Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

QM - Fact or Fantasy

Rate this topic


andie holland

Recommended Posts

Ilya,

To take one more point from your comments regarding Miller, I don't know that Planck time is the most fundamental unit of time, but I have no issue with how it is defined.  The time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length; as a definition, this bodes well with both my understanding of Peikoff and Miller on the topic. Being the most fundamental unit of time clashes with my understanding of mathematics.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

HD said:

Harrison, I got the example from Ms. Rand in a Q and A of the 1976 lectures so its hard for it to be a skewed view of Oist thought. Obviously you are free to disagree with the Oist position she presented.

No (sorry for the half-baked post); I think that Andy is skewing Oist thought.

I don't agree that fact (that only one object can occupy the same place at the same time) is a DIRECT extension of Identity, but I don't consider it a major point here; it is clearly a fact, regardless of where it's derived from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HD said:

Harrison, I got the example from Ms. Rand in a Q and A of the 1976 lectures so its hard for it to be a skewed view of Oist thought. Obviously you are free to disagree with the Oist position she presented.

It might interest you to know that the 1976 lecture series is now freely offered at the ARI Campus.

 

 

The ARI Campus is offering several lectures previously now only available via the e-store. Do you think this would augment the agreement that existed when purchasing the ARI e-store version (or the much earlier cassette tapes or somewhat later cd's?), permitting electronic copies to be made freely available, or do you think it would still require directing interested parties to the ARI-Campus for the free version versus the ARI e-store for their own purchased edition?

 

Edit: I only ask because it seems that there are some who would seem to have you recapitulate 10 hours worth of materials only to say, at the end, that you're merely regurgitation the stuff. I'm growing tired of this tactic, but I don't know how to counterpoint it efficaciously.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andie said:

So we cant "claim to base universal substance on the human-perceptual", but "the observations and measurements contradict a 'one-substance' theory: "....

I guess you Copenhagen interpretation humans have found a way to observe non perceptually...

Maybe you shouldn't have left logic at the door while making those statements...

Your transistor comments are complete strawmen. What is at issue is your irrational interpretation of the theoretical ontology of QM, not the factual existence of technology that does not give you an inkling of a view into said theoretical ontology. Its funny how you make out like the Copenhagen Interpretation is de facto the only view. Philosophy of science texts are full of discussions on alternative interpretations of the factual basis of the mathematics of QM.

First of all, let's get the marginalia out of the way so we can delve into the issue of substance, which is that of Metaphysics.

 

*Transistors and GMR are cited as two theoretical applications of QM which are indispensable to daily life. Far from straw dogs, these impose direct questions that I'm posing to you--assuming that you are not the only one so entitled. 

 

** Copenhagen is based upon a metaphysic that you don't accept. Having a lot to do with Bohr's understanding of Kant, it basically states that our knowledge of reality is incomplete without referencing the categories of thought.

 

This is another version as to how the world hangs together in the most general sort of way-- with our participation. In Physics, it has its roots in the 1880-ish work of Mach; because our instruments are getting so exotic, even the mathematical outputs obtained against measurement are no longer an 'extension' of our sensory data.

 

What you fail to understand, moreover, is that Kant's work was based upon a criticism of the previously established metaphysic. By his standards, as a scientist, the metaphysic he critiqued was unable to explain how science really works, therefore the transmission of knowledge.

 

Namely, there is one basic substance that, in the most fundamental sense, can be explained by a discreet set of universal laws. The most apt expression of this is Leibniz's 'Monadology'.

 

Now for its time, the one-basic-substance metaphysic was  radically progressive, giving rise to Newton, and then  later Darwin and Einstein in revised form. In terms of content, it signified that: a) both planets and apples obeyed the same laws, B) all life springs from a single source, and c) even time and space--once thought to be either abstractions or Kantian mind-dependent-- are real entities that obey one law, too.

 

The rupture that so befuddles Harriman is the QM gang's outright rejection of 'monadology'. Because subatomic particles do not possess the same basic substance, the laws of their behavior are different. Learning QM means learning QM law. So yes, of course, to assess photons by monadic standards will offer up nonsense. 

