Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lbridges

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  1. Radcap, As to the Heraclitian argument: It surely must be self-evident to any thinking being that things do change from moment to moment, however infinitesimally. My original post stated that it seemed unlikely to have validity concerning the law of identity since the nature of the thing remained unchanged. What evidence or contradictory argument did I need to make? Were you asking me to argue for something I don't believe - that a falling dandruff flake has changed my nature or identity? I do not believe, as you seem to, that I substituted duality for contradiction. That may wel
  2. RadCap, I did not evade your question even though you asserted something I did not state. Then in your last post you do so again. I did not advance a "Heraclitian argument". I stated a fact, then rejected that argument as not being valid for consideration regarding identity. From this I must conclude irrationality seems more likely to be found in your posts than mine. I looked up the definition of fatuous to ensure I had not misused it, I don't believe I have. ********************* Capitalism Forever, I believe we may be in agreement. In my original post I stated (somewhat
  3. What I was referring to is the quantum assertion of wave-particle duality. A couple of examples for photons would be: wave nature: light bending through a prism, light coming off the logo on a VISA card, rainbows, etc. particle nature: the result of passing through the beam of a photo-electrical cell at a shop, or a garage door. BTW, the photo-electric effect was the primary item for which Einstein won the Nobel prize. In some circles he is considered the father of quantum mechanics even though he was prominent in the EPR issue.
  4. RadCap, I will attempt an answer that presents my current level of understanding. I believe the law of identity at its heart says A=A. On one level this is a rather simple definition of the equals sign. Philosophically, I suppose this could be generalized to say a tree is a tree, or to say that without an identity a thing would in fact be a no-thing. All seems sort of self evident to me. A corollary would be a tree is not a cat, also self evident. A minor difficulty arises just a moment later in time. A is no longer A. Yes, it has very much the same characteristics as A, but it has
  5. Radcap, I made no assertion about any specific topic in objectivism. In turn, are you claiming that objectivism is a dead science? By this I ask is there nothing is left to be discussed? Are all premises discovered, and has evidence been provided advancing from premise to law - yielding 100% certainty to any rational person? As to the sciences portion (although you didn't directly ask), I have personally observed quantum effects that imply duality and have also seen convincing arguments that hidden variables cannot exist (the topic of the post to which I was replying). This may imp
  6. Forum members, since it's almost Thanksgiving I'd like to express my thanks for the stimulation this site gives me to think. Second I'd like to express my thanks for bearing with a newbie, and one without formal philosophy training at that. sanchopanza, My personal opinion is that any other statement would be incorrect. I attribute this thought to the distinction between a policeman's "murder" of a criminal caught in the act of a heinous crime with that of say the World Trade Center terrorist attack. However, I am not sufficiently advanced in my thinking to try to make an absolute jud
  7. Guest, I read the first 4 or 5 papers that are linked on the right side of the web page cited. In some cases there are assumptions made that violate some of the principles that are later used to support the case. I beg relief from a rigorous analysis and partial refutation due to the demands of family and attempting to juggle full-time employment while obtaining an MBA within a year's time-frame. As an aside to a comment in one of the papers, quantum mechanics and general relativity are not yet unified, but no physicist I know wishes to see one sacrificed at the altar of the other. I pe
  8. I'll try a direct answer. To date I have not found any reputable reference that reconciles wave-particle duality with objectivism, much less the cat paradox. My admittedly limited readings suggest the strict objectivist rejects the implications of quantum physics, while simultaneously accepting the physical reality that quantum derived devices produce, i.e., lasers, tunnel diodes, photo-electric cells, etc. To support this "position", some have sought out somewhat less than mainstream scientific proposals, for example that advanced by Dr. Randell Mills (referenced at http://www.dailyobjec
  9. Circa Aristotle science used philosophy as a critical underpinning. IMHO it was the genius of Newton that recognized a fundamental difference and began the divorce process. Circa Einstein/Dirac, et al, the divorce was finalized. A few (perhaps many, definition dependent) still attempt a reconciliation, but science no longer finds philosophy essential, or perhaps even helpful in describing the world. I mean no slight, both fields have strengths, weaknesses, and areas of worthwhile investigation still to be accomplished. However, I believe requiring an objectivism philosophical underpinning
  10. RadCap, I was referring to the concepts embodied in the "Big Bang", particle creation - virtual and otherwise, black hole creation and evaporation, etc. But, after further reading of posts asserting the presence of the ether, etc., I believe I should refrain from entering discussions involving science as it would be very frustrating for me and then in-turn for other forum members. thanks for your clarifications.
  11. RadCap, Thank you for the clarification, it has helped my understanding of the flow of the discussion. One last point relative to your comments, although this may not be the proper thread to ask (and I could use instruction on how to address O/T items): Is your assertion that "something can not come from no thing" purely a philosophical point you use for the purpose of this discussion, or is this a fact you assert is a part of general knowledge? Lee
  12. Please allow a newbie to ask a clarifying question. In an earlier portion of this thread I found the following: **************** By saying: "the age of the universe is as old as its oldest entity..." you are saying: "the age of ALL existants is as old as the oldest existant" This is demonstrably false. You are one of ALL existants. You are NOT as old as the oldest existant. Therefore all existants are NOT as old as the oldest existant. ***************** I apologize for selecting only a portion of the argument, but I can't follow the logic here and would appreciate assistance. Thi
  13. I've lurked about here for a short time and been reading threads I found interesting. Thought perhaps I might eventually contribute in some useful fashion, and so have registered. My educational background is in physics and math, and my working experience has been in physics, engineering, and management. I enjoy philosophical discussions but practically speaking have no formal training - still learning the language so to speak. For that reason I hope you will make some allowances, and I promise not to be upset with criticism addressing lack of rigor. Lee
  • Create New...