Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Plasmatic

Recommended Posts

I'll have to say, TLDR, but the introduction. Even that is pretty technical stuff to me.

By applying his law to all cavities, the father of quantum theory detached his equation from physical reality itself. In truth, Planck’s equation was only valid for laboratory blackbodies constructed from highly absorbing materials.

 

But this makes it sound as if he jumped the gun on his induction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think of this before, but according to this excerpt and additional commentary of mine, if the shape of the photon influences the velocity, then, the yardstick just got shorter. The reshaped photon would travel less distance over the same duration of time. While this does not divide the distance in half, it does reduce it by a small percentage. I think it was Planck, back when making his claim, that had also suggested talking about anything smaller than a unit of Planck distance was meaningless.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m going to tell you the Black Box story that’s understood and told to everyone within the Physics community. This includes even grad-course takers whose field is elsewhere, such as me. This will offer you the context that the article, in its haste to refute Planck, neglects to provide.

 

In the mid-1850’s, Maxwell’s discovery of The Electromagnetic Band changed Physic as much as Newton and Einstein. By consequence, many other scientists devised research strategies to hypothesize how far Maxwell’s discovery might extend, and the theoretical consequences thereof.

 

Now since electromagnetic waves were related to the production of heat, several questions arose as to this relationship. One of the large-scale theoretical consequences was the Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

Within this conceptual box, the two problems arose which constitute the subject to the article as cited, but not clearly described within:

 

1)      How does the injection of heat within a hypothetically closed system behave?

 

For example, as the Maxwellian equation gives increased heat as a function of diminished wave-length, at which point, going towards the infinitely small, will an inputted ‘heat wave’ generate infinite energy as an output? This is known as the ‘Ultraviolet Catastrophe’.

 

2)      Can we establish an absolute unit of both temperature output and energy input that’s set by nature? These are given by ‘T’ and ‘h’.

 

In both of these cases, Black Box was used as a theoretical construct to designate no escape of heat. What goes in stays in. Enter Kirchoff and Stewart. While the former devised a theoretical model against this non-existant ideal-type, the later said that the real-life differences between black-boxing materials made any talk of a general law moot.

 

In other words, Stewart is saying that the observed data shows that there can be no natural unit of either electromagnetic input or temperature output. There is no natural T or h; the authors of the article agree, and the case should have been closed around 1860.

 

The historical fact, however, is that the German Physics community (by far the leaders) ignored Stewart as if he had taken an empirical knife to a theoretical gunfight. The issue, they insisted, was strictly one of mathematical modeling as again, no one had ever said that a Black box could ever really exist!

 

Enter Planck, some forty years later. Contrary to the article, he did not write in support of Kirchoff because, in the eyes of his peers, Kirchoff had won hands down two generations prior. His law was the context that was assumed by all, and Thermodynamics had moved forward. Steward had become a nobody.

 

Planck, actually working on the aforementioned Ultraviolet Catastrophe., noted that heat outputs even fell short of Maxwell’s prediction at extremely short wave lengths. Not only would there be no world-ending explosion, but actually the rate of heat output decreased against input.

 

So Planck hypothesized that only small packets of photons—particles—could lodge within the surface and not be re-emitted as reflected heat. Furthermore, bouncing particles would interfere with each other, thereby causing a loss of energy. And because waves could not do this, light must itself consist of photons.

 

Indeed, the data that supported his discovery would not pass modern standards…but then again, whose would? What’s remarkable is that he came very, sufficiently  close for Einstein to publish in ’05, then Compton, then Dirac, then 1925 with Heisenberg, then Wigner…all demonstrating how photons behave as particles.

 

Soon enough, researchers seized upon the notion to honor the father of QM with Planck-ish designations of all the fundamental units that were later proven to exist. This is to say that during the time of Planck’s own research, the existence of these fundamental units was seriously doubted. Now they’re not.

 

Part of the history of modern Physics—even as a course!—is to learn how Planck’s fundamentals grew out of some great educated guessing into the experimentally-verified numbers that we learn and use today. In passing, yes, Planck wrote of his debt to Kirchoff.

 

The journal from which the article came is marginal at best, junk at worse. It’s neither peer-reviewed nor published with a sitting jury, In other words, the decisions as to what does and doesn’t get published is made anonymously. In academia, this is beyond unacceptable.

 

What the article therefore demonstrates is that there still exist a few PhD’s in Physics that deny QM. To this end, they go after the first individual, Kirkhoff, who proposed absolute values for input and output units of thermal energy. After all, this is the crux of what QM is all about. But they’re incredibly wrong. Today’s experimental data supersedes all debate.

