QUANTUM PHYSICS: Objective or Subjective Universe?

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly,

Fast question: Would agree that it was Ayn Rand who solved the 'problem of universals' in philosophy?

[Dragonfly]

I'm still with Rand on this one: 'Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science, the reverse is true.'

And there she was quite wrong. Take for example her theory of epistemology, where she tells us how children learn to think and how they develop concepts. It would be disastrous in this case to ignore the results of science. Now I'm also a layman in this field, so I don't know how valid her ideas were; perhaps Robert could perhaps tell us more about Rand's ideas and how these are related to the scientific consensus.

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly,

Fast question: Would agree that it was Ayn Rand who solved the 'problem of universals' in philosophy?

There is no 'problem of universals'. I agree with Nyquist when he writes: "I must confess that I don't see any problem here at all. As far as I'm concerned, the problem of universals is not really a problem at all. It is simply one of those manufactured problems that philosophers have created to give themselves something to cavil about" (Greg S. Nyquist, Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature).

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly,

You say: "There is no 'problem of universals'. I agree with Nyquist when he writes: "I must confess that I don't see any problem here at all. As far as I'm concerned, the problem of universals is not really a problem at all. It is simply one of those manufactured problems that philosophers have created to give themselves something to cavil about"

There was no problem of universals? Do you know what this deals with? There was no problem for Nyquist maybe, because he takes it all for granted. However, I'll agree that modern philosophers, the 'what-do-you-mean-the-cat-is-on-the-map' types treat philosophy as if it were a game--but the 'problem of universals' goes back to Plato and Artistotle. That's when philosophy lived up to its purpose; it was love of wisdom and a search for truth.

edit: With the corruption of modern philosophy, it's no wonder we have such a phenomenon as "junk science" [not my coined term either].

Edited August 23, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

I took a little visit over to SLOP as I’m wont to do, the thought and action to do so being neither particularly good nor evil, but I did stumble across this post by Julian Pistorius that I figure could be interesting.

Julian writes:

“I have been discussing quantum physics and the nature of reality with some subjectivist friends... I am very interested in physics, but it has been a while since university. I was wondering where I could find out more about quantum phenomena.

Then I came across this:

http://physics-qa.com/html/QMBOOK.HTM

The Realistic Quantum, by Atilla Gurel"

***

You will note that Jualian indicates that he has been “talking to his subjectivist friends”—the very same type of people I said have been attracted to QM for the “loop-holes” they seek to find in it, but of course, maybe Julian is just another Objectivist who has ventured over to the “dark side of the philosophy” and his own experiences aren’t real or validated in his own mind. Nevertheless, I thought this would be interesting reading.

EDIT: A poster offered this: Travis Norsen has done a lot of work in this area, his web page is at:

http://akbar.marlboro.edu/~norsen/

The poster concludes: "The best a layman can do is confirm that there is indeed a lot of irrational theoretical physics caused from corrupt philosophy, and that the promise is there for a rational explanation, but it's going to require a single-minded and very rational thinker in order to do it as the problem is quite intricate and detailed (even Feynman couldn't solve it and Einstein threw his hands up, explicitly saying that the problem was beyond his abilities)."

Edited August 24, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I have a question. Do you know of any successful Objectivist quantum physics scientist or entrepreneur? I mean one who is producing all this wealth we are consuming everyday? Maybe someone from the websites you are visiting? Just one?

I don't.

Is all this wealth all around us being produced by people who don't know what they are doing? Sorry. When I see something working in reality, and people able to produce repeatable results, that gets my total respect. Time for me to shut up and listen. I want to hear what they have to say, not the opinions of someone who reads a philosophy text. There's time to integrate later.

Frankly, the more I hear Objectivists talk about quantum physics, the less I want to hear Objectivists talk about it. They usually talk pure garbage. And I'm an Objectivist.

I like to know what I am talking about before I condemn.

Call it a cognitive/normative thing.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

M,

WTF! Okay, this is getting very aggravating, the constant putting of words and premises I never communicated into my mouth. Are you making an effort to misunderstand me? How many times did I say that I'm not trashing QM or the scientific community! It is in response to the values that these men and women bring us--values that are being attacked and undermined by certain individuals—who may be in the scientific community or on the fringes of it.

