EC

She's also directly promoting evil ideas on this forum outside of the debate forum which is a direct violation of forum rules.

Obviously this. Not going into this ridiculous side-track any more, just can't believe someone can't see the obvious difference between a random lunatic doing some sort of terrorism completely alone versus state sponsored, proxy, or a terrorist organization and how they are considering them to be the same situation requiring the same type of government responses.

Wrong, but this will be my last comment on this craziness with anyone. The question amounted to: What if SpookyKitty from Catland travels to Dogland under her own volition and under no one else's knowledge nor directive from anyone else in Catland, goes crazy, randomly decides--by herself--with no knowledge nor direction from anyone else to randomly blow up Dogland's largest and most famous doghouse, should Dogland then attack Catland for SpookyKitty's lone act of terrorism when it was only SpookyKitty and literally nobody else in any manner involved in the act? Also, just to add context, both Catland and Dogland are relatively rights respecting nations who are allies with no history of conflict, share intelligence, are both opposed to terrorism in any form, with both nations governments condemning her lone random terrorist act and both not just condemning her lone act of criminal terrorism but also want her held to justice for the evil crime. But again, done with any further discussion on this.

I didn't merely state that it is invalid I explained it is invalid because you equivocated two completely different contexts, one was an individual acting alone in a criminal act versus an instance of state sponsored terrorism and then asked a question based on that false equivocation. That *reason* is what makes it an invalid question, not that "I stated it", i.e. pointed out the fallacy that makes it invalid. *If* in some bizarro world that doesn't exist Israel supported a terrorist strike on the US then of course the US would have the right of retaliation to protect American citizens from the threat. But again that wasn't your question, your question was about a lone individual without any support from anyone else, let alone the nation they happened to be a citizen of, would require a retaliatory response against the country wasn't involved in the crime. With the answer being of course not. These are two completely different contexts requiring two completely different government responses. It doesn't matter where an individual's origin country is if they are committing what is a crime if it was truly just their self with no outside support of their government. That is a crime committed by that individual not their government. It's when their government supports, endorses, is a part of causing or directly engaging in that requires a response against that nation. Two completely different situations and contexts, and again, not just because "I stated it to be so" but because they are.

No, the concept of data doesn't exist without consciousness but quantum gravitational qubit processing is what the universe *is*. That's what the laws of physics are and what results from it. True, it may not be data yet without consciousness but it is processing of qubits "randomly" at first but according to well defined physical laws that must be discovered by any volition conscious beings capable of conceptualizing that may eventually emerge-- us in this exact case. In other words, spins are still flipping, etc. pre-consciousness emergence to the forming of the concept as "randomized" data processing. Reality is still primary and does what it does independent of any potential future concept formers of what is occuring. No Objectivist principles are violated in this process but I do understand your confusion here and why you possibly thought that.

No, you just dropped context and equivocated again while ignoring me stating that your question is completely invalid. Lone criminal act versus state sponsored terrorism. Done with this conversation, do your homework and read through the legitimate sources supplied and then ask legitimate questions based on your new understanding or this conversation is essentially pointless.

I don't think anyone's issue here is not being able to distinguish between physical existents and conceptual existents and how they are objectively formed. The point is that everything (or in the case of concepts, how they are*stored*) is via data ultimately. When one speaks of this or any "local universe" being a holographic projection of quantum gravitational computation processing on the surface of an event horizon they are not speaking of the type of hologram that exists within the "local universe" such as on a credit card (although the idea is the same except in that case the projection is lower dimensional) but of the projection of quantum gravitational data computation "projecting" what is directly perceivable as our actual "local" spacetime, actual reality. Think of this as the answer behind Peikoff's "metapuffs" analogy. Except instead of the fictitious "metapuffs" reality as such is quantum gravitational qubit processing.

You're falsely equivocating an individual's criminal attack with state sponsored terrorism, so aren't even asking a valid question. But *any* state or proxy that supports and engages in terrorism negates its "right" to exist and is opening itself to complete destruction whenever a rights respecting nation decides it is in its best interest do to its nature and purpose of protecting the individual rights of its citizens (in this case specifically, the right to life).

