Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

QM - Fact or Fantasy

Rate this topic


andie holland

Recommended Posts

Euclid dealt in statements said to be axiomatic ('worthy') because they were always true. Regardless of the measurement, which will always produce a level of variance against a given tolerance, geometric axioms are not supported by empirical proof. Rather, the means are sad to be 'formal'. 

 

This, in a nutshell, is what distinguishes Greek math from the far-older traditions of Babylonia and Egypt. The pyramids were built to 'perfection' without any mental-object as to what that perfect shape was.

 

As a student of Gauss, Riemann devised a means of measuring standard geometric objects on a curved surface. For example, One commonly says today that triangles have 180 degrees only on a flat surface. 

Degrees of variance from 180 are plotted against a unit of curvature. 

 

This, of course, gave rise to the present-day calculus of geometry, or its 'differential'. For one, both the 'Riemann' and its offspring, the 'Ricci' are present in the field equation of General Relativity. 

 

In passing, no, these figures, being in four dimensions, are nearly impossible to visualize. Despite lot's of imaginative padoodling, they fundamentally remain mathematical objects.

 

AH

Clearly I'm not discussing Gauss and Riemann on that thread. Although I will give you credit for inspiring me to start that thread. This relates to Harriman, QM and more broadly, the process of validation in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one more point that seems worth making.

 

Here's one more: while the right-side of Special Relativity adds the Lorentz coefficient to the Newtonian--therefore, an 'addition' of sorts-- the equation for General Relativity is totally different than that of the Newtonian for gravity.

 

This is the expression of a rationalistic epistemology that holds 'truth' to be some bulletproof and Platonic (specifically context-free) ideal.  Ultimately, it invalidates all knowledge- not only the knowledge of every human being that has or will ever live, but of any consciousness that is not omniscient.  Since omniscience is a physical impossibility, this actually invalidates any knowledge which any consciousness could ever possibly claim to know.

 

It invalidates knowledge, as such.

 

At the very least, those who use childish emoticons are hardly qualified to ridicule the trivial grammatical errors of others.

 

My intention there was to illustrate one more way in which Andie has chosen to break her own rules.  You don't even have to analyze the content of most of her posts!

 

 What we have here is someone who demands that we hold the entire breadth and depth of our mental content to a standard that they can't even be bothered to apply to their own expression of such demands.

---

By mutually exclusive standards, each is talking bs to the other.

I agree.  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup: :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  

 

Live the longest and most prosperous life that you can, Andie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one more point that seems worth making.

 

 

This is the expression of a rationalistic epistemology that holds 'truth' to be some bulletproof and Platonic (specifically context-free) ideal.  Ultimately, it invalidates all knowledge- not only the knowledge of every human being that has or will ever live, but of any consciousness that is not omniscient.  Since omniscience is a physical impossibility, this actually invalidates any knowledge which any consciousness could ever possibly claim to know.

 

It invalidates knowledge, as such.

 

 

My intention there was to illustrate one more way in which Andie has chosen to break her own rules.  You don't even have to analyze the content of most of her posts!

 

 What we have here is someone who demands that we hold the entire breadth and depth of our mental content to a standard that they can't even be bothered to apply to their own expression of such demands.

---

I agree.  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup: :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  

 

Live the longest and most prosperous life that you can, Andie.

Let me make it really easy:

 

You look at two equations, side by side. "Equations', btw, mean math-padoodles that show relationships called 'functions'. Like English, you read left to right as in, 'Gravity' (left) equals such and such (rt). 

 

Then you say, "Has one just added a coefficient to the other" (a coefficient is a math-padoodle that represents a given value)?"

 

For example, Einstein wrote that the Newtonian F=MA is universally modified by a third coefficient, the Lorentz, given as F=MAG.

 

Now what this means is that even if you don't know what the particular padoodles designates in Physics, high-school math indicates that 'G' has been added to the second. Therefore, special relativity is a modified Newtonian.

 

Then you look at the Newtonian for gravity and the equation for General Relativity, side by side. Here, your high school math will show that they the padoodles are dissimilar. Then you're informed that while one tells us about the capacity of masses to attract, the other gives us the capacity of space itself to alter velocity and direction of anything passing through it, including a particle of light. So you  say, "Well, duh"

 

Now a grad-level mathperson steps in and sez, "Perhaps there's a 'transform'". which is mathese for finding a hidden relationship between the two sets of padoodles. But in this case, not.

