this is resolved when for instance two rational minds differ in opinion on this in essence, is that one calls the other 'irrational'. But if both of them have worked out a rational analyses of what they refer to as 'good' and 'evil', but just arrive at a different conclusion, how can this ever be resolved, unless one resorts to irrational means? Who can decide about who is rational and who is not? The problem is that this can not be resolved in principle. Edit: Just as an example that supports the argument, people who can be considered to be very rational - scientists - do happen to disagree on many respects with each other. This intelectual debate and disagreement is only healthy, and not something bad. Without it, science would not have developed so far. But it clearly shows that between rational people there is a large variety of opinion on different issues. Especially on issues (in politics for example) that deal with the real life interests of people, we are not likely to find an agreement on such things.

Objectivism starts out with a basic premise (or axiom) for their Philosophy: Existence exists. As it is said, one cannot refute this axiom, without using it. But yet, what is said, the truth that it reveals is something as of yet purely abstract. It is not even with a real existing world in mind that this is already true! (since it is more or less the same to say that the abstract proposition A=A is essentially the same). At some level of (philosophical) understanding, this notion will do to avoid thinking otherwise, but for the more philosophically engaged people around, it might not hurt to see what kind of truth is beneath it. First of all, let us ask us the question as to what exists, and what we mean with existence. If we take in mind some determinate something (something with distinguishable feautures), for instance my coffee cup, let us see what defines this to be existent instead of inexistent. First of all let us consider that whatever feature this coffee cup has (colour, size, material, etc.), if I just imagine that one or more features were different, this would then merely alter the identity of the coffee cup, but would not matter for it's existence whatsoever. So existence is unrelated to any feature this coffee cup has. To know what it means for this specific coffee cup to exist, let us see in what way does it differ if it were not existent. Again, this also is some purely abstract thought. Now if we imagine this same cup (with the same identity), but then as inexistent, it is as if all distinct feautures that identify that same cofee cup were still there, just that this same coffee cup does not exist, instead of exists. This is to merely say that existence and non-existence are the same, since all distinguishing features I can ever think of or distinguish that form this identity of this coffee cup, remain the same, were it existent or not existent, since they differ in nothing. So, in the abstract sense existence and non-existence are exactly the same. So I can conclude than that it not only is true that existence exists but also that existence is equal to non-existence. At the same time however it is true that existence ought to differ with non-existence, since existence is not equal to non-existence, but exactly the opposite thereof! Whatever we make of this, the truth is that even in the most abstract treatment of identity, we naturally arise (just by thinking out the very concepts of identity and difference) with a contradiction.

If you leave your home and take a windshield with you, because the meteorlogists yesterday predicted that a rain will show up the next day, you act consciously proactive, based on known information. Proactive behaviour is simply a feature of consciousness who understands the world and anticipates it's behaviour. It is existent throughout the natural world. Animals can proactively behave before a thunderstorm or earthquake emerges. Many natural phenomena are detected by animals before they happen, which in earlier epochs has been used by man to predict weather phenomena and such. Of course this means that some signs have arrived in consciousness that relates to the upcoming event to which one proactively acts. There must be a causal relationship and explenation for this. I think if one explores this further one can find many examples in the material world. Volcano's and earthquakes and weather phenomena are just examples of such phenomena, that before the major event happens, can already be detected.