I am not attacking the scientific community, I am properly targeting the “fringe” groups this theory [or body of though] has attracted like flies to excrement—but I’m not attacking QM as such. Of course, it has brought us values---values that are under attack. That’s my thesis in the article.

For example, I said: "There is nothing within the study Quantum physics to support the idea of a subjective universe—that is, a “primacy of consciousness” orientation. There is no leap in logic to connect the two. Quantum physics has been developed by the scientific method, by the interplay of observations, hypotheses and experiments. It has achieved extraordinary success, and revealed a picture of a quantum reality so bizarre that our minds are unable to grasp it fully."

See? QM gooood!

And I say this---not speaking from a vacuum or without first hand experience or research. Again: I’m not attacking “the men of the mind” but rather “the men of the un-mind”—the ones we are exhorted to be “tolerant” towards, like a good liberal would be towards his under-privileged mugger.

When I wrote “We are now told by a “unique species of subjectivists” that A can be NON-A, that the universe is not objective; it is, after all, subjective. What is it that these modern subjectivists cling to their bosom as the final refutation of those old, moldy ideas that Aristotle discovered? QUANTUM PHYSICS”---I was talking not only of a “small fragment” within the field, but a larger group outside the field, who are, in many cases, intellectuals or lay people alike with considerable influence.

In connection to the “irrational infiltration into the world of science”, I can’t urge you enough to consider Christopher Evan’s book “Cults of unreason” dealing with the issue of dangerous ideas within the scientific community—dangerous because these illogical ideas have a “scientific veneer” but are nevertheless “unashamedly irrational” according to Evan’s---a NON OBJECTIVSTIST.

M: "I like to know what I am talking about before I condemn." Good, start with Evan's book.

This book aside, one day I should write a post that will illustrate my own personal experiences. Many people do not know the nature of the "scientific method"---when science does impinge on our lives, it does not do so on the intellectual level, but practically, through technology...as you observed. So many people do not know what is going on an intellectual level or what that "intellectual level" IS.

Listen, I'm not really angry here, but cut me a little slack. Maybe---just maybe--once in a blue moon, I may know what I'm talking about.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Let's put it this way. Who are these creatures? Just a vague "they"? Do you have any particular person of influence in mind other than a friend or acquaintance?

Are these creatures dangerous? Ugly? Should I hate them? What?

I'm serious. If these are inconsequential people, why should I even think about them - especially in light of the glorious achievements in the quantum physics world?

I never claimed you were denouncing the scientists. You certainly claim you are not. Yet you direct me to a book about "dangerous ideas within the scientific community" and urge me strongly to read it. So who inhabits the scientific community? Laymen or scientists? If some scientists are spreading dangerous ideas for the human race, by all means, let us denounce them.

But, you know something good about the scientific method? From what I observed, it gets rid of "dangerous ideas" (whatever that is on a scientific level) pretty quickly when they stop producing repeatable results. The people with the "dangerous ideas" I see are usually in politics, not science.

Also, the vehemence and wording of your denunciations make a strong implication that there are some fundamental issues of quantum physics for which you have answers that the experts do not. If that is not your intended message, I suggest rewording. If it is, I suggest drawing up a paper and submitting it to a peer reviewed professional publication. You should inform them as soon as possible.

I will put Christopher Evan’s book “Cults of Unreason” on my list for later since you recommended it. For now, though, I will contemplate the magnificent achievements I personally enjoy that so many heroic men and women have performed through science. Why not sing their praises instead of denouncing nobodies?

Back to my original question. Do you know of any successful Objectivist quantum physics scientist or entrepreneur? Any at all?

The truth never hurts if faced squarely. It sets you free.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I just looked up Christopher Evans on the web. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article on him:

... other books include Cults of Unreason, an entertaining and perceptive study of Scientology and other pseudoscience...

I looked up "pseudoscience" to see exactly what they were talking about. The first example is phrenology. The other examples were on that level.

Where does any of this apply to quantum physics or this particular scientific community?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

M,

"Back to my original question. Do you know of any successful Objectivist quantum physics scientist or entrepreneur? Any at all?"