 

The sticking point here is that while the Newtonian works pretty well in simple cases up to but not including the use of a GPS, Astronomy is pretty much stuck on the Einsteinian. 

 

But then again, not in the astronomy as taught in Ayn Rand U. So let's just agree to disagree with respect to our respective schools. 

 

Perhaps your point about 'rationalistic epistemology' demonstrates a strong preference for the employ of emoticons over math padoodles when describing Physics. And since most of my doctoral research involves languages (Old Spanish, Old French, Medieval Farsi, Am'zer and Arabic). I'm all to winning to learn just how, precisely, the emoticon language describes four-dimensional spacetime, Ricci curvature, Riemanian tensors, etc. 

 

Might i reference Harriman is this particular?

 

AH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might I add, that Harrimen, while not explicitly tying his science back to Euclidean geometry, does not totally evade the issue at hand. If you want to validate QM, it seems necessary to draw the logical connections back to the perceptual level. In the thread I started in parallel, that you are welcome to continue commenting here in this thread for the time being., I am examining the relationship between Euclidean geometry and the development of ASME GD&T 2009 as it relates to Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

 

If QM's status of being regarded as a fairy tale by Dr. Harriman is of epistemological interest to you, you would be wise to consider the unanswered, repeated questions in this thread. Meanwhile, as long as you serve as a source of inspiration for me to continue to analyze the recent developments of the ASME's 2009 edition of the standard, - which so far you have - I can tolerate your seemingly marginal input to this forum.

 

Bear in mind, there is plenty of fringe QM output on the web. What you are providing to me is empirical data which I can assess using my grasp of Objectivism and my professional familiarity with ASME to expound on the similarities and differences observed via this interaction as examined by my understanding of Objectivism provided by Miss Rand and others sympathetic to her cause.

 

Mind you. I am well familiar with HD's "Live long and prosper." usage. I don't expect him to respond soon to your continued evasions of the subject at hand.

 

Meanwhile, you would serve an aging semi-intellectual well to continue your course of irrational discourse to save having to go out on the internet looking for pockets of concentrations of this stuff to be worth the efforts of mining.

 

Edited to add: As a board-mate of mine once pontificated: There is value to be found is all experience that does not kill you. It depends on what you make of it.--

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might I add, that Harrimen, while not explicitly tying his science back to Euclidean geometry, does not totally evade the issue at hand. If you want to validate QM, it seems necessary to draw the logical connections back to the perceptual level. In the thread I started in parallel, that you are welcome to continue commenting here in this thread for the time being., I am examining the relationship between Euclidean geometry and the development of ASME GD&T 2009 as it relates to Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

 

If QM's status of being regarded as a fairy tale by Dr. Harriman is of epistemological interest to you, you would be wise to consider the unanswered, repeated questions in this thread. Meanwhile, as long as you serve as a source of inspiration for me to continue to analyze the recent developments of the ASME's 2009 edition of the standard, - which so far you have - I can tolerate your seemingly marginal input to this forum.

 

Bear in mind, there is plenty of fringe QM output on the web. What you are providing to me is empirical data which I can assess using my grasp of Objectivism and my professional familiarity with ASME to expound on the similarities and differences observed via this interaction as examined by my understanding of Objectivism provided by Miss Rand and others sympathetic to her cause.

 

Mind you. I am well familiar with HD's "Live long and prosper." usage. I don't expect him to respond soon to your continued evasions of the subject at hand.

 

Meanwhile, you would serve an aging semi-intellectual well to continue your course of irrational discourse to save having to go out on the internet looking for pockets of concentrations of this stuff to be worth the efforts of mining.

 

Edited to add: As a board-mate of mine once pontificated: There is value to be found is all experience that does not kill you. It depends on what you make of it.--

QM validates itself by virtue of its predictive results. That's how science works.

 

And no, QM has no 'perceptual level' to draw from logical connections because all we recognize are patterns as to where the photon  might be, transcribed as the math of probabilities.

 

So stating that yes, QM violates identity is hardly evading the question. Rather, i'm saying, 'So what?"

What Harriman considers a fairy tale is simply the way it is, and has been observed for the last 70 years.

 

My contribution is that all science stands in contradiction to the L of I, and that QM is not particularly special. 

 

Moreover, ever since Bohr's correspondence with Einstein, QMers have freely acknowledged that their practice stands in contradiction to formal logic. Their answer, too, is "So what?"