 

That Kirchoff himself had no idea that his application of thermodynamics to a closed system would engender the birth  QM is another story…

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice that Andie does not even attempt to address anything specifically argued in the paper.

Andie you can tell "stories"-"narratives" all you want but your wasting your time trying to substitute a narration of what your consensus views hold as true for specific detailed arguments on the points actually made by others.

Andie said:

What the article therefore demonstrates is that there still exist a few PhD’s in Physics that deny QM. To this end, they go after the first individual, Kirkhoff, who proposed absolute values for input and output units of thermal energy. After all, this is the crux of what QM is all about. But they’re incredibly wrong. Today’s experimental data supersedes all debate.

You repeatedly circumvent the whole point in contention which is the INTERPRETATION of the "experimental data"!

Trying to sell the story that the conclusions of special science are of a self evident nature and therefore not up for debate is a waste of time with Oist Andie. You have the wrong nets in use.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice that Andie does not even attempt to address anything specifically argued in the paper.

I think that speak highly to the level of interest in the topic.

You repeatedly circumvent the whole point in contention which is the INTERPRETATION of the "experimental data"!

Try:

You repeatedly circumvent the whole point in contention which is the interpretation of the experimental data!

 

The subtle difference is that it does deal with interpretation, which in turn makes it quite linguistic in nature. Properly formed concepts are important, even crucial in grasping things.

The experimental data, left out of quotes, should shift the question back to the interpretation. Science Daily does indicate where valid understandings are being put to use. Lasers and quantum chips cannot violate the law of identity. Bad philosophy does not prevent you from stepping out in front of a speeding truck. The recognition, despite anything you think, is that "out there" is still out there. Bad philosophy does seem to hinder finding common ground to seek agreement on.

 

In one of Ashley Brilliant's illustrations he penned: The biggest obstacle to discovering the truth is being convinced that you already know it.

He was wrong in one sense, but I think quite right in another.

 

The biggest obstacle to using reason properly, is not having discovered what all gives rise to it.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice that Andie does not even attempt to address anything specifically argued in the paper.

Andie you can tell "stories"-"narratives" all you want but your wasting your time trying to substitute a narration of what your consensus views hold as true for specific detailed arguments on the points actually made by others.

Andie said:

You repeatedly circumvent the whole point in contention which is the INTERPRETATION of the "experimental data"!

Trying to sell the story that the conclusions of special science are of a self evident nature and therefore not up for debate is a waste of time with Oist Andie. You have the wrong nets in use.

You're free to give your INTERPRETATION of the data, then we can discuss.

 

Mine is simple: Stewart's data was irrelevant to the general set of questions posed by Thermodynamics, which Kirchoff, et al were trying to solve. The Black Box was an idealized means to this end, as no one ever said that it really existed.

 

His errors, as were Planck's fall within the general domain  of making progress towards the stated goal of discovering absolute, naturally -found in nature quantities for temperature and units of radiation.

 

This effort compares to that of Kepler's errors, then those of Newtonian Gravity. Likewise, Galileo's erroneous F=MV, modified to the false Newtonian F=MA, then to Special Relativity.

 

To amend these errors, we don't say that gravity and force don't exist. Rather, we see progress towards a goal. 

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In philosophy, we generally stick to examining interpretations qua interpretations, providing explanations, when we can of what make a particular interpretation valid or not. We try to examine how the concepts are formed, what their referents consist of, and, if possible, what measurements are omitted (in the context that the measurement must be present in some amount, but may be present in any amount within a given range.)

 

Your usage of the concept "understood", your application of the concept of "refute" vs "proof", your choice to implement "theoretical" rather than "hypothetical", the notion of "peer review" in some inexplicable way substituting for "proof", are, just to name a few, issues that fail to pass the test of actually grasping these concepts, much less presenting them in a manner consistent with their relationship to the facts which give rise to such noble concepts.

 

I would have to concur with Plasmatic here. You appear to be barking up the wrong tree. You might want to search on the "king of the sciences" and contrast it against the "queen". You may find a distinction that you have not made. . . ., then again . . ., you may not.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In philosophy, we generally stick to examining interpretations qua interpretations, providing explanations, when we can of what make a particular interpretation valid or not. We try to examine how the concepts are formed, what their referents consist of, and, if possible, what measurements are omitted (in the context that the measurement must be present in some amount, but may be present in any amount within a given range.)