 

Now the Standard Model,which you can google up, shows 16 fundamental particles, and 17 by including Higgs. Each of these is 'fundamental' because they're both non-reductable and different with respect to mass, spin, and energy (top left corner). In a broad sense, each 17 of them might be said to carry their own metaphysic-- or 17 basic rules and properties. 

 

Fortunately, scientists such as Feynman and Weinberg have reduced that number to two: half and whole spinners-- or fermions which form matter, and bosons which cannot because they move too fast.

So as we speak, Physics is written with three sets of laws: Newton/Einstein, Bosonic, and Fermonic.

 

This makes for three discreet substances, or a metaphysical trilogy of sorts, Behavior that explains one cannot explain the other two. Taking a common-sense, hee-haw posture that Fermions and Bosons must act like cats being thrown at a wall, or colliding automobiles, simply means that one has not bothered to familiarize his/herself with the material.

 

To this end, Harriman's lame excuse is that he's probably unable to understand any metaphysic dated past 1700, and simply cannot do the math for Fermionic and Bosonic rules. So he talks of 'fairy tales. Be aware--and a bit afraid. he's a grinning idiot that's telling you that, blindfolded, an elephant is a snake because he's grasping the tail.

 

Now, finally,  for logic: its purpose is to order entities with respect to a given metaphysic. For example, if objects a,b,c,d,e.... are said to be of the same substance, logic informs us that all  objects will possess the same substance, given that there is fundamentally only one substance. Again, this means that both apples and planets have gravity, homo sapiens are a evolved species within the animal kingdom, and spacetime is an object , too. 

 

So here, Rand is more or less correct that logic is conceptually glued to metaphysics as a rational-deductive procedure.  Where we disagree, of course, is that she recognized only that of the fundamental sameness of common things such as apples, planets, great apes, and spacetime bent in gravatational nets, etc.

 

So when QM stuff claims different rules for itself, those holding to one-rule, monadology will scream, 'nonsense'. thereby denying QM its own metaphysical reality

 

Most fundamental is the Law of identity. In The monadology, what makes Classic Physics possible is the abstracted, great A of 'substance' which makes all substances behave the same way in terms of Physics itself.

 

But again, Bosons and Fermoins have different laws. Their logic says that when certain of these collide, they simply vanish or change in to a negative. Again, not the 'logic' of the everyday....Likewise, the particular laws of bosons  say that it can be in two places at once. In passing, of course it must be mentioned that all Bosonic and Fermionic laws are written as probabilities. 

 

So might you say that these two have a different logic? Well not really--assuming you stretch identity a bit to say that the fundamental A-ness of a boson or a Fermion will fundamentally predict the behavior of other particles identified as such. Otherwise, does A=a fuzzy, probable A found anywhere within a given field as a probability? 

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ilya,

To take one more point from your comments regarding Miller, I don't know that Planck time is the most fundamental unit of time, but I have no issue with how it is defined.  The time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length; as a definition, this bodes well with both my understanding of Peikoff and Miller on the topic. Being the most fundamental unit of time clashes with my understanding of mathematics.

Yes, Planck's h-slash's wave (sine) is the most fundamental unit of time. Planck 'Time' also refers to the Big Bang dispersal of photons, prior to the formation of other elementary particles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The 'pulsation' of a photon is basically the 'shape' of its wave (sine), which will give amplitude, or the aforementioned level  of energy.

 

Fermions can create mass because they have a half spin. OTH, bosons cannot, due to their 'whole-spin.

'Spin'. of course is QMese for 'angular momentum.

 

Of course I'm using 'vacuum' in a textbook sort of way. My own 'philosophy' is to give a complete rendition of established science prior to philosophical assessment. Hence a firewall, of sorts, between facts and meaning.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not read Harriman and I know nothing about QM (and frankly, from having "followed" the thread, I have no interest in learning too much about it :) ).

But I wanted to pull this quote because I think it speaks to important matters.

It does not contradict Objectivist thought, generally, to say "if there's a contradiction go with science because it represents reality." Indeed, this is Objectivist thought, insofar as I understand it. Reality trumps all, and when we find some contradiction among our thoughts (the only place such a contradiction can exist), or apparently between what we believe and the results we get, we must "check our premises" and amend accordingly.