 

Harriman, then,  has chosen to tilt at a windmill.

 

In turn, my question is how you live in a world of transistors, GMR, etc while rejecting the principles that made it possible? Or rather, do you entitle yourself to ask all of the questions,and ignore those of others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andie said:

And no, QM has no 'perceptual level' to draw from logical connections because all we recognize are patterns as to where the photon might be, transcribed as the math of probabilities.

So stating that yes, QM violates identity is hardly evading the question. Rather, i'm saying, 'So what?"

What Harriman considers a fairy tale is simply the way it is, and has been observed for the last 70 years.

Uh, QM mechanics has "no perceptual level to draw from", yet, "the way it is, and has been observed" is applicable to it? And all the while there being no such objective basis for LOI?....

Edit: concretize this "so what" claim to metaphysical contradiction in a perceptible way. Identity tells us that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Get one of your "so what" Copenhagen friends and both of you drive a car at 100 mph directly towards one another and then come back here and tell me "so what" "reality has been refuted"....

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weaver said:

Plasmatic, I know you don't like applying the term first-level concept to the action side of identity. Harriman borrows the notion of first-level and applies it to generalizations here, essentially setting the precedence for laying the base or groundwork of generalizations directly perceived, distinguishing them as the base of what can be used to build on, hierarchically.

If concepts move in two interacting directions, both more intensive or extensive in nature or a combination of the two, would you suppose the same might be true about induced generalizations?

Let's concretize an example of intensive and extensive gen's. Example?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andie said:

Uh, QM mechanics has "no perceptual level to draw from", yet, "the way it is, and has been observed" is applicable to it? And all the while there being no such objective basis for LOI?....

Edit: concretize this "so what" claim to metaphysical contradiction in a perceptible way. Identity tells us that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Get one of your "so what" Copenhagen friends and both of you drive a car at 100 mph directly towards one another and then come back here and tell me "so what" "reality has been refuted"....

Yes, everyone is quite aware of the logical contradictions that QM presents.

 

Yet to elevate these issues to the  'metaphysical' assumes that photons are of the same substance as the speeding cars which are about to collide.

 

This is precisely what Copenhagen disputed, saying that not only is there no assurance of a one-substance universe, but the claim to base universal substance on the human-perceptual is vanity.

 

In other words, the observations and measurements contradict a 'one-substance' theory: think about the Mongols using silk shirts, rather than armor, to stop arrows. Or cars made of pillows.

 

Now back to logic; the real issue is whether to side with formal properties of thought or lived reality. In other words, what you're basically saying is that transistors really don't work because the principle contradicts identity.

 

In Harriman's world, logic guides science, while my claim is that logic,while obviously important, is a heuristic. In my case, if there's a contradiction go with science because it represents reality. 

 

By contrast, logic is mind-dependent .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Harriman's world, logic guides science, while my claim is that logic,while obviously important, is a heuristic. In my case, if there's a contradiction go with science because it represents reality. 

 

By contrast, logic is mind-dependent .

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andie I'm afraid we still are yet to communicate. You still dont know what contradiction, Identity or substance means to Oist.

Transistors work because of identity and thats why the copenhagen interpretation is a meaningless contradiction. You are talking nonsense. The key here is to figure out when someone else is using the same symbols to refer to different things. You have never yet, and never will percieve a contradiction.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weaver said:

Let's concretize an example of intensive and extensive gen's. Example?

The one I'm currently working on in "Truth and Tolerance" is Keplar's discovery that planetary orbits are eliptical.

To do so, I think I'm going to need to examine Euclid's role in astronomy, and how it ties into generating a computer model a little more complicated than cubes or validating if a nut and bolt will always thread together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Yes, but I think it's being skewed.

 

For example, while this:

Identity tells us that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

is true of every directly-perceptible object (like cars) that we encounter, what if it weren't?

 

If you were to discover a cat, one day, which could walk through walls at will- would you declare that you'd found a metaphysical contradiction, and that the law of identity itself had been invalidated?  Of course not.  You might call it an illusion or, accepting it at face-value, you might go on to investigate how it can do that.  Or you could infer something completely different, altogether.

The point is that calling it a metaphysical contradiction is the one thing you simply would not do.  So while our beliefs should reflect our observations, I don't believe that's directly applicable to the observation of an apparent contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If if you discovered a situation where you observed a cat walk thru a wall, it is not a metaphysical contradiction. Contradictions are epistemological. Examining the wall, you may discover that someone invented a very realistic hologram that is outside the cats visual sensory perception range, but within yours. Existence/identity is what consciousness/identifies. The problem with using this type of approach to me, is that the goal posts tend to keep moving. Reality is truly the final arbiter. Stepping out in front of a speeding truck will confirm this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but I think it's being skewed.

