Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

emorris1000

Regulars
  • Posts

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by emorris1000

  1. I'm confused by your statement of being reduced to particles. First you aren't really reduced to particles, your reduced to the weird quantum superposition that is particles. And from that you understand that causality is not determininstic, but probabilistic. Sure, it doesn't really solve the problem of free will, but its does fundamentally disprove determinism. If the particles aren't deterministic, how can the items built on them be deterministic? Edit: I looked up the "epicurian swerve" thing you brought up. I don't really see how Epicures misinterpretations of molecular physics has any bearing on this.
  2. Well, it can't be used in math, that's already understood, as infinities exist by definition. It can be used in science, but not with regards to relational attributes as they have infinites, therefore in the treatement of a problem you have to divide all relational and non-relational attributes and appreciate infinities differently for each one. And since the definition only operates absent of time, another relational attribute, it can't be used in any application that uses time. Now, it may have a distinct use in philosophy, which is pretty boss I guess. If it represents Knowledge with the big K, if you will, that's a pretty important thing. So, for the last thing it is usefull, which is important. also: I don't think that's correct. The definition of an infintessimal is 1/inf, which implies they are all contained in a finite interval.
  3. That's a fair point, and I'll retract the statement for the time being. I think there's an interesting argument to be had there (about the ethics of abandoning your ego for gain), but this isn't really the place since the main topic is the book, so I'll just abandon the point for right now. But it doesn't over-ride the other issues I found with this writing within the first couple of pages. There's something really weak about his arguments. They would work with someone who already agreed with him, anyone else.....good luck. Take, for instance, this statement. The war on terror is essentially different from the war with Japan/WWII. Undoubtedly. But HOW is it different? I'm not sure he actually answers that here. He sees the difference in the sense that we haven't thoroughly won it. But that's a silly point when there are far more fundamentally interesting differences which are skipped by the author, such as: The enemy is not a sovereign nation, yet is able to cause massive damage. The enemy fights out of uniform and hides in civilian population (often using them as human shields) The enemy lacks either the Prussian or the Bushido stance on military actions, for instance the idea of an "army" and surrender/admitting defeat. Then he goes on to say "it's not for any sort of bungled execution". Really. You want to back that up? There are plenty who will argue that the execution has been massively bungled from day one. ... Then there's this That's flat out not true, or at least its a gross exageration to say that the mujahideen were equally anti-american as they were anti-soviet. .................. There are some other things that I liked/disliked from whta I have read so far, I'll add some more on that later.
  4. When your seargent gives you an order that is for you to do something that you do not want to do down to the very core of your being, you do it. Altruistic isn't the right word here, a better way to say it is that you have to follow orders semi-blindly. Sure, on the grand scheme of things military service can be understood as a choice founded in self-interest, I completely agree with that, but day to day service requires the suppression of hte ego to get the job done.
  5. so, I can't find a review from this book *anywhere* that doesn't come from people that are clearly objectivists. That's a warning sign to me, has any third party/outside party reviewed this? I went ahead and read the first couple of pages. Here are some highlights: Starts off with Operation Red Wing recount, taken at face value from Luttrels book. Meh, pretty bad for him not to acknowledge that fact. I wouldn't be as bothered by that but the author also chose to ignore every other report of the taliban numbers (even luttrels) and use a 150-200 number, I have no freaking clue where he got that number other than a blatant embellishment for the sake of making his case. Doesn't make the previous point look better. This shows a real lack of understanding of military strategy. Selflessness is not the reason that you don't shoot civvies without just cause. Its in your self interest. Unnecessary civvie casualties are universally undrestood as unnacceptable over there because they engender enemy funding and recruiting. Now, I will admit that the reason this war is particularly brutal is that the enemy fights out of uniform/uses civvie cover. This makes the situation much more dangerous and difficult, and i do think that in this situation there were better options for them than letting the herders go. So, its a complicated situation/argument that this author chooses to hit with the finesse of an orangutang. But none of that is particularly problematic compared to this: Military service is one place where Rand's concept of selflessness doesn't fly that well (which is why I will never serve.) A soldier has to be willing to face death semi-altruistically for his fellow soldiers. Period. If they all operated as individuals with their own life as their sole motivator then they would not be able to operate effectively as an army. I mean, the whole purpose of boot camp is to bring strict discipline into the soldiers mind, following orders against your own self interest. Between those obvious mistakes in the writing I would have a hard time getting through the first chapter.