I know many Objectivists in all kinds of fields--scientists, artists, engineers, computer programmers...and one who still lives at home. ;)

But true, I don't know any quantum physics scientists specifically. [i'm taking a stab in the dark in speculating you have a point to this question?]

In regards to your other remarks and questions...more later. Perhaps another thread. It would be nice to be more on the same page than off on a different book, don't you agree?

Victor

ps.

A somewhat related question...what do you think of "scientific" issues such as global warming? Is it "junk science"? Is it irrational? Would you say that it has a great impact on the "man in the street"? If so, who are the people that put those ideas out there in the community at large? Names please.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

M,

Granted, a very narrow indication, but it did say "pseudoscience".

"A pseudoscience is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by adequate scientific research to justify its claims." [from a web-site].

Keep in mind, I don't rest my entire case on this one book. It's merely a starter--to get your feet wet--in knowing about Junk science. I'll post other interesting books related to this broader subject...soon.

[Victor Pross]

M,

You wrote: "But, you know something good about the scientific method? From what I observed, it gets rid of "dangerous ideas" (whatever that is on a scientific level) pretty quickly when they stop producing repeatable results. The people with the "dangerous ideas" I see are usually in politics, not science."

Oh, I agree. Look at the draft report by the Environmental Protection Agency warning that mercury emissions from industry are becoming a danger to children's health. These many environmental and public health worries are "politically motivated junk science." And these incorrect ideas are being put into evil action.

Victor

Edited August 24, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

You are talking politics, not science.

Do you know Robert Bidinotto's excellent anti-environmentalist site ecoNot.com?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

M,

"You are talking politics, not science." That's true...because junk science is not science! Are you saying it’s the politicians who are coming up with all these fangled twisted ideas!? I suppose global warming was Newt’s idea back in the day?

"Do you know Robert Bidinotto's excellent anti-environmentalist site ecoNot.com.

No. But thanks, looks real interesting. Right off into the races, Bidinotto levels his way to the right targets:

"Most people think of themselves as "environmentalists." But by that term, they mean something far different -- and far more innocent -- than do the most prominent philosophers, founders, and leaders of the modern environmentalist movement."

Not so innocent, it says. I hope it has names. I'll take a good look.

V

Edited August 24, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Whew. My Objectivist rage felt good. Ah, on second thought...maybe it was an artist's tantrum instead. Or it could have been something I ate this morning.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I can see the damage environmental "junk science" is doing to our world because of the restrictive legislation that results. Still, I count myself as a person who likes a clean environment. Actually, I am not as opposed to companies environment-wise (although dumping toxic wastes into rivers and killing everything downstream - and knowing about it, but continuing - is disgustingly vile) as I am to governments. When governments say "oops," the project is usually big and the damage effects lots of people.

In Brazil, I once read a report about the Tucurui hydroelectric dam, which was built by flooding over a large portion of richly vegetated land. This land was not cleared properly for flooding. Apparently the rotting vegetation and and animals started consuming the oxygen in the water. This killed all the fish, which floated up, putrefying on the top layer of the water. Lots of illnesses resulted for people around the area. Cases were even cited of the bubonic plague. I don't know how this is now as this was years ago, but I presume that the issues have been dealt with. Still, better planning and execution were in order.

Now back to quantum physics. What dangerous freedom-restricting legislation is being attempted or carried out due to misuse of information on quantum physics by the popular media, pressure groups and politicians? Or are there any other dangers present from misunderstanding quantum physics that need harsh moral denunciation?

My question about an Objectivist quantum physics scientist or entrepreneur is merely a starting point to check credentials. It's a premise-checking thing. I would ask this question of any group of harsh critics who habitually denounced quantum physics theories in generalizations and not specifics - as is common among denunciations coming from Objectivists (and even your article).

Don't forget that I am an Objectivist, so one angle to see the question is as an in-house question.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

For now, though, I will contemplate the magnificent achievements I personally enjoy that so many heroic men and women have performed through science.