I have a couple of fundamental questions about the Objectivist metaphysics. 1. Axiom: Existence exists There is existence, undoubtly. There is no real/rational person that can doubt that. But what does it add to that fact to state that "existence exists" (which is tautological) and what does it tell us as to what and how things/the world exist? 2. Primacy of Existence The main question in Philosopy is to what is to be considered primary: matter or mind. Objectivism considers that there are basically only two candidates, which are 1. existence or 2. consciousness. However (as in question 1) exactly what is to be considered the base ingredient of existence, that what must necessarily exist primary? What is there that exists on which everything else is dependent upon, and which itself has no ground for it's existence other then itself? In some explenations it is said that existence is as well considered the material world (all material existence forms) and also thought or mind (ie. consciousness) itself. But in that case how can existence be primary to consciousness, if existence itself also has consciousness as an ingredient? If existence is to be considered primary to consciousness, then this would mean that only the ingredient of existence which is not consciousness can be considered the primary component of which the world is made, since it would be rather senseless to state that consciousness is primary to consciousness. So the only candidate ingredient of existence which rightfully can be termed primary is the form of existence which exists outside, apart and independend of consciousness. This ingredient is also termed: matter. 3. Law of Identity The proposition A=A is to be considered some hight truth. But what does this tell us about the real world? The law of identity is - in all for what it is worth - to be considered some absolute truth, which truth is not dependend on time, place or circumstances. Now how does that apply to the real world? An apple, the one I just put in from of me, then certainly is equal to itself. Which truth must also be the case the next instant I observe the apple, and for the same reason must be true at all later instances. Has anyone left behind an apple for some weeks without noticing, and has remarked wether the law of identity still holds? Is the apple you left behind still equal to the apple you found back, some weeks later? Alternatively, is there any other object (any object at all) to which the law of identity holds? Or is the law of identity only valid in the context of objects that do not change, that is, for objects that do not exist in time? 4. Consciousness Despite the fact that Objectivism regards itself not to be in the camp of Idealism, Objectivist regard consciousness to be also a primary ("consciousness is an irreducable primary"). The acknowledgment of Primacy of existence in this regard means that one does need to have existence and an outer world to be consciouss of something. However, to regard consciousness despite this as a primary (that is non-reducable feature, which can not be explaind in other terms) asks for an explenation. If the world is to be regarded in existence before there was even human consciousness and any form of life (as the primacy of existence is supposed to mean and is in accordance with scientific knowledge) then this begs the question: where did consciousness come from? The materialistic / naturalist explenation is that consciousness (consciouss awareness) developed together with the development of life itself in higher organisms. Since Objectivism rejects supernatural causes, this then is unexplained. Also it neglects the scientific evidence (rational thought!) for the material bases of consciousness and the scientific evidence for evolution which in fact precisely point to the fact that human consciousness is a material development. Which shows at leat that the Objectivist metaphysics is incomplete (inexhausted) and contradictionary. 5. Law of Causalility and Identity According to Objectivism: "The Law of Causality is a formulation of the axiomatic observation that there are no disembodied events: Every event is an action of an entity, and an entity can only act according to its specific nature. Objectivist philosophy affirms the Law of Causality as a corollary of the Law of Identity." The problem with this position is this: how does one explain the motion of objects in free fall due to a gravity field? It is not the identity (ie properties of the body itself) that determine the motion of the object, but instead it is the local geometry, the gravity field itself, that determines this motion. How does Objectivism explain that? Is it considered that this is due to the identity of the gravity field itself? But the gravity field is not a (local) object, but instead is to be seen as the property of the distribution of all mass in the universe. A different and perhaps even more serious problem arises in the light of quantum mechanics. QM definately proves that we can not account for certain phenomena (entangled pairs of photons for example) based on LOCAL properties of objects. An entangled pair, that can even be seperated lightyears from each other, demonstrate that the observed property of one photon and that of the other, correlate, and can not be reduced to the property of each individual photon. No local hidden variable theory can explain this phenomena. Conclusions Objectivism tries to understand the world without contradiction. In doing so, and just by avoiding contradiction, it falls into it, and creates a major contradiction with the real world. For rational though, which does not stand in opposition to the world but which becomes part of it and tries to understand it, tries to understand the world on its own terms and premises, is able to overcome these contradiction just by understanding that contradictions do in reality exist and reality is in fact full of it. One can not understand the living, changing world of motion without understanding contradiction and how it naturally arises in it and resolves itself. The identity of the world is not just identity but also and at the same time opposition, and that in every object at every time and every place. The thought that proceeds and looks at the world as without contradiction can not ever grasp a world in which something is itself somewhat, that is is equal to itself but also in opposition with itself at the same time, which is just the natural cause for something to change into another something. A thought that proceeds from the rather static and motionless proposition that the world is self-equal and only identical to itself at all time, is in major contradiction with the world itself. It can in fact not even grasp the world but only turn into circles of abstract thought, without ever reaching out to the real world. Wether one things about how and what an atom is, or even an electron, or a planet, a star, an animal or a human being, in everything we find both identity and opposition. You are yourself and at the same time you oppose yourself, which is the reason for why you change. A cloud of hydrogen gas is at the same time itself and at the same time not itself, that is, it is in the process of becoming a star which is formed because of the gravitational interaction, and this motion/force at the same time it is opposing to, which causes the compacting gas cloud to built up pressure and heat, thus at the same time enabling to ingnite the fusion process which acts against the further compatification and gravitational collapse, but in doing so exhausts in the long run it's own fuel that is enabling the counterforce pressure against it's own self-collapse, which in the end it can not continue any longer causing the outer shell to explode and the remains to collapse further into a brown dwarf, neutron star or black hole., etc. The cloud of atomic hydrogen has in this proces changed it's identity many times, causing new identities to come into existence, of which yet new identities can be formed, and also this new identies oppose themselves and give rise to new varieties of phenomena and material relations. As another example, the self-interacting field potential, standing at the beginning of formation of a new universe is building up it's potential at some point which it can only escape from by rolling itself from the height of the potential and by doing this, by it's self-action and opposition against this motion, goes into an exponential expansion overtaking major parts of space, and drives this process further and further and by that creating new expanding regions, untill the initital expanding region finally reaches it's minimum, where it releases it's frozen energy and reheats the newly formed universe, causing condensation forms of energy in a various soup of hot and dense subatomic particles on a spacetimebackground in which quantum fluctuations have frozen in, and in which the major repulsive gravitational force now turns into the attractive force of mass-interacting particles, and which in time form up into protons, neutrons, electrons, into atomic nuclei and finally into atoms, that in their initial configuration by slight frozen-in inhomogeneities form into clouds of atomic matter and compactifying itself into proto-galaxies, quasars and locally into huge stars, etc. All this just describes the material and eternal ongoing processes in which some material formation, while being itself somewhat, at the same time opposes itself and changes into another, which yet again opposes itself and goes into yet other different material forms, etc. etc. Never ever does matter exist in a total self-identifying or self-equal form, for then, no motion change or whatever would arise, the world thought as only in self-equal form is a world without change, without motion, or would be, stated differently, inexistent. The nature of all existent entities is that they are themselves and not themselves at the same time. The mind which has not yet grasped this fact of reality, stands in major opposition with reality. In the light of both general relativity and quantum mechanics, the idea that interactions and motion of objects could be reduced to the identity of objects is provably wrong.