 

Your usage of the concept "understood", your application of the concept of "refute" vs "proof", your choice to implement "theoretical" rather than "hypothetical", the notion of "peer review" in some inexplicable way substituting for "proof", are, just to name a few, issues that fail to pass the test of actually grasping these concepts, much less presenting them in a manner consistent with their relationship to the facts which give rise to such noble concepts.

 

I would have to concur with Plasmatic here. You appear to be barking up the wrong tree. You might want to search on the "king of the sciences" and contrast it against the "queen". You may find a distinction that you have not made. . . ., then again . . ., you may not.

In any science--here it's Physics--'interpretation' refers to how experimental and observational evidence is understood with respect to a particular goal-normally assumed to be the hypotheses in question.

 

Otherwise, said 'king of science' cannot hope to understand said 'queen' unless he/she understands the goals of queen's research.

 

Of course, it works both ways, many in the sciences feeling that Philosophy gives bullshit a bad name without trying to understand the nature of philosophical questions....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does depend on your interpretation of interpetation, doesn't it.

In Philosophy, 'interpretation' is somewhat synonymous with 'understanding' because, after all, that's what Philosophy is all about. 

 

In science, this is not so. Rather, various interpretations always seem to spring up with respect to the same experimental and observational evidence.

 

Therefore, scientific understanding means first, to grasp the question as a hypotheses that one might test. To this end, Stewart was simply off-base.

 

As written, moreover, neither you nor plasmatic appear to understand the basic question: establishing 'natural', or absolute coefficients as discreet values is simply wjhat science tries to do. 

 

To this end, neither of you have offered any assessment of the text qua science in question, as such.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andie said:

In Philosophy, 'interpretation' is somewhat synonymous with 'understanding' because, after all, that's what Philosophy is all about.

In science, this is not so. Rather, various interpretations always seem to spring up with respect to the same experimental and observational evidence.

Therefore, scientific understanding means first, to grasp the question as a hypotheses that one might test. To this end, Stewart was simply off-base.

Therefore, scientific understanding means first, to grasp the question as a hypotheses that one might test. To this end, Stewart was simply off-base.

As written, moreover, neither you nor plasmatic appear to understand the basic question: establishing 'natural', or absolute coefficients as discreet values is simply wjhat science tries to do.

To this end, neither of you have offered any assessment of the text qua science in question, as such.

Translation:

Relativism -subjectivism is the correct philosophy and scientist can "understand" hypothesis without interpretation because the concepts of the special science are intrinsic-automatic revelations from the appearances, which can only properly be expressed mathematically.

"Show me the math!"

Response:

Show me that you have an inkling of where concepts come from and how the language of mathematics is abstracted from experience.

"Show me the concepts!"

Do you have any references to support your claim that Stewart was dismissed as you say? Do you have an argument against the evidence that Kirchoff's law is only relevant to the specific context where there is a highly absorptive substance inside the box-container? (Not because its an "infinite" type of existent)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasmatic, you make that look so easy. We've discussed it before. Relativism and subjectivism have different conclusions about how concepts are formed. Subjectivism holds to the notion that the concept is pretty much anything you want to make it. If it doesn't serve your purpose tomorrow, change it.

 

Relativism is more complicated than that. Peikoff points out that "[c]ontexualism does not mean relativism. It means the opposite." So in this case, is it the dropping of the context of how concepts are formed and substituting the intrinsic-automatic revelations from the appearances in it's stead? Is this what you are looking at here?

 

Are you pulling that out of just this: "In Philosophy, 'interpretation' is somewhat synonymous with 'understanding' because, after all, that's what Philosophy is all about."?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weaver, I hyphenated the two because one who blanks out where concepts come from, the generalizations in deductive hypothesis, could resort to either as a rationalization for their lack of epistemic foundation. How Andie would answer in particular is a little unclear due to their lack of direct statements.

Im reminded of Searl's comments (in a lecture) about Henry James being disgusted at the notion that he would "state" a conclusion. The idea being that lack of literary circumspection and style would be uncultured...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to come across as a grammar nazi here, but an important distinction here on "one who blanks out where concepts come from" might blurred. One cannot blank out where concepts come from - again - it's out there. The blank-out occurs on the cognitive level. It is the failure to go thru the proper cognitive steps in order to identify what is out there.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andie said:

Translation:

Relativism -subjectivism is the correct philosophy and scientist can "understand" hypothesis without interpretation because the concepts of the special science are intrinsic-automatic revelations from the appearances, which can only properly be expressed mathematically.

