Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Yesterday
  3. 8000-Year-Old Shipyard Located off English Coast is World’s Oldest
  4. Found this at the Conservative HQ comparing the shift in some businesses to various business practices touched upon in Atlas Shrugged. Another Depressing Chapter Of Atlas Shrugged Comes Alive
  5. The first three words of Pittsburghjoe's most recent post are . So my question stands.
  6. Cal Newport uses email as his example of a common error people make when evaluating a technology: homing in on its superiority to what it replaced with little thought given to how it integrates with the rest of their lives. He calls this the utility fallacy: [It's] the tendency, when evaluating the impact of a technology, to confine your attention to comparing the technical features of the new technology to what it replaced.But the superiority of email to, say, faxes, is hardly the whole picture. Newport continues: In terms of getting news, the internet is better... (Image by Dutch National Archive, via Wikipedia, no known copyright restrictions.)[A]lmost everything interesting about our current struggles with [these technologies] concerns the impact of these tools on our lives beyond the screen. The point too often missed in a cooly instrumentalist understanding of technology is that we don't use these tools in a vacuum; we instead participate in complicated social systems that can careen in unforeseen directions when powerful new technological forces are introduced. Features are important, but they're not the whole story. [bold added, link omitted]I am glad Newport is paying attention to this kind of problem, and will smilingly think of a fax machine burying an old office in paper the next time I tidy up my in-box. -- CAV Updates Today: Made minor corrections to opening paragraph. Link to Original
  7. What, exactly, does frequency mean if time doesn't pass?
  8. Last week
  9. Until your post, the last one was in 2006. It is a pinned topic, and depending on where it goes, sub-topics could be added with the warning that spoilers are likely to be encountered. Aside from personally re-reading Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and The Romantic Manifesto this year, there was Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy Seals Lead And Win and Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Created Christianity.
  10. Please read more carefully. I wasn't even engaging in the part of the argument about who should be let in. I said assuming that they would be ideal citizens, why would there be a limit of how many people could be let in? That is, why should there be a quota? You were asking about the capacity for newcomers, not asking which immigrants should be let in. If you meant the economic impact in relation to welfare programs or what the government provides to refugees, that's fair. The problem is your wording doesn't convey that very well. That's not a question of how many additional people a country can take on, it's a question of how resources can be distributed given how the country operates already with refugees. You were also talking about immigrants in general, not refugees specifically. Maybe you didn't realize it, but immigrants in the US don't get anything additional by virtue of being from a poor country. Refugees get something by virtue of being from a war-torn country. It sounds like you've conflated immigrants and refugees. EDIT: I agree though that what Trump says about immigration doesn't have to be racism. I think it shows he is ignorant about immigration, or knows how to play up fears in others, but I don't think race has to do with his views. I'm claiming his statements come from a place of second handedness (because of the political advantage he pulls from them) rather than hate.
  11. Time doesn't pass in a black hole (past the event horizon) because unobserved quantum waves don't use time. If unobserved quantum waves don't use time, is it a safe bet they are using frequency instead? The quantum field is usually intermixed with spacetime, but apparently it doesn't always have to be. Does anyone here have an account on newscientist.com? I've got to know if my ideas were just stolen. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332440-600-quantum-weirdness-isnt-real-weve-just-got-space-and-time-all-wrong/
  12. Nice. And I think of the individual also. A few I know there and particularly some close friends who emigrated to the US, were put through official hoops for some years first, had to learn new careers here, and then had to themselves find guarantees of employment and never once entertained the idea that they would need to be looked after, or (intrinsically) deserved to be. They are of course doing well today (in California). The freedom of movement within a nation that you indicated, is an objective good and positive right. To sustain that freedom, necessitates a nation having boundaries; objective borders which are respected by outside freedom-seekers. One applies for entry much as one applies for a job. And yes, one does not need be "intrinsically a great all around person", and is not the business of immigration officials to discover (beyond the obvious checks). But the value one shows by the act of making that application and waiting, rather than feeling entitled to entrance, or entering illegally, then to fall back on social welfare - is all the difference.
  13. No. I don't attempt to defend your president to have seen that - essentially - he is telling his countrymen and to other countries that Americans and America are best when they are independent - and acting in their self-interests. And he's greatly encouraging other nations, allies and enemies, to do the same, you've noticed quite a few times. He recognizes the identical problems of the USA's sacrificial role in the world. Is that so terrible? Some of us outside are pleased to see a president who unapologetically can do this. But most here are Leftists of precisely the American kind (not by coincidence) and are as hard to reason with. The noise he makes and his brash outbursts might incline you to think he is a second-hander, but no. He has an objective to accomplish. And as staunchly as his ferocious opposition allows him, is sticking to that. But he is damned if he does, damned when he doesn't. Making oneself highly unpopular for trying to follow through one's convictions and commitments, is the opposite of second-handedness. But that's politics, not very nice, but he can't survive by hiding his light under a bushel, even less when most of the media is blatantly on a mission to take him down, and never has a good word to report.