  6. ok, so you headed me off at the pass with the relational attribute thing. I think I am going to concede that by the definitions given here I can see no possible infinities. However, I do find that the number of restrictions placed on the definition make the definition somewhat useless.
  7. Tunneling is tricky, I'll be honest I've always had difficulties with understanding it. My understanding was that it was a way to pass through potential energy barriers, not a way to pass through null space, but maybe that's the same thing? Either way its pretty wacky huh. Edit: I looked into it some more. Tunneling allows for a particle to pass through an energy barrier beyond what it should be able to pass. So, you have a kid running at a 6 foot wall and you expect that when he jumps he will splat on the wall, but somehow he makes it over some of the time even through there is no way he has the energy. I am pretty sure that this is different from the orbital node though. The orbital thing has to do with the wave/particle duality. Different things, to be honest I am a bit embarrassed of having forgotten this....
  8. ok, lets drop the space/time one. What about attributes? Do the attributes of an object exist? Does the redness of the apple exist?
  9. Basically, you have two choices in quantum mechanics. Either particles have non-defined positions, or they have the ability to "teleport". If you look at the 3 p-orbitals in an atom (x,y,z) you will notice that they all converge to a single point in the center, more or less. At this point you have a "node". Nodes are spaces that the probability for the particle to be there equals zero. Not "approaches zero", it equals zero. This has to do with the probability distribution being the square of the wave function. Where the wave function = 0, the probability = zero. Anyways, you have this node on, say, the px-orbital. It looks like a bowtie, fat on the ends, empty in the center. On either side of the node you have 50% of the probability mass. That can be interepreted 2 different ways (I'll add a third): 1) The particle, of defined mass/position, spends 1/2 of its time on either side of the node, and teleoprts between them, because it is impossible for the particle to physically pass through the node. 2) The particle exists in both sides of the bowtie simultaneously. or 3) Both of these are wrong and there is another descriiption Neither 1 or 2 makes sense really, but they are the standard way that molecular quantum mechanics is understood. 2 was the way I was taught, I don't know if anyone believes that 1 is true. Now, it could be three, but I would want a pretty good argument for the description. You may be able to use philosophy to say that 1 or 2 are false, but you can't use it to provide an alternative. For that you need science.
  10. You don't need all this philosophy of mind hullaballoo to toss out determinism. It's far easier to do it with Quantum Mechanics. The position of an electron within an orbital is probabilistic, not deterministic. Even if "we are phyics" as was mentioned on the first page, you still aren't deterministic.
  11. Ok, so I glossed over a bit of equilibrium mechanics because I'm not teaching a class on chemistry. But the point is that with two reactions (or the same reaction in different directions) occuring at some set of rates (which are functionally dependant on concentration) you end up with an equilibrium concentration, a stable concentration. Which we don't have. Which means that the reaction rates are changing. The reason the equilibria concentration is important is because of the known qualitative causal link between those concentrations and temperature. Fair point. I'll retract that. I'm sorry, I should have been clear on this. There most certainly is a causal relationship between [CO2] and temperature. The question is not whether [CO2] causes temperature changes, it's whether the current temperature changes are primarilly caused by an increase in [CO2]. Or if its mainly noise, or whatever. But [CO2] is undoubtedly a component of it. You may be saying the same thing here. We DO know that changes in [CO2] are at least partially caused by humans. Mainly through combustion (increased generation of CO2) and deforestation (decreased consumption of CO2), which leads to an increased equilibria concentration of [CO2], which, btw, we haven't reached yet. Its true that other sources are contributing to it as well, like release of methane from clatherates that is oxidized to CO2. But I would need to be shown some evidence that non-human/non-controllable sources are primary sources. And we DO know that changes in [CO2] cause temperature changes. But yeah you're right we aren't sure of the magnitude of affect we have actually had. That's true, CO2 has a log effect on temperature, so it's not a great example chemical to use for the whole global warming conversation (not all of them have a log effect), but on the other hand it is generally pretty stable, which means its an easier example to use for the chemical rate/chemical equilibria conversation above. CH4, for instance, has a feedback effect due to oxidation in the troposphere which both removes ozones/hydroxyls and adds CO2 and H20, which can then increase temperature and increase CH4 generation through arctic clatherate release. That adds a lot of levels of complexity to the situation. In fact almost half of CH4s effect on temperature change is based on these indirect feedback effects. If you feel up to getting into a really crunchy article on the subject read this: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.pdf Methane is really one of the scarier of the atmospheric gases, or at least potentially scary. The thing that concerns me are the issues with the arctic clatherates. ---------------- Anyways all of that was really just showing that the qualitative nature of the argument is sound. No one is going to argue that an increase in [CO2] or [CH4] will decrease global temperature. The quantitative nature of the argument is trickier. But consider this. You are in a car. There is a dangerous object in front of you and it is coming closer. You know your car is moving forward, but you don't know how fast it is moving. What do you do?