I would only add to that, that when "science" means some scientist, or group of scientists, or a science textbook, or etc., this does not proclaim its infallibility. The accepted science of any age (meaning: some collection of beliefs) may be flawed, and may be the thing which requires amendment in the face of contradiction. It's a question that must be explored with regard to the specifics, and through examination, and further scientific inquiry. Ideally, with respect to QM, this is what's being explored in this thread.

There is nothing wrong with "logic," per se, and it cannot be "contradicted" as such, which is to say that QM, -- whatever that is, and if it is true -- cannot contradict "the Law of Identity"; if QM is true, and if it appears to contradict Identity, then the person who believes so either misconceptualizes QM or misconceptualizes Identity or fails to see their actual relationship. But when one's premises are flawed, logic will not produce correct results, however logically they may proceed from those premises.

Don,

 

Many thanks for a thoughtful reply. Many of the points that you raised were taken up in my # 280, to which I invite your response.

 

Briefly, any logic follows a particular metaphysic. This means that we can apply formal principles (ie A=A) to any metaphysical system to deductively test for consistency.

 

In this regard, QM clearly does not hold to the metaphysic that says since only one basic substance exists, there is only one, small  set of laws which deductively govern the particulars. As judged by the standard of modadism, QM is indeed illogical.

 

This 'monad-ism is the metaphysic that made Newton, Darwin, and Einstein possible. 

 

My solution is to hold to the general principles of logic while admitting that QM rules imply a different metaphysic. In other words, given that there are normal things and there are subatomic particles, why must they subscribe to the same rules?

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ilya,

To take one more point from your comments regarding Miller, I don't know that Planck time is the most fundamental unit of time, but I have no issue with how it is defined.  The time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length; as a definition, this bodes well with both my understanding of Peikoff and Miller on the topic. Being the most fundamental unit of time clashes with my understanding of mathematics.

 

 

Are you reading even reading what is being said here and to try to understand it?

 

The fact that you declare Plank time is the most fundamental unit, in no way addresses how it might clash with my understanding of mathematics as it relates to this matter,

This would be the main reason I regard a Plank time unit as simply one of many valid standards I've encountered in my life's journey, each relate-able to the others, if you know how to do it.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you reading even reading what is being said here and to try to understand it?

 

The fact that you declare Plank time is the most fundamental unit, in no way addresses how it might clash with my understanding of mathematics as it relates to this matter,

This would be the main reason I regard a Plank time unit as simply one of many valid standards I've encountered in my life's journey, each relate-able to the others, if you know how to do it.

If your life's journey takes you into either QM or Cosmology, Planck will be your standard of time--elsewhere, not. No I don't 'relate' Planck to my ten-minute morning scurry over to 'Linguistics of Medieval Spanish'.

 

 Otherwise, i can't address how your understanding of math clashes with Planck; I don't know what it is.

Edited by andie holland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is more fundamental, a unit of plank time, a second, a minute, an hour, a day, or a year?

Which is more fundamental, a unit of plank length, a millimeter, an inch, a mile, or a light-year?

Which is more fundamental, Celsius, Fahrenheit, or Kelvin?

Which is more fundamental, grams or ounces?

In all these cases, I recognize these as just different standards used to measure time, length, temperature, or weight.

Math is one of the tools used to inter-relate them. Physics is another tool used to inter-relate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the points that you raised were taken up in my # 280, to which I invite your response.

If you could direct me? Post #280 appears to have been written by somebody else. (Or maybe we can simply proceed from this post?)

 

Briefly, any logic follows a particular metaphysic. This means that we can apply formal principles (ie A=A) to any metaphysical system to deductively test for consistency.

Part of the challenge for me in discussing these kinds of matters, and why I tend to observe without engaging, is that I simply don't have a lot of knowledge or background in the area. So I apologize, but I don't understand the above. This will happen a lot. I'll try my best to respond intelligently to things as I can.

 

In this regard, QM clearly does not hold to the metaphysic that says since only one basic substance exists, there is only one, small  set of laws which deductively govern the particulars. As judged by the standard of modadism, QM is indeed illogical.