  14. Suppose you live in Nevada and get laid off. Employment opportunities are sparse. You search for a job in California. You get hired. You rent a room and go. You need not obtain any extra permission from the government or anyone. Nor need it be that you are intrinsically deserving of anything special. It need only be that you deserve or merit moving to California because you have enacted the relevant causes of moving to California. Nor need it be that you are intrinsically a great all around person. Nor need it be that anyone has a positive obligation to support your move. You may move to California and no one ought to forcibly prevent you because you need only be regarded as having basic negative rights.
  15. There is the intrinsicist myth that all immigrants should be admitted because they are all deserving of better - simply because they seek better. Forgetful of the adage that there will always be "makers, fakers and takers" in any group of humans. Does anyone stop to think that the migrants' own countries are in bad shape mainly because of the thinking and values of most of their people--not of their (elected, sometimes) autocratic leaders? Of course - if there is a better option available, one can't blame people for preferring a civilised and rich nation, but there is a difference between acknowledging and sympathizing with other peoples' needs - and feeling duty-bound - or forced - to look after them. Why are you speaking as if this would have a minor impact, involving little sacrifice? First year, 50,000 immigrants arrive on your shores and in your ports, next, 100K, ever escalating until the boat people are too many for the temporary refugee camps they will need to be placed in. At great cost to your taxpayers, a million-plus, and increasing per annum, people will have to be cared for until they hopefully assimilate into society. And those amount to 0.1 % of Africans. You don't think that even the biggest open border proponents will begin having second thoughts when there is no end in sight? Ha! There is always a question to be asked of noble feelings and altruistic gestures: Why? Next - at whose cost? Because it makes "me" feel good? Fine, but who will prevent "me" to adopt, stand surety for and take care of one person, or a family of migrants? Except this hardly happens, even by the leftist and rich celebrities who loudly virtue-signal their altruism. Everyone 'likes' the idea of welcoming immigrants - in the abstract - but let other people/the state make the effort, pay costs and carry the consequences. Altruism is insinuated into a society with another intrinsic myth of "equality" which Leftist-Socialists have been perpetrating, that the imbalance of wealth between individuals - and nations - was 'a given', just luck of the draw, etc. - and therefore an "imbalance" that has to rectified until desired "equality" is achieved. This naturally demands sacrifice or self-sacrifice of the 'haves'-- until comes the stage, that nearly everyone is a 'have not'. Then nobody will be able to care for anyone who needs help and is struggling to survive. A continuing mass migration from poorer to richer nations must have that equalizing effect, and the socialists will finally and permanently have won. I've no idea why I'm explaining equality, altruism and their necessary consequence, Socialism here. Could it be that they are not just theoretical, and I've lived in enough African countries to know that these are not just fanciful ideas (e.g. of Rand's), they turn real, with devastating effects upon people? And on the same people who originally chose their ideological route and who will need to be rescued by charitable westerners, arriving there as immigrants one day.
  16. I'm in as well, what are we reading first?
  17. More people recognize over time that he stands for nothing. He is the paragon secondhander. Why would you even ask this? What could possibly set a limit? Usually when people ask if more people can be taken in, they are referring to what welfare programs can handle. You are wondering how many people can enter in the first place, even if 100% of the people are ideal citizens. Not if the people don't want to live there. That's why people immigrate - for some reason they don't want to live in their former country anymore. Why are you speaking as if African countries are being told to send their people away?
