Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/30/21 in all areas

  1. William and Doug, Electromagnetic waves are not composed of electrons, but of photons. The former are fermions (which cannot be in the same state as another fermion, including particle location), whereas the latter are bosons (which can be in the same state with another boson, including particle location). E-M waves, including radio waves, are quantum waves. They can interfere which each other, as waves, and thereby degrade the ability of the carrier wave of radio broadcast to carry information. (Also, if I remember correctly, in cases of waves in matter, such as ripples on the surface of otherwise still water, interference of waves with each other [cancellation or other alteration of each other] is not essentially due to the impenetrability of molecules [fermions].) Of related interest: Energy Wave Theory
    2 points
  2. Boydstun

    Ballet

    INFRA - finale (3.3 minutes) dancers - Edward Watson and Marinela Nunez choreographer - Wayne McGregor music - Max Richter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjERnGQiJfg
    1 point
  3. Boydstun

    Ballet

    CARAVAGGIO Music: Bruno Moretti after Claudio Monteverdi Choreography: Mauro Bigonzetti Dancers: Vladimir Malakhov and Mikhail Kaniskin https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2963852373853645&set=a.2562699263968960
    1 point
  4. Boydstun

    Ballet

    SWAN LAKE -Tchaikovsky Nureyev and Fonteyn 1966 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG7JvpPGdEU
    1 point
  5. StrictlyLogical