Having briefly looked up "monad" for the purpose of trying to understand and respond to this post (and having only that amount of understanding myself), here's how I interpret this:

That people who have an idea that super small "material" (or however we regard the subject of QM) will appear to obey the same physical laws which we have derived from our observations of the world around us, are confounded by the data they receive when testing QM hypotheses.

Without respect to the details (of which I'm largely ignorant), I don't know of any requirement, with respect to "logic" or "identity," that the super small must behave in the same manner as the large. That sounds like exactly the sort of "premise" a person might have which could come into apparent contradiction with reality as further experienced, and thus be subject to revision.

 

This 'monad-ism is the metaphysic that made Newton, Darwin, and Einstein possible.

This is as may be; I'm sure you'd know better than I. But then, Darwin was not speaking to QM, I don't believe, so I'm not quite certain whether there's a rhetorical point here, or that I grasp it.

 

My solution is to hold to the general principles of logic while admitting that QM rules imply a different metaphysic.

If QM is to have value, in my opinion, then I don't think it could ultimately be considered some "exception to logic" or to identity, or what-have-you.

Rather, I would be forced to conclude that the observations of subatomic particles do not conform to what I would have expected, but that they are what they are, and must be understood on their own terms.

Are we saying the same thing?

 

In other words, given that there are normal things and there are subatomic particles, why must they subscribe to the same rules?

It depends on which rules we're talking about. Logic, identity, we're not going to find things out there which gainsay those, for if we have a QM, and if it is true, and if it allows us to build things which work, then we must be proceeding logically based on the test results we've received.

But if the rules are some preconceived notion as to how things are supposed to work, then there is no requirement (that I am aware of) which says that the subatomic world must be recognizable on the terms of the world which we typically experience. That's why we run the experiments in the first place -- to find out how that particular world works. Or, more specifically, it's all the "same world," but it may be a world wherein super small objects behave unlike large ones. If that's the case of our world, then I don't know of any way to learn that by only looking at the large objects.

After all, it's true that A is A, but this doesn't give us any indication as to what A is bound to be. That's what we have to discover for ourselves, through painstaking process (i.e. "science").

It occurs to me that this discussion is similar to an ongoing discussion in another thread on "free will" versus determinism. Some people seem to take an approach that, because most of the things they observe do not have volition, then it must also be true of humans that we operate in a similar clockwork fashion. But people, through volition and through identity, do not work in the same fashion as dominoes do. We are fundamentally unalike. But this, as Rand observed, is no challenge to the law of identity. Identity holds that things are what they are, and causality that things act according to their nature, but they make no particular demands on what that nature must be. If quarks operate in some surprising ways, it is likewise no challenge to identity; rather, it is an expression of identity, and causality, that they act according to their nature. The expression of that behavior, through tests and observation and etc., is precisely what we must trouble ourselves to discover, and thereby come to understand their nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is more fundamental, a unit of plank time, a second, a minute, an hour, a day, or a year?

Which is more fundamental, a unit of plank length, a millimeter, an inch, a mile, or a light-year?

Which is more fundamental, Celsius, Fahrenheit, or Kelvin?

Which is more fundamental, grams or ounces?

In all these cases, I recognize these as just different standards used to measure time, length, temperature, or weight.

Math is one of the tools used to inter-relate them. Physics is another tool used to inter-relate them.

"Fundamental" comes from the Middle French, 'fond', or 'bottom'. it refers to reductability. All units of time can be expressed in terms of the 'bottom' unit, Planck.

 

Your use of the term is existential; I, too do not calculate my walking times in Plancks, rather using 'minutes'. 

 

The math used to 'inter-relate' units of measure is called 'factor'. It means X unit times (factor of conversion) equals Y unit.

 

Physics uses factors (and more complicated 'transforms' taken from math); it isn't the tool itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mathematically, I can still extend the precision and consider half a planck unit of time or length. In this sense, mathematics offers us a tool by which we can continue to refine the precision required in any given considered measurement. To employ the decimal system to the unit, divide a unit of planck length or time into 10 equal parts. Take one of those parts and divide it into 10 equal parts. Mathematics allows us to continue to refine the measurement process. Because we know how to do this, it gives us the grasp of infinitely divisible as well as a grasp of infinitely extendable.