"Show me the math!"

Response:

Show me that you have an inkling of where concepts come from and how the language of mathematics is abstracted from experience.

"Show me the concepts!"

Do you have any references to support your claim that Stewart was dismissed as you say? Do you have an argument against the evidence that Kirchoff's law is only relevant to the specific context where there is a highly absorptive substance inside the box-container? (Not because its an "infinite" type of existent)

Creating a Black Box scenario is indeed subjectivist because it's a mental construct called an "ideal type'. In science, this is also called a 'heuristic', btw. The fact, however, is that the result of this method eventually gave us absolute values for temperature and radiation.

 

So all you're saying is that because you don't like the method, you're throwing away the results. 

 

And no, for the most part, the language of math isn't abstracted from experience. This s easily seen in the symbols that we use to do...math.

 

Finally. you're demanding that the concepts unique to  Physics be justified by your own version of first-Philosophy concepts. My response is that by your standards--ostensibly those of the article-- absolutely no science will pass the test.

 

As i've written before, newton would be the first to be given the heave-ho if your criterion were fairly put to all science.

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this I clearly see the notion that "God created the integers" and the rest just seems to, somehow, inexplicably follow.

 

To understand how man created the integers, one need assess the formation of the concepts "Two, Three, Four, and All That". This is where Corviini excels in examining the historical roots of the notions of number and makes a compelling case for their inclusion as a man-made phenomenon of knowledge derived from the experience of relating similarity and difference along the axis of quantity as it relates back to existence. How does this observed, or 'experiential' quantity of "four" differ from this other observed, or 'experiential' quantity of "three"? Failure to grasp this leads us back to Descartes failed attempt to analyze "five-ness" with-in five. Rand's theory of concepts was not derived until much later. Descartes found himself floundering in the mire of mysticism, unable to differentiate the crucial difference that Rand recognized in her later discovery that relationships were key in how concepts were referenced back to reality (existence).

 

Given the foundation that Corvini rests her notion of number upon, it tends to pull the rug out from under the rationalist-subjectivist notion of number, and  provides a much firmer footing to anchor subsequent derivations upon.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andie said:

Creating a Black Box scenario is indeed subjectivist because it's a mental construct called an "ideal type'. In science, this is also called a 'heuristic', btw. The fact, however, is that the result of this method eventually gave us absolute values for temperature and radiation.

Is this your neuvo-nominalist way of saying that Kirchoffs law is universal without addressing the papers evidence to the contrary?

Andies said:

So all you're saying is that because you don't like the method, you're throwing away the results.

What results Andie? The paper challenges your "story" of the method....

Andie said:

And no, for the most part, the language of math isn't abstracted from experience. This s easily seen in the symbols that we use to do...math.

Lol, symbols are not concepts Andie! Try again?

Andie said:

Finally. you're demanding that the concepts unique to Physics be justified by your own version of first-Philosophy concepts. My response is that by your standards--ostensibly those of the article-- absolutely no science will pass the test.

Another vague generalized statement about the paper with no evidence you have even read it. Your in an Oist forum Andie. Here Oist epistemology is the given. You offer no arguments for your dismissal of the Oist epistemology, only vague comments about alleged historical precedents with no attempt to substantiate your pronouncements.

You can reverse this time wasting trend by, say, providing an example of how the Oist view of concept formation would make a standard no science would be able to follow. What does that even mean? I doubt, from your posts, you understand anything about Oist epistemology on concepts.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this I clearly see the notion that "God created the integers" and the rest just seems to, somehow, inexplicably follow.

 

To understand how man created the integers, one need assess the formation of the concepts "Two, Three, Four, and All That". This is where Corviini excels in examining the historical roots of the notions of number and makes a compelling case for their inclusion as a man-made phenomenon of knowledge derived from the experience of relating similarity and difference along the axis of quantity as it relates back to existence. How does this observed, or 'experiential' quantity of "four" differ from this other observed, or 'experiential' quantity of "three"? Failure to grasp this leads us back to Descartes failed attempt to analyze "five-ness" with-in five. Rand's theory of concepts was not derived until much later. Descartes found himself floundering in the mire of mysticism, unable to differentiate the crucial difference that Rand recognized in her later discovery that relationships were key in how concepts were referenced back to reality (existence).

 

Given the foundation that Corvini rests her notion of number upon, it tends to pull the rug out from under the rationalist-subjectivist notion of number, and  provides a much firmer footing to anchor subsequent derivations upon.