It's interesting to note that Objectivists don't hesitate to mention the success of the more capitalist countries in comparison with statist countries as evidence for the superiority of capitalism. Rand somewhere said "just look at the difference between East and West Berlin" or words of similar meaning. So why are they so silent about the enormous successes of modern science and technology? Probably while this is difficult to square with the notion that modern science is based on a corrupt philosophy. Rand of course realized this and tried to circumvent it the following way:

Today's frantic development in the field of technology has a quality reminescent of the days preceding the economic crash of 1929: riding on the momentum of the past, on the unacknowledged remnants of an Aristotelian epistemology, it is a hectic feverish expansion, heedless of the fact that its theoretical account is long since overdrawn - that in the field of scientific theory, unable to integrate or interpret their own data, scientists are abetting the resurgence of a primitive mysticism.

Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Observe that Rand here is not using a rational but an emotional argument: she uses for example the word feverish to characterize the technological development. Now this is here a prime example of what she herself would call an "anti-concept"; "feverish" has a negative connotation, it describes something "unhealthy". But what exactly is a "feverish expansion"? Is it an expansion that is going too fast? That seems hardly compatible with Objectivist ideas. It is often said that Rand was always so rational and logical in her arguments, but what she's doing here is pure emotionalism, using emotion-laden words to create the impression of something bad and unhealthy going on, while there in fact is no indication at all what is wrong with that expansion.

On the other hand she's trying to explain the developments by calling it "riding on the momentum of the past, on the unacknowledged remnants of an Aristotelian epistemology". Does she imply here that if the development was not based only on some "remnants of Aristotelian epistemology" but completely based on Aristotelian epistemology, that there wouldn't have been a "frantic" development with a "hectic", "feverish" expansion? In other words, that things had gone slower then? This sounds rather like a Luddite argument! This passage just doesn't make sense from a logical viewpoint, it can only be meant to create a negative sentiment about modern technology by using such suggestive terms.

And then to top it all, she continues with the statement that scientists are unable to integrate or interpret their own data! Is she really so arrogant to think that she knows better how to interpret the data of the scientists than the scientists themselves? Is it therefore surprising that scientists in general don't think much of her philosophy?

And how would she describe the current technological development, some 40 years later? Is it still a hectic and feverish expansion? Or is the collapse of science complete? How could it survive so long and successfully when it's based on a corrupt philosophy? This reminds me of those Marxist predictions that the state shall wither away - how long shall we have to wait until we conclude that it's just nonsense?

[Victor Pross]

Michael, As an Objectivist, you know that capitalism does not destroy the environment. Capitalism is the system of individual rights. It is the greatest protector of man's environment' (as opposed to the protection of the environment at the expense of man's well-being).

How is this possible?

Under capitalism all property is privately owned. If you pollute your own property that is your business--but in doing so you reduce the property value which would not be in your self-interest. However, the minute your pollution spreads to another person's property, and causes objectively provable damage, the owners of that property can sue you as a matter of right.

The right to property is not the privilege to damage or pollute the property of others. Witness that the privately owned locks and streams of Scotland are far cleaner than the government owned cesspools of socialist India.

As for the disposing of the pollution of factories, this is a technological solution -- and capitalism, as the system of technological progress, is the only system that can provide such a solution.

More later on QM...just wanna deal with the enviro question for now.

Victor

Edited August 24, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Ahem... you are not addressing beginners here. Wanna parody?

I fully agree that capitalism does not destroy the environment. Witness the fact that it is based on reason, on the premise that man is an end in himself and that his happiness is his highest moral purpose. It is the trader principle made concrete! No man has the right to enslave another and anyone who speaks against capitalism claims such a right! One right cannot not violate another!

Observe the scourge of the best and brightest through the ages as dictatorships have maintained man in the swamp of servitude under the yoke of altruism! How have they done this? The mystic of the spirit: the Witch Doctor! And mystic of the muscle: the Attila! What has been their goal? To invalidate reason: the very tool of survival on which man depends! And they have succeeded only by sanction of the victim!

We need to eradicate every last vestige of the evil of irrationality and collectivism from our souls!

(And so on and so on.)