 

At what point do I continue to extend the decimal subdivisions before I decide to establish a new unit to express the refinements in?

Or in the other direction, when does a number become so large in a particular unit as to warrant establishing a new unit to encompass it with?

 

Or, in other words, your assertion that the Planck units are fundamental, clash with this understanding I have of mathematics. What limits this or resolves this?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me offer you Rand's take on non-existence.

. . . Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. . . .

 

Note to what non-existence pertains.

If Ayn Rand is wrong on this point, then I would be deluding myself to take stock in it. I would submit that this would be my problem.

. . .

It is on these terms that we strive to be a moral community. The question to you is, is that consonant with what you are seeking?

. . .

Right reasoning cannot be defeated by wrong reasoning.

Right reasoning seeks to engage with others that are seeking right reasoning.

Right reasoning seeks integration as a value not to be sacrificed to either mis-integration or dis-integration.

 

To take a simple cue of where Rand was wrong is that matter is indeed destructible. Matter becomes energy when annihilated. Matter and energy, however, are NOT the same, unless you would listen to Andie on this point, and even there she contradicts herself (see below). I am on these forums because I am seeking those who defend Existence. My primary goal in life is Existence. But defending Existence by myself is a bleak path. If you would rather want me to stop posting and would rather enjoy Andie's company, I can accommodate you. But then you would need to remember that you've failed in idealism and had become materialists as you were doomed to become. I may be you last hope to properly reach Existence, but instead you'd rather abandoned me, or, more probably, never decide to understand my mission. Right reasoning can become wrong reasoning. You can start with misintegration that could be corrected but instead end with disintegration.

 

The rupture that so befuddles Harriman is the QM gang's outright rejection of 'monadology'. Because subatomic particles do not possess the same basic substance, the laws of their behavior are different. Learning QM means learning QM law. So yes, of course, to assess photons by monadic standards will offer up nonsense. 

 

Now the Standard Model,which you can google up, shows 16 fundamental particles, and 17 by including Higgs. Each of these is 'fundamental' because they're both non-reductable and different with respect to mass, spin, and energy (top left corner). In a broad sense, each 17 of them might be said to carry their own metaphysic-- or 17 basic rules and properties. 

. . .

Now, finally,  for logic: its purpose is to order entities with respect to a given metaphysic. For example, if objects a,b,c,d,e.... are said to be of the same substance, logic informs us that all  objects will possess the same substance, given that there is fundamentally only one substance. Again, this means that both apples and planets have gravity, homo sapiens are a evolved species within the animal kingdom, and spacetime is an object , too. 

 

. . .So when QM stuff claims different rules for itself, those holding to one-rule, monadology will scream, 'nonsense'. thereby denying QM its own metaphysical reality

 

Most fundamental is the Law of identity. In The monadology, what makes Classic Physics possible is the abstracted, great A of 'substance' which makes all substances behave the same way in terms of Physics itself.

 

But again, Bosons and Fermoins have different laws. Their logic says that when certain of these collide, they simply vanish or change in to a negative. Again, not the 'logic' of the everyday....Likewise, the particular laws of bosons  say that it can be in two places at once. . . .

 

So might you say that these two have a different logic? Well not really--assuming you stretch identity a bit to say that the fundamental A-ness of a boson or a Fermion will fundamentally predict the behavior of other particles identified as such. Otherwise, does A=a fuzzy, probable A found anywhere within a given field as a probability? 

 

AH

 

Subatomic particles possess the same basic substance. It's called energy. They form in difference ways, hence they have different quantum numbers. And quantum spacetime is photons, which are not exactly objects. I really dislike mixing fermions and bosons. It's like mixing objects with their forms/shapes. The two are inseparable distinctions.

QM's metaphysical reality is Nonexistence. Don't deceive yourself. You are not one of idealists.