Yes, 'rationalists' believe that qualities and quantities exist apart from concrete objects, while 'nominalists' believe that only said concrete entities exist. For example, 'white' and 'five' have no meaning apart from five white objects.

 

So Corvini is coat-tailing on a scholastic debate that goes back some 1000+ years. How interesting.

 

By the same token, Corvini would say that 'pi' would not exist without the existence of real circles, or perhaps that a the origin of a taurus began with the invention of the doughnut. Interesting, as well.

 

Indeed, for thousands of years, that's all we had in Egypt and Mesopotamia: specific problem-solving became more and more exotic, but not integrated as a whole.

 

Then Greece came along and platonized...errr.. rationalized the process by devising mind-dependent, abstract forms. Therefore we have the birth of math as we presently know it, only using arithmetic as a calculation.

 

Suffice it say that the entire German community of post-Maxwelliam Thermodynamics employed this strategy, For example, all energy is conserved, regardless of quantity, and all energy is entropic, regardless of quantity, etc...So let's toss these out too,shall we?

 

In brief, like most 'origin' ideas, Corvini's on math developing out of counting quantities is totally irrelevant. It fails to explain to what extent the creation of ideas is mind-dependent in ways far other than the empirical.

 

To reject science that does not have a visibly empirical origin is not just to reject QM, but rather 99.9% if science. So welcome to the dark ages, randians, where rationalism vs nominalism is considered 'meaningful'...in an interpretive sort of way, of course.

 

AH

Edited by andie holland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we have an example of someone simply lashing out at the role ideas play in life, IMHO. Rand sought to understand the role that ideas played in history, seeking out explanations for what made era's such as the Dark and Middle ages possible (and more), Corvini seeks to integrate the method of concept formation, that Rand identified, and apply it to number, and does the best job of if I've every encountered.

 

Without listening to the materials Corvini offers, (or from what I can tell, Harriman either), andie proceeds to try to generate blind attacks on something she clearly does not understand. Sun Tzu would probably not consider this a very good tactical move,

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we have an example of someone simply lashing out at the role ideas play in life, IMHO. Rand sought to understand the role that ideas played in history, seeking out explanations for what made era's such as the Dark and Middle ages possible (and more), Corvini seeks to integrate the method of concept formation, that Rand identified, and apply it to number, and does the best job of if I've every encountered.

 

Without listening to the materials Corvini offers, (or from what I can tell, Harriman either), andie proceeds to try to generate blind attacks on something she clearly does not understand. Sun Tzu would probably not consider this a very good tactical move,

Ideas play a role in life in two ways:

 

1) Independent of empirical experience. This would apply to the math that we do today. It is not an extension of arithmetic. 

 

Now my understanding of Corvini, based upon what you've presented, is that he is wrong. So to complain that i really haven't read him belabors the point. He's not worth reading until you can demonstrate otherwise. my 'attacks', as it were are as 'blind' as the information that you've provided.

 

2) Ideas are related to empirical experience in an aleatory, indirect way. The notion that most ideas bear some sort of relationship to what we experience has been around since the origin of Greek philosophy, some 2700 years ago. 

 

To this end, Rand's model of ultimately deriving 'concepts' from sensory input is an interesting, adequate  summary of received wisdom. However, she seems to say more--that all knowledge is based upon this empirical-conceptual nexus. Here, she is wrong.

 

This is because much of what we use today in a practical sense cannot be directly traced to empirical verification. For example, Copernicus' heliocentric solar system. as he presented the argument, was not any more 'empirical' than the older, earth-centered model. 

 

So I suppose that by Rand's standards, we'd throw him out, too?

 

So to return the subject to Planck: yes, he and Kirchoff had precisely this 'problem', too. Again, to base truth- of -science on a strict empirical>conceptual framework would abolish  99.9% of what we know as science. 

 

That you've given an adequate exposition of randism vis a vis science is not in doubt. You're a star student. Going forward, however, I'd strongly suggest that you investigate the consequences of what you're saying in terms of how real science is really done.

 

This would (perish the thought!) involve actually reading and coming to understand the science in question, in its own terms

 

AH

Edited by andie holland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given our mutual assessments of each other, thus far, what makes you think progress in this conversation is even possible between the two of us?

 

The only thing I've seen you producing with your grasp of your science, have been arguments that I've not been interested in addressing.

 

The only enigma I really see left is: Why here? Of all the websites, in all of the internet, why did you choose this one?

 

Why are you here?