Do you think this is the kind of stuff - and the way to say it - to people who are highly intimate with Objectivist literature, and Rand's works in particular? Would you address a group of Shakespeare scholars with an impassioned appeal for them to learn the English alphabet?

You're an artist, dude. Respecting the intelligence of your audience is the first rule of conduct in a public discussion.

(I'm being a bit hard on you because you show talent, but this dumbsizing and contempt for your audience is exasperating. Toss it. You're better than that.)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

M,

You are right. Sorry for speaking down. I bet there are times you have evil thoughts when reading some of my posts. ;)

Mind you, I have come across very, very bright Objectivists in my life who freeze up and are at the moral cross-roads on issues such as, say, "animal rights" and abortion. It's truly amazing. These type of Objectivists could teach me and you a thing or two about concept formation---and yet yelp out something about that sounds like "the capacity to feel pain is the foundation of rights" type of argument. [!!]

Have you ever come across this?

So as I was reading your post, reading about the dead little fishy, I thought of my past experiences. Plus I was in a hurry as reading and responding.

No offence. Clearly, M, you are a bright guy who is kicking my ass.

V

Edited August 24, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor

"Concept conformation?"

Dayaamm!

Is that a Freudian slip in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

M,

Oh, that's so evil. B)

Yikes. My mind is in a million different places right now, as I landed a big contract to illustrate a series of famous people [caricatures] for some "Hollywood Canteen" video productions---or something or other. I was reading the details of the contract while responding, and it violated my "crow". [Did you want me to explain 'Crow'?]

Focus, Victor, focus!

Anyway, I bet they won't be interested in the Perigo caricature. Oh well.

Victor

[Victor Pross]

Dragonfly,

"And then to top it all, she continues with the statement that scientists are unable to integrate or interpret their own data! Is she really so arrogant to think that she knows better how to interpret the data of the scientists than the scientists themselves? Is it therefore surprising that scientists in general don't think much of her philosophy?"

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

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Did you want me to explain 'Crow'?

You mean explain ITOE crow or eating crow?

Here's something for your crow to gnaw on: our little dead fishie.

This ain't Tucuruí:

This is Tucuruí:

A WHOLE BUNCH of little rotting fishies. (That part is no longer a problem.) It was only a small area of 1,100-square-miles that was flooded without first chopping down the trees and clearing the vegetation. In the 90's this little "overlooked detail" released 7 million to 10 million tons a year of greenhouse gases (especially methane) and the reservoir's highly acidic water now corrodes the turbines. The clean-up has been a mess.

It has been a while since I read about Tucuruí so I Googled it for an article in English. Here is an older story in the NYT from Sept. 7, 2004: "Drowned, Not Downed, Trees in the Amazon Get Nasty" by Larry Rohter

Unbelievably, after the 8 billion dollar screw-up, environmentalists in the Brazilian government are now working to inhibit tree removal from the basin because new aquatic ecosystems (little fishies) started appearing around the rotting wood.

Keeeeerist!

At least the damn dam produces power.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

I think that if we value industry, and all the contributions you said technology brings us---and if we value our very lives, we must never align ourselves with environmentalism, no matter how alluring a particular environmentalist project may seem. The environmentalists' proclamations of DANGER and DOOM are not honest errors based on a real concern for human safety and well-being---they are a dishonest scare-tactic to make their anti-industrial policies appealing to the public.

It's been shown time and again, environmentalists are utterly indifferent to the human toll of abandoning "unsafe" technologies--of natural gas shortages, of the energy crises created by anti-nuclear, anti-fossil fuel policies, of the millions who continue to die unnecessarily due to the DDT ban. We must fight not only against particular environmental terrorists, in whatever manner and forum open to us, but also against the “evil ideology” that rouse them. On this issue, I make my voice heard whenever and wherever I can. [You should read my published remarks against Canada’s “green party.” ]

Anyway, I’m sure you would also agree: we must fight for rational values: human life and industrial civilization. And try not to forget: The individuals singled out for attack by environmental terrorists---the scientists, inventors and businessmen [that you and Barbara applaud] are the creators of industrial civilization. Of course, I’m preaching to the converted.

Victor

Edited August 25, 2006 by Victor Pross