When fermions collide, they don't "simply vanish or change in to [sic] a negative." They annihilate, i.e., disintegrate into their basic substance, which is energy. Now, to go back to our conversation when you claimed of my "ignorance of basic Physics": Baryons (specifically protons and antiprotons) are collided to find fundamental particles. What do we get exactly when we experimentally collide electrons and positrons?

 

. . . Being the most fundamental unit of time clashes with my understanding of mathematics.

Which is more fundamental, a unit of plank time, a second, a minute, an hour, a day, or a year?

Which is more fundamental, a unit of plank length, a millimeter, an inch, a mile, or a light-year?

Which is more fundamental, Celsius, Fahrenheit, or Kelvin?

Which is more fundamental, grams or ounces?

In all these cases, I recognize these as just different standards used to measure time, length, temperature, or weight.

Math is one of the tools used to inter-relate them. Physics is another tool used to inter-relate them.

Mathematically, I can still extend the precision and consider half a planck unit of time or length. In this sense, mathematics offers us a tool by which we can continue to refine the precision required in any given considered measurement. To employ the decimal system to the unit, divide a unit of planck length or time into 10 equal parts. Take one of those parts and divide it into 10 equal parts. Mathematics allows us to continue to refine the measurement process. Because we know how to do this, it gives us the grasp of infinitely divisible as well as a grasp of infinitely extendable.

 

At what point do I continue to extend the decimal subdivisions before I decide to establish a new unit to express the refinements in?

Or in the other direction, when does a number become so large in a particular unit as to warrant establishing a new unit to encompass it with?

 

Or, in other words, your assertion that the Planck units are fundamental, clash with this understanding I have of mathematics. What limits this or resolves this?

 

Planck time is the most fundamental unit of epistemological time. More fundamental can only be metaphysical Time.

All are standards of time, but only Planck is the most fundamental. Fundamental means original, basic, or primary source for all the rest. So, Planck spacetime is the most fundamental of all realities. It is the reality of sensations.

If you divide Planck time, you get out of epistemology and into math that has nothing to do with any known reality. The infinity you talk of is actual mathematical infinity. There is no such thing in physical reality. Only absolute nothing can be actually infinite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ilya,

 

This isn't really about having a conversation with you vs having a conversation with andie.

 

Think of it more along the lines that if either of you want to have a conversation with me, if you want to trade words with me, I find my words and time of value, and expect the same in return. While I find value in correcting errors I discover in my own thinking - I do not get the same type of satisfaction identifying what I perceive as errors in the expressions of another.

 

This brings us back to the point I made earlier about the relationship between words (consciousness) and reality.(existence). To me, this is a fundamental. It serves as a foundation, a reference point, a mutual recognition between participants in a conversation. Reality serves as my final arbiter, thus as the source of referents used to derive my language from. If we can't agree on this point, how on earth would you expect to resolve such abstract stuff as fermions and bosons.

 

If you are following my series of posts on Truth and Tolerance, understand that I am applying my understanding of concept formation as I understand Rand at this point in my life. She suggests concept formation in large part, a mathematical process. Using observations to form concepts, such as east and west, while looking for connections between this and my understandings of Geometric Tolerancing and Dimensioning, itself a development arising out of ambiguities older understandings of measurement had not yet discovered to address.

 

GD&T does not invalidate prior notions of measurement, rather it seeks to enhance and refine the approach to measurement by providing clarity where it was found lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

How could we strengthen connections between language and reality based on the philosophical foundations that Rand provides? I want to understand reality. More than anything, I am focused on it. Language and consciousness are secondary. Rand does not help in my quest to comprehend reality. Do you know why? Because of the biggest mistake Rand ever made.

In order to understand reality, one first needs to distinguish it from non-reality. But ignoring non-reality does not help in distinguishing the two. Such ignorance only makes reality a vague and imprecise concept. This is similar to the mistake that Christian mystics made. They did not distinguish between emotions and reason, and they fell victim to materialist reason, thinking that materialist morals are about emotions and that their values are the same. Because materialists do not value emotions for emotional sake whereas mystics do is the great point of difference that was ignored. And out of that ignorance an evil philosophy was defended by the deceived, and many lives were lost.