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given our mutual assessments of each other, thus far, what makes you think progress in this conversation is even possible between the two of us?

 

The only thing I've seen you producing with your grasp of your science, have been arguments that I've not been interested in addressing.

 

The only enigma I really see left is: Why here? Of all the websites, in all of the internet, why did you choose this one?

 

Why are you here?

I've already stated my interest in Rand. In both her novels & essays, she seeks to define and understand Philosophy's most important question: What does it mean to be an individual? Furthermore, speaking as a lit-chick, 'Atlas' and 'Fountainhead' are literary events of the first order, comparable to Quixote.

 

Regrettably, however, if i take her views on science to be those of yours as expressed, then she's badly mistaken. Please keep in mind that this tentative conclusion is based only upon the consequence of our dialogue. i had no idea of O-isms'  hostility to modern physics going in.

 

Be that as it may, my challenge to all of you is to demonstrate O-ism's compatibility to any science as it is practiced--your choice. Otherwise, you're simply free to agree with me and say, "So What? We choose our philosophy over the lived realities of science, because that's who we are!"

 

So if we can agree to disagree re Planck and QM (your point being that we're better off without than with), let's move on. Again, your choice of science and remember, it's all of you guys against one poor l'il Spanish Lit-chick hiding away in Salamanca among volumes of Sufi poetry and French ballades.

 

And i promise not to go screaming to my sci-nerd buds for backup.

Edited by andie holland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I just pick one point to address out of this, if you're looking for the demonstration of Objectivism's compatibility with anything. That is something you have to discover for yourself, or find someone that is willing to try to spoon-feed you with it. Near as I can tell, you were not born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and I've come to understand that the extraordinary care mine requires, is handled, in part, by my mind.

 

If you walked into a kiosk somewhere, and saw something you liked - how would you go about acquiring it? You might say that you would offer to buy it. "With what?" I would have to ask. Whatever you happen to offer to trade for it, I would have to assess its value to me, by the sole judgement of my mind.

 

Being that this is a forum, what is generally traded here are ideas. Ideas are constructed from concepts. I've come to discover that some concepts are genuine specie, while others are counterfeit, and still others are somewhere in between. In physics, methods have been developed to assay gold in order to distinguish it from more base metals. You may not agree with the methods used. That is fine. If guilded trinkets are all that you are pursuing in life - you are the one that sets your own standard(s) for what it is that you are willing to accept in trade.

 

If you come here to simply peddle your trinkets, I believe that the converse to Gersham's Law will ultimately prevail. To give up a greater value for a lesser value is altruistic in nature. To tie loosely into one of your other points about "What does it mean to be an individual?" is, in part, to ask, "What does it mean to value?" Rand's allegory using a "vampire" (in Faith and Force) would be hard to improve upon here as a parallel.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I just pick one point to address out of this, if you're looking for the demonstration of Objectivism's compatibility with anything. That is something you have to discover for yourself, or find someone that is willing to try to spoon-feed you with it. Near as I can tell, you were not born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and I've come to understand that the extraordinary care mine requires, is handled, in part, by my mind.

 

If you walked into a kiosk somewhere, and saw something you liked - how would you go about acquiring it? You might say that you would offer to buy it. "With what?" I would have to ask. Whatever you happen to offer to trade for it, I would have to assess its value to me, by the sole judgement of my mind.

 

Being that this is a forum, what is generally traded here are ideas. Ideas are constructed from concepts. I've come to discover that some concepts are genuine specie, while others are counterfeit, and still others are somewhere in between. In physics, methods have been developed to assay gold in order to distinguish it from more base metals. You may not agree with the methods used. That is fine. If guilded trinkets are all that you are pursuing in life - you are the one that sets your own standard(s) for what it is that you are willing to accept in trade.

 

If you come here to simply peddle your trinkets, I believe that the converse to Gersham's Law will ultimately prevail. To give up a greater value for a lesser value is altruistic in nature. To tie loosely into one of your other points about "What does it mean to be an individual?" is, in part, to ask, "What does it mean to value?" Rand's allegory using a "vampire" (in Faith and Force) would be hard to improve upon here as a parallel.

"if you're looking for the demonstration of Objectivism's compatibility with anything. That is something you have to discover for yourself,"

 

Well, actually, i'm challenging you to show me  randism's compatibility with science, and you're refusing by evading the issue. 

 

So as it stands, your 'farewell to Planck' tells us nothing more then we knew going in. My contribution is to demonstrate that your philosophy fails to cohere to any science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...