  12. Assuming of course you believe that SAT scores and High School grades represent merit. I'm a bit mixed on that. The latter definitely has consistency issues due to non-standardization of grading schema (I mean hell there are 5 point systems out there, makes it a little ridiculous.) The former....probably better. But its not like this is unique to Rutgers. You already have the National Merit Scholarship and tons of other scholarships.
  13. This conversation, THIS right here, is why I asked the question of whether or not it is unethical to not have a strong understanding of science. I see sooooooo many posts in here saying "I'm no scientist BUT" or "I'm no climatologist BUT". If you do not understand the science behind this, then you are at the whim of "experts", and the sad fact of the matter is that this is SUCH a complicated issue that even climatologists will come to different conclusions. And to be clear, I'm not saying I have a better understanding myself or that I am not at the whim of the conclusions of experts. I consider myself pretty strong at chemistry, spectroscopy, and physical chemistry/thermodynamics, which are all key issues at play here, but one of the main things that knowledge gives me is an understanding that this is an insanely complex topic that is going to be very difficult to sort out even by the most knowledgeable of us. Politicians exploit this confusion and take a stance on whatever side, knowing that they can find evidence to back it up, and then they can shift the argument away from the science and towards the "who has the most reliable experts." Instead of a scientific investigation it becomes a game of appeals to authority, argumentum ad populum, and other logical fallacies. Rand's own statement, linked on the front page, is a complete logical fallacy (disturbingly so), dismissing the conclusions, not by understanding the argument, but by attacking the arguer. --------------------- But here's a couple things that I DO know. The earth exists in a very complex series of chemical equilibria. One of the simplest is CO2/O2. Humans/animals/combustion etc suck up O2 and make CO2, plants suck up CO2 and spit out Oxygen. Based on the generation/conversion rates of each chemical you will reach a chemical equilibrium, which will be seen in the concentrations in different systems in the world. Right now it is CLEAR that O2->CO2 is happening at a faster rate than CO2 -> O2. So what does an increased concentration of CO2 mean? This is where the spectroscopy comes in. Light is the ONLY source of energy for the planet earth (geothermal is an energy store, but it doesn't create energy). CO2 absorbs light in a different way than O2 does. This means that changes in the relative concentrations of CO2 and O2 will change the way that the earth gets energy. How much of what kind of energy gets through the atmosphere? None of this is conjecture or political or anything like that. Its basic chemistry/physics. Then you get to the "greenhouse effect", which is the interpretation of the effects a change in chemical equilibrium of certain chemicals will have on the lower atmospheric temperatures. Basically, more CO2 means more absorbed heat. How much heat, exactly, is questionable, but the greenhouse effect is, qualitatively if not quantitatively, certain. This is also not conjecture, political diatribe, or anything like that. Its basic chemistry/physics. Then you have the recent temperature changes. Ignore the causal link between CO2/O2 concentrations and just look at the temperature change. In the short term, it is definitely changing. This is not conjecture, political diatribe etc etc. Its simple data logging. --------------- But here's where it gets tricky as all get out, and this is where the whole argument happens. \ Is the temperature rise noise or real? We don't really have enough data to know that. Is the greenhouse effect quantitatively strong enough to cause these kinds of temperature changes this rapidly? We don't have enough data, or even the proper models, to know that for sure. And even then, if the temperature change is real, will it even have a significant effect on the world? This one goes back and forth and back and forth. Part of the issue in the last question is the ideal gas law. If temperature increases, so does pressure. Vice versa the opposite way. In a closed system this is true permanently. But there really aren't closed systems at play here. Is it more like a hot air balloon or a pot of boiling water then? Here the pressure will temporarilly increase but the expansion of the system or the transfer of the heat will equilibrate either the pressure or the temperature back down. Maybe the same applies to the earth? I dunno. But the way that temperature and pressure operate on the global climate is the key to our dangers. Will increased temperature cause more disparate pressure systems, and therefore more hurricanes etc? I have no freaking clue, and I wouldn't trust more than a handful of people on the planet to really know the answer, or even the real question, there. --------------- So you have a lot of unknowns. But based PURELY on the knowns, mentioned above, you can understand that CO2/O2 (and methane and other stuff of course) equilibria is incredibly important. And you can tell that we are generating it a LOT faster now. So why the hell not address that? I mean, yeah, maybe its not an issue right now, but no matter what it will be one day. And I'm not arguing that you slash industry to the bone, far from it. The only way to solve this problem is through industry. But I am arguing that you have to at least acknowledge the basic science at play here. Ignore the politics, understand the science you are able to, and act from that. And stop listening to Fox news/Pacifica to get your expert opinion.