 

I have been writing on this forum mostly about Nonexistence. I've done this highly displeasing act for the sole reason that Objectivists ignore Nonexistence, since Rand and Peikoff ignored it. Well, however much we hate it, we have to face it. By facing what we do not know and learning about it as much as possible we get a chance to understand it deeper and contrast it with what we believe in. This process of distinguishing is similar to distinguishing "evil" from "good," and it makes us stronger at the end, when we know surely what's metaphysically evil and what's metaphysically good.

 

Nonexistence is evil, but it is there. Moreover, it is a necessary evil. We start with it in order to get it over with. Once we supersede it, we can never look back, and we never should. What would be left is our conviction of choosing good over evil and what those things really mean. When we are all on the same path, we can finally bathe in all the goodness that's ahead of us. If this sounds true to you, then it is a common ground that we share. And if we share it, then we should be more sensitive to each other. After all, we have chosen existence, and we will do anything that's in our strength in order to defend its value and achieve its purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you reveal here is how the basis on which our moral codes depend differ. I can't fully concretize it to myself at this time, but I can indicate that on what I base mine extends to and includes the use of language. Ideas are a tool, and as such can be used to pursue a good or evil end. Rand and Peikoff did not ignore non-existence, they addressed it quite adequately. I would suggest that if you want to study that which does not exist, you should go out there and look for it, and when you find it, examine it carefully. When you do, I submit, you will discover the same as I. In the meantime, I cannot, in good conscience, aide you in such an undertaking.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To take a simple cue of where Rand was wrong is that matter is indeed destructible. Matter becomes energy when annihilated. Matter and energy, however, are NOT the same, unless you would listen to Andie on this point, and even there she contradicts herself (see below). I am on these forums because I am seeking those who defend Existence. My primary goal in life is Existence. But defending Existence by myself is a bleak path. If you would rather want me to stop posting and would rather enjoy Andie's company, I can accommodate you. But then you would need to remember that you've failed in idealism and had become materialists as you were doomed to become. I may be you last hope to properly reach Existence, but instead you'd rather abandoned me, or, more probably, never decide to understand my mission. Right reasoning can become wrong reasoning. You can start with misintegration that could be corrected but instead end with disintegration.

 

 

Subatomic particles possess the same basic substance. It's called energy. They form in difference ways, hence they have different quantum numbers. And quantum spacetime is photons, which are not exactly objects. I really dislike mixing fermions and bosons. It's like mixing objects with their forms/shapes. The two are inseparable distinctions.

QM's metaphysical reality is Nonexistence. Don't deceive yourself. You are not one of idealists.

When fermions collide, they don't "simply vanish or change in to [sic] a negative." They annihilate, i.e., disintegrate into their basic substance, which is energy. Now, to go back to our conversation when you claimed of my "ignorance of basic Physics": Baryons (specifically protons and antiprotons) are collided to find fundamental particles. What do we get exactly when we experimentally collide electrons and positrons?

 

 

Planck time is the most fundamental unit of epistemological time. More fundamental can only be metaphysical Time.

All are standards of time, but only Planck is the most fundamental. Fundamental means original, basic, or primary source for all the rest. So, Planck spacetime is the most fundamental of all realities. It is the reality of sensations.

If you divide Planck time, you get out of epistemology and into math that has nothing to do with any known reality. The infinity you talk of is actual mathematical infinity. There is no such thing in physical reality. Only absolute nothing can be actually infinite.

Again, the energy potential of all members of the Chart of Fundamental Particles is given in the upper left-hand corner.

 

And yes, I suppose that you can say that having different numbers in said upper left hand corner suggests that they were formed in ‘different ‘ways’. Ditto that photons aren’t exactly objects.

 

Again, bosons have whole spins, while fermions have half spins. The field equations are different. Per my post #280, this strongly suggests a metaphysical trilogy, along with the classical Newton-Einsteinian.

 

Therefore, to speak of Qm as ‘nonexistant’ would only belabor the point that different metaphysics, by definition, imply different existents.

 

No, in many cases, elementary articles do vanish from observation and/or change intro negatives. Per the nerdy Feynman-diagram  t-shirts , their collisions do indeed create energy.