    Anthem

    Boydstun, I think in the spirit of your personally being “not purely egoist”, you might consider it important to sketch, if only in broad strokes, the bones or main structure of your ethics (which you deem are on a solid footing) in a sort of “introduction” which you might be able to expand upon if the finitude of life’s span permits, but which nonetheless represents the unwavering unshakeable base you have already formed, and upon which any remaining more detailed formulations and expositions are to be made. I propose a sort of ITBE (Introduction to Boystun’s Ethics) even if only in essay form, but possibly of any length or of any title, again in the spirit of how crucial the philosophy of ethics is and your being “not purely egoist”.
    1 point
  6. I think the rules are different when you have a small group where everybody knows everybody else. In such a case, people deal with each other based on their direct firsthand knowledge of each other, and specialization is much more difficult. Consider that if I were one person living by myself, I could not have a separation of state and economics, because by necessity I'd have to do both functions, since there's no one else to do them. And then, within the area of state, I wouldn't be able to separate executive, legislative, and judicial functions, because again, they're all me. If it were me and one or two other people, that's still not enough people to split them up properly. Even if there are four or five people, maintaining those distinctions would create all sorts of artificial barriers which would be costly and inefficient. (You're on an island with Bob and Carol and Dave, but Bob is handling the judicial branch today, so if a judicial question comes up between Carol and Dave, you can't work it out yourself; you have to go ask Bob...) I imagine that if a dispute breaks out, getting a "fair trial," the way you would want one in a large society, would be almost impossible, precisely because everybody knows everybody else, and there's no practical way to separate people's firsthand knowledge of each other from the issues at stake in the case. I mean, if you never liked Bob, you're more likely to convict him just because of that, and even if you could separate your dislike of Bob from your judgment in the case, you would have a hard time proving that you had done so. You could lay out your reasoning in writing, but people would still have grounds to suspect that what you wrote was different from what you were actually thinking. How does Bob get any right to an impartial judge or jury, when the community is that small? When you have thousands of people who don't all know each other, barriers between people exist anyway; they cannot all know each other anymore, so it becomes possible to use those barriers between people for separations of powers and other specializations. There have been small "communes" where people allegedly practice Communist principles, but in fact, since they all know each other, they can use their knowledge of each other to make everything sort-of work without genuinely relying on Communist principles at all. (Besides, since the principles are wrong, if they followed them strictly, their community would die out.) When you have a small group of people, such small groups are all very much the same, and any sort of political principles are premature. So a small group of Objectivist geniuses could well start their own little village or something, but they would have a hard time demonstrating to the rest of the world that it was really based on Objectivist principles, and not merely on the fact that they know each other well and work together well. Objectivist principles would probably help them work together well, up to a point, but if a dispute happened, they would probably fall apart. They are too small of a group. (Or else they might compromise their principles in order to stay together, but that introduces problems of its own.) (It is also a problem when you have a large society ruled by a small group of people, when each of the people in the ruling clique knows everybody else in the clique... and when they prevent anybody not in the clique from holding office... because they cannot police each other properly anymore, because they are not impartial... and they can collude across "separation of powers" barriers...) I think America came together because you had a large group of people who did not all know each other but had similar ideas, and they also had a blank canvas upon which to create a country. The blank canvas these days is hard to come by, but not impossible. But you also need the large group with the common ideas. I don't think a small group would be able to do the job. You might think that the Founding Fathers were a small group, but I think what they did was only possible because they were representative of a larger group from which they came.
    1 point
  7. Thank you, Stephen. That clears up a confusion I had. I need to study and think about this more before responding. I make a distinction now between space and location. So the space itself wouldn't be a characteristic of a particle, as the particle is always traveling through different space, never remaining in the same space. But the particle's location is relative to other objects and thus can remain a constant characteristic qua relationship to these objects by which location is measured. My picture of the atom is of a nucleus carrying most of the mass, and electrons rapidly zipping around the nucleus. So most of the empty space is between the nucleus and the orbits of the electrons. I've read that the electrons form a "cloud" around the nucleus, thus the space isn't mostly empty. But if this idea is based on observation, couldn't it be an optical illusion? Consider how rapidly spinning propellers on a plane appear as blurs, when in reality the propellers are not blurs. The electrons could be moving around so quickly that they merely appear as a cloud that fills the space.
    1 point
  8. and some more with the advent of time https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
    1 point
  9. You aren't aware of the Star Trek Q?!?!! Shame! Dishonor on you, dishonor on your cow; dishonor on your whole family! Go watch some more Star Trek: The Next Generation immediately! Thank you for stating that under absolutely no circumstances are your opinions open to revision; that simplifies things a whole lot. Some stellar Objectivist Epistemology huh? Indeed. From what I gathered from the linked website (you seem to have read far more of it than I, but still, I did read some) the posts are about as vague as you might expect from your local medium. The FoxHunt is on! Great; what is that and what precisely do you mean? We Can Not Be Stopped! Cool; who are you and what can you not be stopped from doing? I'm sensing a dead loved one whose name starts with a "G" over here! They're the sort of claims that can't easily be proven or disproven. Not a great epistemic look. This is gonna be an awkward question... Now that Joe Biden is officially our real president (as awful as he truly is) ... What do you now think of that prediction?
    1 point
  10. One point people seem to be having difficulty grasping is that physically endangering other people can be physical aggression. There are obvious examples involving guns and cars. Diseases may be harder to grasp, but the principle can still apply. If a person does not know whether or not they are infected, failure to take appropriate precautions endangers people. Ayn Rand recognized that force can be indirect. An action taken in ignorance can still be a physical aggression. We do not have to feel any fear to recognize the need for prudence. whYNOT greatly exaggerates the psychological consequences of acknowledging the risk of infection.
    1 point
  11. You brought this up about the QAnon movement to suggest that you are being given a loyalty test implicitly. Then why are you trying to prove your loyalty? No one asked you to prove anything with loyalty, but you went ahead and did it anyway. Of course I told you to get out of here, but that was to dispel any illusion that a QAnon supporter is any more welcome than a Communist. For the same reason there is no loyalty test, no one really cares. That would be psychologizing. You are an interesting case study though. What are the motivations of believers in Q? Are there common personality traits or personal histories? How does the conspiratorial nature of QAnon relate to that radicalization of otherwise reasonable people? Does QAnon radicalize people in the first place? How does a QAnon supporter validate their beliefs? The one commonality that I see is an inclination towards feeling victimized or persecuted.
    1 point
  12. I respect the right of an individual to be wrong. It in no way encumbers me to disavow them of what they choose to believe. Objectivism Online is private property and respect is expected for its owner and the intentions for which access is made available to you. Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted. I see this could use an amendment. Examples include, but are not limited to, religion, communism, etc. In light of the evidence you have left in your little-examined-by-me wake, I suggest that you address the questions directed to you in matters of Q/QAnon, with a lot less, go out and research it for yourself, and a greater willingness on your behalf to provide a bit more epistemological foundation and providing the rationale that convinced you, rightly or wrongly, when it is requested.
    1 point
  13. Boydstun

    Ballet

    HIS BITTER EARTH (6.5 minutes) dancers -Alessandra Ferri and Roberto Bolle choreography - Christopher Wheeldon music - Clyde Otis (song) / Max Richter singer - Dinah Washington https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWrMXvZFfu0
    1 point
  14. Boydstun

    Ballet

    RIMINISCIN (7.5 min.) dancers - Alicia Graf Mack and Jamar Roberts choreographer - Judith Jamison song - A Case of You by Joni Mitchel singer - Rufus Wainwright https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrp4lCPunFE
    1 point
  15. The cold-causing viruses, that we have always had with us and will always have with us, stimulate our immune system and are an inextricable part of human life. They are not ton-and-a-half masses impacting at 100 mph. Mass home detentions, mask edicts, distancing edicts, guest count limit edicts, etc., are all blatant violations of basic rights, without any justification. —>Thedelicate can always stay home<— Therefore, those are massive, blatant violations of basic individual rights. The little bastards have not really even yet scientifically identified their so-called “novel covid-19 coronavirus.” The Great Scamdemic of 2020.
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...