lbridges

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 well be due to a lack of understanding and application of philosophy jargon on my part. I used the word in a scientific sense, as that is my training. I am unaware of the definition for a 'mature' law and so could not defend a response to an opponent. From the 3 choices you provided to me, I choose category 3. However, this should not be construed as a rejection of the concept of identity. My position would be that duality (wave & particle existence) could be within the scope of the "identity" of a thing. If this means I have stated that the Law of Identity is not 'mature', then yes I am so stating. If this condition can be met within the law, then I am willing to state I believe the "Law" meets the general criteria for a law in science, i.e., it has never been shown to be violated (law of thermodynamics). Again, I am unsure of your definition of 'mature'. Only other readers can judge where the mudslinging began, as we surely disagree. However, your bottom line is correct. I assume you to be a young man...

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 less elegantly than you) that light is what it is (that it obeys A=A), that we do not yet fully understand what the "A" is at this point in time, and that understanding about what it is has been evolving, and will continue to evolve. Perhaps you can excuse me as I am not a philosophy major, just an interested bystander. I know little of how to employ terms when they have specific meaning to my science and something different to yours - causality being one I finally researched yesterday after repeatedly misunderstanding it here. I simply gave a few examples of what is generally considered candidates for duality in a scientific sense and are fully defined in the language of physics. My point to all this is that should quantum mechanics interpretations be proven false, then so be it, physics opens a new door. However, should quantum mechanics be shown as "truth", it should not, IMHO, signal the death knell for objectivism, but also simply open another new door. Said another way, and referring obliquely to your post, if the ether was a cornerstone for your present understanding, yet incontestably found not to exist, would you put aside your belief in the validity of objectivism as a way of looking at life, and how you conduct yourself in this life? This line of my reasoning is along the lines of why I asked RadCap if he thought that objectivism was dead, i.e., nothing else could be added or learned, it was closed and all proven. I really would like an answer to that question, because if it is the generally accepted position of this forum that all that can be known (of objectivism) is known and proven, then I need not be banned or relegated to the simply irrational pile, I will move along of my own volition.

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.

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 changed. Admittedly not from a tree to a cat, but change it did. Does this violate the "intent" of the law? I think not. However, where I reserve judgment concerns certain aspects of objectivism as I believe it is evolving. Specifically, assertions made by some that the scientific duality concept can not exist as it violates this law. There is overwhelming physical evidence of duality in nature, including everyday events we all witness (does anyone require examples?). That a particle or photon can have two aspects to our perception does not mean it has violated the law of identity, it is still following the A=A concept regardless of how our perception of it changes. Philosophers who reject reality however have my scorn. How can one discuss anything rationally if physical reality is not accepted? To my own sense of logic this seems equivalent to asserting that I am the only entity in the universe and all else is but one of my dreams. Perhaps you feel I have still not answered your question. In which case I would ask for you to identify a specific aspect of identity you think I have rejected. I was merely pointing out to "guest" that some advocates of objectivism (that he identified) and some advocates of quantum mechanics believes there to be a dichotomy, and that both avenues of thought continue to evolve. BTW, it is your nature to always challenge with such fatuous statements as "UNTIL you address that conflict, ANY additional posts, including the one above, have NO meaning whatsoever."? The underlining being my emphasis.

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 imply objectivism has limitations in extreme applications, just as Newton's laws of motion have been found with virtually 100% certainty to have limitations under extremes of velocity or gravity. If you believe objectivism is dead and cannot evolve, then I assume there is nothing further for me to discuss here. It is certainly your prerogative to view my position as intellectual abdication. I prefer to consider it as belief in what I have witnessed at this stage in life, coupled with having a mind open to further revelations of nature's existence.

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 judgment about when it becomes morally correct to commit a "murder". Back on topic: Along the lines of me being a newb, it seems to me that potentiality is always positive - although the individual result might be horrendous, i.e., potential to become a mass murderer. That an acorn cannot become an apple tree seems to be a simple statement as to the nature of an entity even though the sentence contains a negative term. Can someone enlighten me?

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 personally doubt that Einstein would either, as he is somewhat the father of both theories - hopefully you are aware his Nobel prize was primarily for his 1905 paper on the photo-electric effect, a decidedly quantum affair. However, I'd like to set that discussion aside for a moment for a few of statements, and a probably suspect conclusion. I am a physicist who finds many aspects of objectivism interesting. A dichotomy exists between some facets of physics and objectivism. Physics is an evolving field. Philosophy (to include objectivism) is an evolving field. It seems rational to reserve opinion as to "fact" until one the conflicting schools of thought matures into a pure state of "laws" (a state neither has achieved).

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.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/quantummechanics.asp).

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 for science would have prevented the discovery of many the things we generally take for granted today, i.e., lasers, integrated circuits, etc. While I have less experience in mathematics I suspect that field has undergone a similar revolution.

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.

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

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. This response suggests to me that a two-hundred year old oak tree can not be an existant since not all of it's parts are two-hundred years old. Conversely, although I'm not suggesting this, if the universe began as some sort of large single particle that "popped" into existance and exploded in a "big bang", creating what we recognize as the observable universe, why isn't the age of all existants the same as the age of the universe? With this admittedly contrived premise, even the thoughts and actions I put into this question are validly as old as the universe since they were generated internally by electrical pulses derived from matter originating from this oldest existant item.

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