You've quoted the first half of a paragraph and then responded to it with:

 

The point is that calling it a metaphysical contradiction is the one thing you simply would not do. So while our beliefs should reflect our observations, I don't believe that's directly applicable to the observation of an apparent contradiction.

But I believe that this is anticipated and satisfied by the second half of that same paragraph:

 

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.

When I say that the only place a contradiction can exist is "among our thoughts" (or as dream_weaver has it, "Contradictions are epistemological"), you may take it that I would not say that there is some "metaphysical contradiction."

I expect, then, that we agree. But please advise if you think that's not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're interested in the metaphysical foundational basis for time, all you need to do is reverse engineer it using the rules of concept formation Rand introduces us to in ITOE. Time is an abstraction from abstractions. You had overlooked the lexicon entry initially when I had mentioned it earlier. There are some good assessments out there and lots of bad ones. Since mine is not valid, according to you, I'll save the trouble of posting a link to what I thought was an excellent breakdown of on it that I used in helping me to form a clearer understanding of it.

 

Since you do not match Peikoff's position, my judgment may not apply to your conception of time.

 

Now it's established that particles are real; on the chart of the Standard Model, photons have zero mass, one spin, and a given # of energy. in so far as they're considered 'fundamental particles', to say that energy is the stuff of which photons are made doesn't make any sense.

 

Lastly, you've misunderstood 'quantum vacuum' which is not 'mine'. Rather, it's standard Physics

 

Photons have impulse in addition to energy. And fermions also have mass.

By 'your' in 'your vacuum,' I meant the side that you are representing (i.e., standard Physics).

 

The notion "Change is constant" is a broad generalization. Although often cited as a challenge to certainty - the apparent certainty of the statement is counted on as a punctuation point.

* I note that many skeptics are fond of the aphorism that "Change is the only constant." Going back to Heraclitus of Ephesus, the bears the notion that the only absolute that there is, is that of change. As Aristotle points out later, this is a fallacy. It falls victim to reaffirmation through denial. Change presupposes that there is something (an identity), which becomes something else (a different identity).

 

 

Our physical reality is not actually metaphysical but potentially metaphysical. It can only be actualized in language, such as: "[T]here is something I am aware of. There is—existence; something—identity; I am aware of—consciousness" (OPAR-digital, p. 17). And only in language, the law of identity can be constant.

 

Or any other attack on Identity, what (s)he wants is to invalidate the mind.  The special irony is that- eventually- (s)he'll get exactly that.

 

The same is true of Ilya (whom I suspect may also be Andie).

 

It is invalid to equate 'non-A is A' with 'A is non-A.' The first is a potential identity in the process of actualizing. The second is a contradiction (or annihilation).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DonAthos,

 

When I asked why does it matter if Harriman is wrong, I was looking for how it relates to QM's stature or status in andie's mind. If QM is philosophically sound, then Harriman being wrong could have no possible bearing on the subject.

 

Demands to have explained a position you agree with to someone who is already predisposed to disagree with it always seems to result in them finding something else within the explanation to misunderstand. It becomes nodus, in the sense that as you try to unravel the knot for them, they're busy pulling out more tangled up fishing line, seemingly delighting in watching you get tangled up in untangling it. You end up addressing points, only to find yourself back to readdressing them when they show up again in their various subtle variants.

 

The inability or refusal to address those direct questions seems to bear this out to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you do not match Peikoff's position, my judgment may not apply to your conception of time.

I find that Piekoff's position on time is very much in harmony with my grasp of it. Since you have seen fit to bring it back up in a more congenial way, I'll share with you some further writings that have aided and abetted my grasp.

 

Our physical reality is not actually metaphysical but potentially metaphysical. It can only be actualized in language, such as: "[T]here is something I am aware of. There is—existence; something—identity; I am aware of—consciousness" (OPAR-digital, p. 17). And only in language, the law of identity can be constant.

This is why the crucial distinction between the metaphysical (realty) and epistemological (language) must be distinguished.