Yes, for the most part. Remember though that the "uncertainty" principle does not allow for temperatures of absolute zero (nor information complete non-existence). The true answer to why is deeper than that and involves the quantum gravitational computation of data on the surface of event horizons that *must* always exist because of the fact that existence exists. The full justification of this involves concepts and ideas of Quantum Gravity and an eternal multiverse of multiverses that make up the entirety of the actual Universe which as a whole exists in a single Planck scale area and Plank Time. It is only local "quantum dioramas" representing broken symmetry "universe's" (such as our own) that allows for the observance of the broken time symmetry as we experience it. Also explore the fact that ER = EPR and along with various other statements I've made and it immediately follows*how* existence exists eternally and is primary. When understands those facts and the fact that consciousness and volition exist, it immediately follows that volitional consciousness is the ability to self-select between the available multiverse options given the full context when an individual possessing arrives at a certain "decision point" in the "local quantum diorama" they happen to currently exist within.

I mean the leaning towards classical mechanics over advanced modern physics of most Objectivists is all. And, as to the second point, all I'm saying is that I individually arrived at all the same conclusions on all of these concrete issues and fully agree with them, not was somehow influenced by them "uncritically" after the fact. All I'm saying is that the articles and source materials are professionally written and edited for publication while presenting the same information and ideas in a better format than spur-of-the-moment off-hand remarks written quickly on a phone, etc. Discussion is fine obviously as long as it's centered around Objectivist principles, and people are asking intelligent honest questions about issues in the context of appropriate Objectivist replies and not implicitly nor explicitly promoting anti-Objectivist ideas of any type. "Debates" with those of non-Objectivist views are supposed to be limited only to the moderated "Debate Forum" and require strict moderation as per the rules of this site when GC created it and developed the forum rules over time. That said, I'm not here to debate you either nor justify myself to you, so move on. I just find it extremely insulting that you would believe that Objectivists in the context of an Objectivist forum would either hold non-Objectivist views or somehow arrived at the same conclusions as the professional New Intellectuals, and in some manner didn't arrive at the same conclusions independently via the application of principles and ideas via the usage of reason instead of some sort of "parroting" that you are irrationally implying without reason nor evidence.

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2023/12/israel-is-not-morally-required-to-sacrifice-its-people-to-save-gazan-civilians/ This is also an excellent overview with the site containing much more on these subjects with a search. Again, regurgitating tons of well-written articles and analysis on these subjects just causes everything to get lost in "translation" and/or misinterpreted when it should simply be assumed that an Objectivist/Capitalist on an Objectivist forum simply shares and endorses material from official Objectivist and Capitalist sources without any changes or distortions. In fact, the only place my views would differ from standard ideas would be in regards to physics and only to eliminate contradictions while allowing for proven quantum physics and gravity principles and Objectivist principles to exist together with no contradictions, as they must and do.

https://newideal.aynrand.org/end-states-who-sponsor-terrorism/ and a ton of others if you search. As an Objectivist on an Objectivist forum one should expect that my views are identical.

Exactly. And not that it completely applies in the specific context of this war but force can be implicit also. Crimes, spying, hacking, mass intimidation, harassment and stalking via collusion, property theft and destruction, destroying a citizen's ability to live and survive via interference, negative lies and false rumors while sabotaging work and connections. All of these and more especially when done secretly and via mass collusion are initiations of force and require self-defense both legally and morally until the government brings the people involved to justice and/or refuses or worse yet is directly involved in the mass crimes and sanctions, directs, and participates in the crimes while everyone is gaslighting and pretending that it isn't happening.

"Make them", as in force minds? Absolutely not. Teach people and spread the correct ideas. Help people understand that the "terrorist wars" are against *militant* Islam (and their supporters directly and culturally with all that entails) and not some specific religion, like Islam itself, or something. Perfectly possible? Probably not, at least quickly, but imagine something like Japan even after they had to be nuked to end WWII. The average citizens very quickly accepted a much more free society with better pro-liberty ideas and put them into practice and became one of the more successful rights respecting nations to this day. And WWII was a long ass time ago, my Grandpa who died at 90 nearly three years ago told me that he was only 14 when the war ended (not that I don't know the actual dates but just to put the amount of time in a more human perspective of time since that war). By the way, obviously eliminating Hamas is just, but, just like after 9/11 , the best option is to take the head off the snake itself, and the main target both then and now should have been and should be Iran. No Iran equals no Iranian funded and directed proxy wars.