 

You seem to be big on the idea that energy is the basic substance of elementary particles. In this sense, said particles are not so ‘fundamental after all. My reading as a mere amateur fails to find anyproof of your claim.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mathematically, I can still extend the precision and consider half a planck unit of time or length. In this sense, mathematics offers us a tool by which we can continue to refine the precision required in any given considered measurement. To employ the decimal system to the unit, divide a unit of planck length or time into 10 equal parts. Take one of those parts and divide it into 10 equal parts. Mathematics allows us to continue to refine the measurement process. Because we know how to do this, it gives us the grasp of infinitely divisible as well as a grasp of infinitely extendable.

 

At what point do I continue to extend the decimal subdivisions before I decide to establish a new unit to express the refinements in?

Or in the other direction, when does a number become so large in a particular unit as to warrant establishing a new unit to encompass it with?

 

Or, in other words, your assertion that the Planck units are fundamental, clash with this understanding I have of mathematics. What limits this or resolves this?

Yes, arithmetic can be used to divide any unit of measure into smaller units. This is done out of user-friendly convenience. It can also both multiply and even use a factor to calibrate units to an easy-to-remember scale of 100. 

 

Planck units are different in that they represent the observed movement of a photon. Physically speaking, this cannot be divided. Yet most of our other units are those of convention or tradition In other words, a 'mile' is epistemologically distinct from a Planck.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half of the distance of a movement is, none the less, one half of the distance of a movement, as is half the amount of time it transpires in is simply half the amount of time..

 

You already have your answer to the question in this thread. You've stated it several times quite clearly. The answer resides in the illogicality. You're just demonstrating that Harriman can tie it more comprehensively to more points that matter with regard to the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you reveal here is how the basis on which our moral codes depend differ. I can't fully concretize it to myself at this time, but I can indicate that on what I base mine extends to and includes the use of language. Ideas are a tool, and as such can be used to pursue a good or evil end. Rand and Peikoff did not ignore non-existence, they addressed it quite adequately. I would suggest that if you want to study that which does not exist, you should go out there and look for it, and when you find it, examine it carefully. When you do, I submit, you will discover the same as I. In the meantime, I cannot, in good conscience, aide you in such an undertaking.

 

You do realize that we are applying philosophy to quantum scale here, right? And you keep living with the facts from the 19th century. Rand and Peikoff ignored the dual nature of reality. They simply threw words around without completely differentiating the real differences between the two scales. What physical data did they have to back up their words? None. Only abstract ideas. Planck time is real fundamentally; it is real to particles, but it is not immediately real to us as human beings. The word "fundamental" reflects physical reality on quantum scale. Whether following its etymology or not, you can choose any number of synonyms, such as elementary, irreducible, cardinal, bottom, underived, underlying, necessary, and axiomatic. These words reflect what we know about the infinitesimal scale. They are identities, too, so we keep using them, rather than throw them away because you were metaphorically persuaded to conform to a remote idealism.

 

No, in many cases, elementary articles do vanish from observation and/or change intro negatives. Per the nerdy Feynman-diagram  t-shirts , their collisions do indeed create energy.

 

You seem to be big on the idea that energy is the basic substance of elementary particles. In this sense, said particles are not so ‘fundamental after all. My reading as a mere amateur fails to find anyproof of your claim.

 

AH

 

Energy is not exactly nothing, is it? I claim that energy is the reality (i.e., context) of subatomic particles. How else would they form if not from their context? Vanishing from observation means they become pure energy that is inaccessible to observation. 'Negative,' though, is pure mathematical speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Ilya, I do realize we are applying philosophy here. I, mine, and you, yours.

I find value in making further integrations in my grasp of the philosophy of Objectivism, not yours, and you're not helping me in that objective here conversationally, but you are making tremendous progress in helping me understand aspects of it that you either can't or refuse to understand.

 

Leonard Peikoff:wrote:

To understand man, or any other human concern, one must understand concepts. One must discover what they are, how they are formed, and how they are used, and often misused, in the quest for knowledge.

 

Both you and andie are like concrete examples of concepts being misused, and I would add abused, in the quest for knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...