The search for truth should not be adversarial. The answer to the question lies in the epistemological domain. The common ground, however, is laid by one's epistemological grasp of how the metaphysical domain underlies and underscores it. When two people agree that reality is what language is derived from, the fight is not over what reality is or is not, it becomes a discussion about how language relates to reality. In this sense, Rand distinguishes, or identifies, where the battlefield for the mind is transpiring or is being transacted.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why the crucial distinction between the metaphysical (realty) and epistemological (language) must be distinguished.

The search for truth should not be adversarial. The answer to the question lies in the epistemological domain. The common ground, however, is laid by one's epistemological grasp of how the metaphysical domain underlies and underscores it. When two people agree that reality is what language is derived from, the fight is not over what reality is or is not, it becomes a discussion about how language relates to reality. In this sense, Rand distinguishes, or identifies, where the battlefield for the mind is transpiring or is being transacted.

 

I would rather go from reality to language than relate the language back to reality. The dangers of "a discussion about how language relates to reality" should be well-known to you by now. This discussion is the domain of materialistic, subjectivist, Kantian thinking, of A as non-A, of Andie's conceptual Essence Is Matter metaphor, of accuracy of predictions by lucky guesses or observer-driven mathematics, of imagination to reduce reality to particles (i.e., matter), of taking the negative half-waves, or the 'vacuum' zero-point oscillations, as observable reality and the truth, of Chomskyan innatists, of anti-foundationalists, post-process, social constructivists, who claim that language creates reality, that it is situational and indeterminate. Is that the way you want to go, Greg? If so, then you already have it. With this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HD said:

Yes, but I think it's being skewed.

For example, while this:

Plasmatic, on 29 Jan 2015 - 06:40 AM, said:

Identity tells us that two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

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. Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andie said:

This is precisely what Copenhagen disputed, saying that not only is there no assurance of a one-substance universe, but the claim to base universal substance on the human-perceptual is vanity.

In other words, the observations and measurements contradict a 'one-substance' theory: think about the Mongols using silk shirts, rather than armor, to stop arrows. Or cars made of pillows.

Now back to logic; the real issue is whether to side with formal properties of thought or lived reality. In other words, what you're basically saying is that transistors really don't work because the principle contradicts identity.

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.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that Piekoff's position on time is very much in harmony with my grasp of it. Since you have seen fit to bring it back up in a more congenial way, I'll share with you some further writings that have aided and abetted my grasp.

 

The article is missing two crucial components: the most fundamental unit of time, which is the Planck time, and the most common state of time, which is the present moment. And these two components are derived from metaphysical (capital T) Time, not epistemological (small case t) time. But really you already know it. In order to have implicitly conceived of Existence, you had to subconsciously conceive of this Nonexistence, which you keep ignoring and putting off. But when you ignore something that is inherent in your own position, you only accelerate toward it and hence fall victim to the deception of materialist conceptions. It is impossible to separate Existence from Nonexistence. Whenever you decide to go without Nonexistence to begin with (which means you lack it and thus go toward it), Existence is doomed to annihilation.

Nonexistent is the time without motion or change. And since "the Universe" does not move, Nonexistence is within Existence. The particular spacetimes are epistemologically within "the Universe." Remember that "the Universe" is also finite, even if unbounded. So, I explain the lack of "universal" motion by having the abstract Time when nothing moves to be metaphysically within "the Universe." I've already told you that Nonexistence is the Time aspect of absolute nothing. The reason Existence is motionless is that Time is motionless. In other words, there is a causation connecting them, and as Michael Miller wrote in the article, "Time is existence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question, Illya,

If you were to be put into this state of non-existence on O.O. you keep referring to - how do you think you would appear to anyone else here?

 

You can't be "put" into the state, neither on the forum nor in real life. The present moment is ever fleeting and can never be attained unless you would not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence — and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

 

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.

 

Now let me develop a parallel:

There is only one fundamental alternative on Objectivism Online: existence or non-existence — and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms users. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life the user is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism user that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life posting appropriately or death inappropriately. Life Learning to do this is a process of self-sustaining developing greater precision in thought and self-generated action greater conceptual clarity. If an organism user fails in that action, it dies gets banned; its chemical elements posts remain, but its life privilege to post goes out of existence is revoked. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil. 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?

 

Reasoning is a learned skill. As such, each has to discover for themselves that there is right reasoning and wrong reasoning. Many of us here are seeking to better ourselves in reason rightly, and sometimes seeing how it is done wrongly can serve as an example.

 

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.

Edited by dream_weaver
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...