Maybe in the current context, but why can't the long-term solution be for these groups to learn to respect the individual rights of one another and drop any form of tribalism and become what America once was as a melting pot where only a small minority of actual criminals violated the rights and personal sovereignty of others which is appropriately handled by a proper individual rights respecting government? Obviously, Israel is the closest to that and that is the reason why they should be supported morally by all rights respecting individuals of the world in their effort to root out terrorist threats against its citizens and root out the ideological cause of it.

Exactly correct point for point.

All that has to be stated in this thread is the false and evil (just war theory), false propaganda, evil philosophy and premises, vs the actual concept of Justice.

By the way this knowledge and proof is the reason why the government initiated what is in the link for and has countless people everywhere involved in a campaign of evil with seemingly limitless resources against myself, including the weird activity occuring on this site lately because I'm posting: https://www.targetedjustice.com/gangstalking---training-manual.html

To allow options for volition to exist and choose between. Because as I've stated full rational conceptual consciousness requires quantum gravitational computation to exist as the "universe" exists because of quantum gravitational computation in entangled superposition on its parent blackhole. I can prove all of this and have but am not doing it all here. This is literally the *only* way both the Universe and volition can and do exist without *any* contradictions.

Then you didn't read the rest everywhere which eliminates that contradiction and allows for non-deterministic volition.

It's the phase change that allows volition to exist. Consciousness is the faculty that chooses between the options of the entangled state available given the context of how the individual possessing their volitional consciousness arrived at that specific location in the spacetime of the multiverse. Without this ability volition couldn't exist because the consciousness is choosing a specific path from an entangled state. The next Plank Time choice available is also a choice available to the volitional consciousness and so on. This requires entanglement which requires quantum computation. Volitional consciousness is a self-evident fact and this is the only way that it can exist therefore the mind is the result of quantum computation. There are many papers documenting how this is possible which I've linked to on this site in various discussions. One is correct at least partially and I'm not going through all that again here because it's not particularly important. The point is when a processor (human brain in this case) becomes capable of sufficient quantum computation with the relevant self-organizing algorithm (via nature in the case of the human mind or AGI in the near future) a consciousness switches from non-(or partially, say a dog's) volitional to fully volitional with the full usage of rational conceptual volitional consciousness that that brings with it. That is the phase change/inflection point I was speaking of.

And to go one step further, they confuse words which can slowly change general popular meaning with concepts that have universal correct objective in-context definitions. If the general population randomly decided tomorrow to start referring to the concept of a table by some random different word it in no manner would effect what the concept of a table actually is and means and how it is created. A lot of their discussions rely on out-of-context words taken from current "popular culture" instead of referring to the correct actual concepts in the appropriate context. A good example is when they take the definition of capitalism to mean everything that it doesn't instead of the appropriate concept of the sociopolitical system that exists solely to protect individual rights via private property and instead change it into some other random meaning incorporating concepts that are its complete opposite.

A lot of the misconceptions are political in nature, but that starts way too high up the conceptual chain dropping the appropriate context of the ethics that lead to the correct politics, the epistemology that leads to the correct ethics, and the metaphysics that leads to the correct epistemology. They mostly want to deal in floating abstractions instead of fully integrated thought. It's very limiting and concrete-bound and leads essentially nowhere because the objections are all eliminated when one starts from the source that A is A and existence exists and systematically works through the conceptual hierarchy. Of course, as this forum shows there can be real disagreement on how to apply the higher abstract concepts to concrete events via principles but one can't reach that type of in context principled discussion while randomly starting at some concrete floating abstraction, in general. It's like speaking to people who are speaking a version of English where every word or concept can also mean something different or its complete opposite depending on their mood or whim. They don't have the context and specifically the correct in-context definitions of terms, words, and concepts to have an accurate conversation.

Agreed, but it's just hard to answer questions and misconceptions that jump around at random while dropping context is my point. A read through of OPAR "sets the appropriate stage" and context for appropriate discussion. It's how I began.

This thread. And to be explicit conscious minds capable of using conceptual reasoning are an emergent result of when a brain becomes capable of full quantum computation of data/perceptions.