  14. First off, Zeno's Paradoxes aren't something I would consider evidence of a problem with a continuous system as there are a lot of arguments that there are no paradoxes to begin with and that the arguments to get to the paradoxes are themselves fundamentally flawed. The arrow paradox, for instance, postulates as an assumption that at an infinitessimal division of time there is no motion. This is incorrect. At an infinitessimal point in time there is an infinitessimal motion. To further explore this you start getting into calculus, the math of continuous systems, wherein, there are most definitely infinites. ------------ As for the rest, I'm not talking geomtry, at least not in an abstract sense, I am talking about physical space. You are saying that position is a relational property and therefore is out of bounds, as points do not in fact exist. Its an interesting point. There's something about the way that this argument is going that makes me think that both sides are in danger of running into tautologies. But what about time? Is time a relational property? As a side note I have caught myself multiple times thinking: A continuous space allows for an infinite number of potential positions. Which really comes back to the whole "potential of infinity." Edit: Ok, something I just realized. There is a very important difference between an instance in time and an infinitessimal division of time. Same thing with space. A point is different from an infinitessimal division of space. Edit2: To put it another way, there is a difference between 1/inf and Zero, and there is a difference between inf and 1/zero.
  15. Its a fair question. But I think that the more we add caveats to the definition of infinite needed to arrive at the "Potential" conclusion the weaker the statement becomes. By the way I want to reiterate this: It really was a great observation.
  16. So your assesment is an approximation of reality? I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. Although you seem to touch on something that has always intrigued me, which is whether the finite mind can actually comprehend the infinite. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by physical. But my answer would be that in a non-quantized space there are an infinite quantum of space. That seems physical to me.
  17. There are no problems with entropy. I) Entropy in a system must always increase or remain the same. II) The universe is an adiabatic system III) Entropy in the universe as a system does not change.
  18. I don't put science above philosophy, I find them of equal importance. Or thereabouts. You need both. If you are going to go through a bunch of effort to learn a philosophy that reveres reality, you should probably spend some time studying reality.
  19. Wait, are you arguing that reality is defined by the precision of your measurements? So, before the invention of an optical microscope space and distance only existed within the realm that could be seen with the naked eye?
  20. Yeah, I mean even after I wrote "ethical minimum" I realised that there was something deeply wrong with that statement. Yeah I get your point though. I still have a serious problem with the fact that Rand never seemed to have much of an education in science, but.....hrmmm that's a specific, in context issue.
  21. I guess that was a little oblique of me to not explain the analogy of the circle. The circle is the chain of causality.
  22. I'm not going to get into the Kant thing, so lets then say that science gives us an absolute understanding of reality. That's an even stronger argument for why the study of science is so important. Yeah this is a good point. Strong is very subjective, you're absolutely right. The second point is just as correct. Maybe that's the question, what level of proficiency with science sets an ethical minimum? What breadth, and what depth? [/quote
  23. I don't see how the required precision of a measurement has any bearing on the reality of the space, so I'm going to skip that. Let's talk about the quark (or whatever the smallest particle is). Can it only move in units of itself? Can it displace itself by 1/2 it's own width? What about a quarter? Unless space is quantized any distance represents an infinite set of positions. Bu hey, it's possible that space is quantized (although it's really weird, think about a diagonal motion for a second), so what about time? Not that time can go on ininitely, but that time is a continuous system. Is time quantized? Maybe, i honestly don't know what kinds o theories there are on that. There's another one though that is sticking in the back of my head, which you may like more because it's philosophically based. Free will. Can you have free will with a finite set of possible actions?
  24. So I'm major necroing this thread based on the conversation going on in the "god" thread. I don't understand this idea that there are no physical infinities, there most definitely are. Any continuos system is by definition an infinite set, even if it is bounded. The set of all lengths from zero to one foot is infinite. The only contrary position to this is to state that there are no continuous systems.
  25. no Edit: Explain the problem with it. If you're going to argue that the circle needs a cause then you also have to argue that god needs a cause.
×
×
  • Create New...