Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


EC last won the day on July 20 2017

EC had the most liked content!


About EC

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/23/1977

Profile Information

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

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

5783 profile views
  1. The original poster is not the article's author. The author is an Objectivist and the article is/was satire.
  2. That said the answer is the following: "To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death."
  3. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. To give an answer in regards to Objectivism *requires* that a person quote Miss Rand. If someone just supplies a person asking the question with their own words in response then they are just giving an opinion of their own, no matter how well qualified to do so. Official Objectivist answers to official question about Objectivism require the use of quotes, and anything beyond those quotes is NOT an official answer, it's just that person's opinion on the matter. Only Ayn Rand can give official answers to her own philosophy, and since she's gone, these type of questions can only be answered correctly via quote.
  4. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_will.html No guessing or inferring from others needed! Also think logically, by definition "scientists" couldn't come to ANY conclusions, let alone the "conclusion" that free will doesn't exist, without the existence of free will. To do any type of science, let alone to come to any conclusions as a result of it, first requires the existence of free will.
  5. Why? Just curious because the internet (Youtube?) sounds like a great place to present such an idea at minimal cost to produce what I personally envision as a potentially beautiful new anime world.
  6. Which is why we need to always be referencing and quoting Objectivism's source material as often as possible instead of giving others our personal interpretations of what was said or meant. If people can read all the beauty of virtually every sentence she ever wrote and still be unmoved in a positive way then they aren't worth our time and barraging them with one's own "interpretations" of the philosophy is beyond pointless.
  7. EC

    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.
  8. 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.
  9. EC

    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.
  10. EC

    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/
  11. EC

    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.
  12. EC

    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.
  13. EC

    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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.