  18. What it is ( believe) Mr Van Horn, is that the American Left has 'weaponized' the famed benevolence which Americans conduct themselves, utilizing the natural, national good will against itself, to become a duty to all. Then we O'ists know that benevolence becomes strained and eventually impossible under altruism or any form of "duty". "Racist, white nationalist"--are a cynical ploy by some, and a falsehood, whether applied to the large majority of Trump supporters - or for he, himself. Clearly, *anyone* who is pro-America is marvellous in Trump's vision. And I add that one doesn't have to love the man to know what he's after, or, like me, who agree that the USA has been too much counted upon by the international community and should revisit and reset its (often altruist) obligations to others. I ask whether the USA can absorb all the people who wish to enter. No one knows how many. Don't only look south to Latin America. There are many people to your East who also want to better themselves, who despite the natural border of the Ocean would begin arriving by ship as soon as they knew that restrictions were lifted and all were invited. (I'm talking of Africa with its 1 billion). They too have the right of entry, surely? At some stage, after a few years, of course your government would have to call it quits and return to a sane immigration policy. Why leave it until then? And should we Africans not reserve our talents, minds and energy for creating better countries for ourselves? I always enjoy reading your blog, thanks. Tony
  19. I refused to cast a vote for President in 2016 and am no fan of Donald Trump. That said, I don't generally give him much more thought than any other President I can remember. This apparently makes me a rare bird, if accounts of widespread Trump Derangement Syndrome -- or the infatuation with the Orange Man some acquaintances of mine seem to have -- are any indication. Since so many of his policies involve government control of the economy, I regarded him as little better than a Democrat on that score before the election, and only the far-left lurch of that party since then has caused me to begin to consider holding my nose and casting a vote for him in 2020. I do not want to starve in the dark, and although Trump is no capitalist, his reelection may afford more time to fight for freedom than any of the likely alternatives. Enter Heather Mac Donald, and her timely exploration of a topic that seems never to be far from the mind of the typical Trump-obsessed leftist: his alleged racism. Mac Donald makes a succinct case in the Wall Street Journal that, contrary to Respectable Blue State Opinion (aka, Almost All You Ever Hear on the News), Trump is not the one dividing the country by race. (Her points stand even allowing for him stooping to take advantage of the acrimonious climate others have created.) Here is what she has to say after correctly naming academia as the source of so many of the more fashionable ideas on the left: Image by Gage Skidmore, via Wikipedia, license.Ms. Warren recently provided an unwitting summary of academic identity politics. Mr. Trump's "central message" to the American people, she declared, is: "If there's anything wrong in your life, blame them -- and 'them' means people who aren't the same color as you." She has in mind a white "you," but change the race and you encapsulate the reigning assumption on college campuses -- that white people are the source of nonwhite people's problems, and any behavioral or cultural explanations for economic disparities are taboo. The academy's reflexive labeling of nonconforming views as "hate speech" has also infiltrated popular rhetoric against Mr. Trump. The president's views on border control and national sovereignty are at odds with the apparent belief among Democratic elites that people living outside the country are entitled to enter at will and without consequences for illegal entry. To the academic and democratic left, however, a commitment to border enforcement can only arise from "hate." Such a pre-emptive interpretation is a means of foreclosing debate and stigmatizing dissent from liberal orthodoxy.I disagree with Trump's immigration policies (among many other things), but I can see them coming from a place other than "hate." Furthermore, since I also disagree with Democrats on aspects of this issue, I do not appreciate their obvious hatred for debate, to say the least. Mac Donald is on the money here, and it is high time that someone named the real apostles of racial identity politics -- also known in better days as racism. And it is interesting to ask whether psychological projection might at least partially account for the constant accusations that Trump is a racist. -- CAV Link to Original
  20. I'm curious. If "the law of identity" (as defined by Aristotle) means non-contradiction, and of K-ehatever railed against "identity" in the way you quoted earlier then what did he describe "science" as? What is "science" without logic? Thank you.
  21. Let's face it, the topic "Nationalism" was never so important and has only risen into vogue lately. And because of at least these supranational factors: the large scale movement of migrants/refugees, global warming alarmism, terrorism, trade tariffs/protectionism. The gigantic driver is the internet which gives everyone the sense of being connected to everywhere while not being a citizen of every place. This fellow has a simple answer, why globalism OR nationalism?
