Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


EC last won the day on March 10 2019

EC had the most liked content!


About EC

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/23/1977

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
  • Occupation

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Physics, Philosophy, Sports, Reading in General, Thinking, Shooting Pool, Movies, Music, Technology, Poker

Recent Profile Visitors

6353 profile views
  1. This has to be wrong. A person walking by me in a crowd, infected with a potentially deadly virus (or alien!), while having no symptoms or any clue that he's infected, is NOT an "initiator of force". That requires, at a minimum, knowledge of one's infection.
  2. This is identical to a virus infection in principle (you acknowledged that already). It doesn't matter where a microscopic threat originates given that it is non-sentient with regards to quarantines, social distancing, government response, etc. It would matter to the medical community, and science and scientists tasked to fight an alien pathogen though of course. What point are you trying to make given that the two situations are nearly identical except for how science fights the terrestrial or alien pathogen?
  3. I'm surprised this is the main topic being discussed on this site right now. Thank you to the posters who posted the videos in the thread.
  4. If you are trying to say that minds simply aren't "systems of information" I agree, and was being a bit loose with the concepts. That doesn't change the fact that if this form of information teleportation becomes feasible with a large enough "bandwidth" that complete mind transfer via this method should be possible. This is one of those situations where somebody will read what I've proposed here in 50 or 100 years and say something like "Damn, that guy thought so far ahead of his time other people didn't even know what to make of it".
  5. He wanted premises without context. He want's to engage in pure rationalism. No. This is what rationalists who don't understand how to do proper philosophy do. It's why the vast majority of philosophy is pure bullshit.
  6. Since I created the idea in this thread of full FPE transfer via entanglement/wormhole I'd like to link to a new paper by Susskind et al. that fleshes out the theory of information teleportation/traversable wormhole since I was asked how such a thing was possible by @StrictlyLogical I believe. The paper also discusses a possible experimental test of EPR=ER, holography, and stringy physics via use of quantum computing, which clearly puts these concepts into the realm of science (which I personally never doubted, although others have). Obviously, this paper doesn't discuss how minds can be put into the necessary superposition to transfer FPE without destruction, but it should be obvious that if information can be teleported in superposition then in theory systems of information, minds/consciousness, should also be able to be too. Layman's version: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614765/how-a-tabletop-experiment-could-test-the-bedrock-of-reality/ Actual pre-print paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.06314
  7. This is equally true on the Left and Right. Basically nobody that exists on this planet is capable of thinking for themselves. This is why we Objectivist's are the minority of the minority. The immensely vast majority are incapable of thinking for themselves on at least some issues because of centuries of bad philosophy and it's resulting culture infecting nearly everyone and everything. As a depressing aside, I think we have close to a zero chance of ever winning the the war of idea's, that's how far gone the world is and will remain.
  8. That exclamation is the actual truth though? Islamic terrorism is caused by Islam.
  9. None actually, but I'm sure this has been adequately argued in other ways here, so I'll bow out because this isn't worth my time. I thought your issue would be better than this when I saw the threads length.
  10. It does no such thing. You can create two entangled black holes that exist at opposite "sides" of the universe but are the same space inside of the event horizon of either. Entangled particles share the same exact feature because ER = EPR. There is no contradiction involved; you just don't understand the science.
  11. Couldn't "green" be taken to mean "new" or "newly-formed" here? If so, then this sentence "could" potentially have actual meaning while initially sounding meaningless. "Colorless" is an accurate description of "ideas". "Green" could mean something like above. "Ideas" is straight-forward in it's meaning. "Sleep" could be metaphorical. As in, something like, not fully thought out. "Furiously" could be similar to "sleep" as it could be metaphorical. So it could be roughly translated: New and creative ideas emerge suddenly after haphazard subconscious simmering.
  12. You posted this one HBL too? I saw this there yesterday and had clicked on it because it's exactly what I've been thinking on the subject lately, also. I've been thinking about it because of the non-stop irrational questions I've been seeing on god and religion on Quora lately. One would have to explain by what means and laws of physics and reality a god would exploit to violate all the other laws of physics for it to exist. As a "god" that couldn't violate any of the known laws of physics and reality could not be really defined as an actual god. "God magic" would have to be fully explainable and defined for an actual "god" to exist. The above is more of a thought experiment on the subject which can be rationally dismissed prior to even getting that far because of such a concept being both arbitrary and counter to the Primacy of Existence to begin with.
  13. What if instead of discussing at which point a human being becomes an entity with rights, we discuss when any entity gains rights? Whether or not late-term abortion for humans is moral can only be decided when humans and all animals are abstracted out of the picture. All the problems with this discussion is that we are all "too close" to the issue. When does an AI gain rights? Answer that, and it tells you how to properly answer the question for *all* types of life that potentially possess's the ability to reason conceptually. We have to correct philosophy so that it applies to all types of entities that possess conceptual consciousness or it can lead us to the wrong answers, like in this exact case.
  14. So you're going to go through a bunch of rationalistic mental gymnastics that leads nowhere then? Have fun.
  • Create New...