Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

EC

Regulars
  • Content count

    1770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

EC last won the day on July 20

EC had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About EC

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/23/77

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan
  • Interests
    Physics, Philosophy, Sports, Reading in General, Thinking, Shooting Pool, Movies, Music, Technology, Poker

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Michigan
  • Chat Nick
    EC
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

5390 profile views
  1. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    My first thought on this was there is nothing wrong with preserving history. You don't have to/shouldn't remove a piece of history just because it has negative connotations associated with it. I'd argue that's a reason to actually leave the statues up, so that history isn't repeated.
  2. It's an error to believe that a dictator of a country that enslaves, starves, and murders his own people can be counted on to act rationally, even in self preservation. This is a war that should have happened a thousand times over so far. The reason why none of you in the above can think of other "solutions" that make any sense is because no such solutions exist in reality. You don't reason or bargain with a man pointing a gun at you threatening to shoot you--you eliminate the threat. I want to add before I forget: All that the last 20 years of bargaining with NK not to develop the means to attack us has brought is increasingly the ability of NK to attack us.
  3. The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    Bold mine. I see. I'll admit I didn't follow the arguments in the thread carefully and was only responding to what I quoted directly. I think it is entirely possible that LQG might just be an alternative description of the same underlying physics. I can't prove but would guess there is some duality (or a change of coordinate using an existing symmetry) where LQM and String theories are alternative descriptions of the same phenomena. The ideas of a discrete geometry that creates spacetime is probably correct. For instance strings exist as excitations that are multiples of h-bar.
  4. The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    Actual usage of quantum gravity from literally today. https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/07/scientists-observe-gravitational-anomaly-on-earth/
  5. The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    No a theory of quantum gravity must exist. Explaining the physics of black holes would be impossible without it. Way too many explanations pop out of the equations, things like the holographic principle or bouncing branes causing the phase transition that we today see as "The Big Bang", etc., that it is virtually certain that we on the right track with M- theory. I'm an Objectivist and also certain that the various Objectivist intellectuals who attempt to shoot down string theory are always attacking a straw man that they simply don't understand while taking an extremely rationalist view point regarding physics that doesn't jive with reality at high energies.
  6. Will Capitalism Collapse?

    Obviously I meant Capitalism in it's pure state. I don't think there would be much debate that the closest we've ever been to laissez faire was a short period of time in the 19th Century.
  7. Will Capitalism Collapse?

    I think this has been said in the thread, but Capitalism has never existed, therefore it's impossible that it could collapse.
  8. I'm not who you were addressing but I want to comment anyway. There's no such thing as "common property" and humanity or some collective doesn't "own" the earth. All property should be privately owned. We should only exploit the earth to better our own lives not the lives of future generations, etc. Also the earth has no intrinsic value, it only has value to the humans who exploit it. Animals, fungi, whatever, cannot value but man can. It's human individuals first, not plants, animals, the whole planet, etc. The earth's climate continually changes over time; it is not static. There has been Snowball Earths, there has been time where the earth was much warmer than the present. It shifts as a function of time for many reason. It always has and always will. Even *if* humans were causing the earth to warm (which is far away from scientifically verified despite what the leftist media continually says otherwise) ... who cares? Why can volcanoes and cows spew huge amounts of greenhouse gasses but man can't? The case would be something like, "Well, those are "natural" emissions." But why do they not consider man to be "natural"? Why is it the the environmental socialist sheep consider man to be unnatural and not allowed to disturb the environment, but if the same thing and/or usually worst things happen over time "naturally" then that's okay. These people that spew that man is not allowed to disturb or change the environment are anti-man and anti-life. And the goal of almost all environmentalists is to expand governments and to control industries etc.
  9. That guy's a complete idiot and you should be glad that you didn't go forward with that job considering his asinine, immature behavior. What you do, and who you call or not is your business alone. I would of responded to the idiot's email with one saying he can go fuck himself.
  10. Vote Trump!

    What in the hell are you even talking about? You would be one of the few people in the world who would think that was a "conspiracy" beyond Hillary supporters. And while you're at you need to explain why you have this insane confidence level in the FBI.
  11. Vote Trump!

    That doesn't matter. The FBI let her go because of who she is not because of what they found. I highly disagree that they have a strong legal argument. I have no clue what the law is exactly and what it says exactly about not securing classified documents but I know that it exists and should exist. It's also well known that she didn't follow that law however it's stated. The only logical conclusion is that they let her off because they didn't want to create a political situation with a Presidential nominee, not that she didn't break any laws. If you think we still live in a country that doesn't let people off on crimes because of political pull then you are mistaken. Edit: This new software for the forum is annoying. I had your last quote stuck here for the longest time before I could delete it. And there's no simple "go advanced" feature where you can quickly just edit quote tags and stuff either.
  12. Vote Trump!

    Having classified material on her private server? Then deleting them? The whole thing the FBI investigated her on a couple months ago.
  13. Vote Trump!

    I'm not "for Trump" at all but his opponent should be in prison for her crimes. Instead she will be elected President. lol Wouldn't the Founding Fathers be proud if they were alive to see today's clusterfuck of an election.
  14. Metaphysics of Death

    Yeah, that's the fundamental disagreement in this thread. The metaphysics of anything, including death, can never be good or bad, because whatever it is, it is without evaluation. And none of us on the Objectivist side can't understand why he would want to evaluate something that simply is, essentially ethically. It's like he's trying to mix metaphysics with other branches of philosophy while denying he's doing so for some reason. Or he want's us to use other untrue definitions of the various branches of philosophy, while suspending what we all see as the truth of our own definitions. In his last post he wants us to completely drop any philosophical branch concepts completely and instead use blankout in their place? None of this is meant to insult you or anything OP. I think you are being honest and open while having good tone. While I haven't frequented this site in awhile, I am an Objectivist and have been a member since about '05. And I used to see people that weren't O'ist's come in here all the time with a bad tone and all they wanted to do was argue about everything while never attempting to learn the O'ist perspective, which is what this site is all about. So, that was basically a compliment. I'd recommend that you read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff and you should be able to get a solid understanding of the philosophy.
  15. Metaphysics of Death

    I'll quote a few things just so you have an idea where I/we are coming from OP. Life ¶ There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil. Galt’s Speech,For the New Intellectual, 121 The branch of philosophy that studies existence is metaphysics. Metaphysics identifies the nature of the universe as a whole. It tells men what kind of world they live in, and whether there is a supernatural dimension beyond it. It tells men whether they live in a world of solid entities, natural laws, absolute facts, or in a world of illusory fragments, unpredictable miracles, and ceaseless flux. It tells men whether the things they perceive by their senses and mind form a comprehensible reality, with which they can deal, or some kind of unreal appearance, which leaves them staring and helpless. Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 23 Evil ¶ The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man. Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. “The Objectivist Ethics,”The Virtue of Selfishness, 23
×