  22. Some time ago, I opined that recycling -- at least as most people have thought of it since the 1970s -- is a waste of time. And so it is amusing to note some surface similarities between a passage I wrote at the time, and one from a recent piece in the leftist U.K. Guardian. There is no cause to cry Plagiarism! and certainly less to say, "Great minds think alike." In my piece, I wrote: This ritual might be better than toting a blue can to the curb every week -- if it involved burning trash. (Image by Jimmy Salazar, via Unsplash, license.)Let's be clear about what recycling is. Although you might think it was invented by hippies who, as Ayn Rand once put it, "would pollute any stream by stepping into it," recycling pre-dates China itself, and began the moment someone realized that it saved time, effort, and/or money to re-use an object or any of its raw materials. In fact, the practice was so economical that there was no need for scolds and government bureaucrats: People have made careers by buying, collecting and selling scrap metal, rags, and even human waste. Nevertheless, in the days of rag-pickers and night soil collectors, some things were recycled and some things were not -- because it was a waste of time, effort, or money. Tells, those large mounds arising after centuries of human habitation, attest to this in addition to accounting for many archaeological discoveries. But around the 1970s, hippies changed the goal of recycling from benefiting human life to preserving the natural world. Lest you think I quibble, consider how that affects even a simple choice: Toss out a cheap soft drink bottle -- or wash it and send it off to a recycling plant, regardless of whether it is quicker or cheaper to make a new one.And here is a similar passage from the Guardian: Recycling is as old as thrift. The Japanese were recycling paper in the 11th century; medieval blacksmiths made armour from scrap metal. During the second world war, scrap metal was made into tanks and women's nylons into parachutes. "The trouble started when, in the late 70s, we began trying to recycle household waste," says [Professor Roland] Geyer. This was contaminated with all sorts of undesirables: non-recyclable materials, food waste, oils and liquids that rot and spoil the bales.Both of us acknowledge the ancient pedigree of recycling, its past thriftiness, and the fact that something went amiss in the 1970's. But to read the Guardian, you would think that recycling household waste was a new idea. It was not. Look in any old cookbook at some of the animal parts and leftovers people used to incorporate into their cooking and you'll see what human-centered recycling of household waste looks like. Recall also that, even back then, there were things even rag-pickers didn't recycle. When food became really cheap due to the green revolution (the real revolution, concerning agriculture) people didn't have to keep eating slop, and it became as uneconomical to recycle certain food wastes as the packaging some of the food came in. But if you don't understand the difference between thrift and "saving" (some idealized version of) "nature" -- perhaps because you view thrift as a mere commandment rather than a life-promoting virtue -- then such a distinction will make no sense. Christian morality -- or its secularized leftist/Kantian offshoot -- will lead such a person to believe that recycling is a good thing regardless of whether it actually promotes human life. This is because both directly lead to a failure to understand the nature or practicality of virtue. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no such thing as an action that is intrinsically good, such as the mindless ritual that recycling has become over the last fifty years. -- CAV Link to Original
  23. Hi William. I have a shelf of books on physics and philosophy of time in my personal library, but so far, the time has not been right for taking a deep plunge into their contents. Three seem most closely related to your interests in this post: McTaggart’s Paradox (2016) by R. D. Ingthorsson, a philosopher. NOW – The Physics of Time (2016) by R. A. Muller, a physicist. (clip) The Order of Time (2018) by Carlo Rovelli, a physicist. Rovelli thinks twentieth-century physics show that an objective global present does not exist. Presentism, the view that there is an objective global present, is false. He thinks that simply from special relativity, in which he rightly takes reference frames, relative velocities between them, clocks, and light beams to be objective things in terms of which SR is cast and tested. He moves from objective frame-relativity of simultaneity of distant events with local events to lack of any such thing as an objective global present without explanation for that move. Perhaps that move can be made smooth, perhaps not. His conclusion is that presentism is false and “the world should not be thought of as a succession of presents. / What alternatives do we have?” [Unger and Smolin pose an additional alternative “inclusive time” in their book The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time (2015), which seems unnecessarily extravagant to me, at least in all they try to hitch up to it.] “Philosophers call ‘eternalism’ the idea that flow and change are illusory: present, past, and future are all equally real and equally existent. Eternalism is the idea that the whole of spacetime, as outlined in the above [SR] diagrams, exists all together without anything changing. Nothing really flows.* –p. 108 ((* “In the terminology of a celebrated article by John McTaggart (1908), this is equivalent to denying the reality of the A-series (the organization of time into ‘past-present-future’) The meaning of temporal determinations would then be reduced to only the B-series (the organization of time into ‘before-it, after-it’). For McTaggart, this implies denying the reality of time. To my mind, McTaggart is too inflexible: the fact that my car works differently from how I’d imagined it and how I’d originally defined it in my head does not mean that my car is not real”.)) –pp. 221–22 “The distinction between past, present, and future is not an illusion. It is the temporal structure of the world. But the temporal structure of the world is not that of presentism. The temporal relations between events are more complex than we previously thought, but they do not cease to exist on account of this. The relations of filiations do not establish a global order [linear sequence of presents self-same across all material frames, i.e., for all bits of non-zero rest mass]), but this does not make them illusory. If we are not all in single file, it does not follow that there are no relations between us. Change, what happens—this is not an illusion. What we have discovered is that it does not follow a global order.” –p. 110 So Rovelli has it that even though A-series is shown false, as objective structure, by SR, the relation past-present-future remains objective temporal structure, just not the A-series one presumed before SR. William, I don't know how many physicists follow along Rovelli's lines in this area of philosophical wider view taking in SR spacetime and kinematics. However, I doubt that any of them who have thought about it so much as the authors I've mentioned in this post have needed or relied on any particular schools of philosophy in their quest for wider understanding.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...