Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

EC

Regulars
  • Posts

    2022
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by EC

  1. e^iπ + [ħ ] = Gμν Clayton's Identity
  2. @dream_weaver Thankfully reality is the final arbiter of truth and not other Objectivists who keep their mind stuck in only one version of Schrödinger's cat box. Even the one's I highly respect 😉
  3. Our specific local universe and timeline is just a holographic diorama of the quantum computation of this data. Entangled data is what the universe is as such.
  4. Exactly correct. The Universe is Symmetry. Each spacetime (such as ours) is a inverse holographic manifestation of quantum computation on the event horizon of any given Plank Length area within it with each possible possibility represented as a change within the error bar of the Uncertainty Principle. So emergent in this context means more symmetrical, specifically data symmetry in the case of volitional consciousness.
  5. No, it is our "local" universe. The universe that Miss Rand refers too. It just doesn't include all that exists. This paper describes the concept mathematically. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267211322_Split_Fibonacci_and_Lucas_Octonions
  6. I will, but not here I think. Also, sorry for not logging in since. I was more or less just using this as a public storage area for this idea as I developed it and integrated it with the physics more explicitly.
  7. There is no contradiction if the our "universe" is actually a holographic diorama of the entire Universe which is a multiverse of multiverses such that E^\[Pi]I +\[CurlyPhi] [HBar] = G\[Mu]\[Nu]
  8. My newest integration and creation I will now call Clayton's Theory of Mind. The universe is deterministic but a rational entity's mind is not because of the existence of emergent contextual volition via a informational phase change at a definite complexity inflection point. The phase change at the inflection point of sufficient complexity of a given entity's consciousness changes deterministic factors into the context of the emergent volitional mind.
  9. Also for you Tad, I don't possess floating abstractions (or very few anyway and with these concepts certainly not), and am not prone to any type of intrinsicism nor rationalism. In fact, I'm quite certain that I could teach a class in Objectivist epistemology accurately if I so chose to. But yeah, keep your random straw man attacks coming bro👍
  10. Not true. You and I are rational thinking biological machines and are neither deterministic nor programmed by anyone but ourselves. If nature can create a thinking machine via billions of years of evolution, then man also can. To deny that fact would be a blatant contradiction. This must have been what it was like about 125ish years ago having to argue with someone that human flight would soon be possible while they clearly falsely claimed it is impossible as birds flew overhead. 😂
  11. You're wrong and I could prove it, but have a million things to do and don't really have the time to argue/explain it in detail. But here's a quick question for you: why do believe that another type of rational (read: moral) entity running a moral government would be contrary to rights preservation? Only answer in the context of an general "artificial" intelligence with efficient thinking abilities many orders of magnitude advanced of the brightest current (non-brain technology interfaced) humans?
  12. I've described my solution to this, an AI "dictator" in control of an advanced drone force. And I suppose we could still have a more normal police force too, as long as they aren't allowed to possess any type of weapons. Police shouldn't have access to weapons as part of their job contract so that they can't terrorize the people who's rights they are supposed to protect, like they currently do.
  13. I agree with you under your relatively common definition. I should have, and almost did put the word empire in scare quotes because I just mean a one-world truly Capitalist government, you can call it whatever you want. There's zero point in having competing "nations" on the planet, especially as we begin to become an interplanetary species.
  14. That's an overstatement. What if the US united the world under a single Capitalist empire. That wouldn't be bad in any sense if we were talking about true Capitalism.
  15. The first but I understand your point. I just try to separate the actual threats from the propaganda. It's the nonstop nuclear threats that I take the most serious even though I understand it's also partially just posturing to keep us from interfering in the madness.
  16. https://www.newsweek.com/russian-tv-says-nuclear-war-only-alternative-russia-victory-ukraine-1709539 Why don't you take them at their word? I don't understand why you guys ignore what they actually say daily.
  17. They don't realize that they are actually the victims of bias and propaganda except when they (properly) reject the "MSM's" narrative of these events they then immediately jump to another crazy narrative that somewhat fits there own internal thinking because "it's in opposition to the conventional narrative" without objectively thinking through *why* this "alternative" exists and vetting the sources properly. For those guys: you must realize that whatever the source of information you need to just treat it as a puzzle piece of the truth and then put the actual reality based picture together properly in your own mind in an unbiased first principles first manner in your own mind. Only then will you be free of the biases that you are claiming I and others here hold yourself.
  18. You've missed a LOT of really good shows over the last decade and a half then. TV turned awesome after the 90's especially after about '05 or so.
  19. Okay it's time to stop feeding all the moral relativism trolls who don't even believe pride and possessing principles are fundamental moral virtues
  20. So, Putin having a non MSM "point of view" makes it okay to start a war of aggression on a mostly peaceful neighbor and destroy it's cities, murder and rape it's people and leave them dead in the streets or stuff them in mass graves? Now he must also be given things via "negotiations" for doing all these things that you won't declare as evil because he had "reasons"!? Also, the world has no right to defend itself because of these propaganda excuses because you are too much of a pussy to die potentially die for freedom in a nuclear war? All evil regimes including the Nazi's in WW2 have these propaganda based excuses to justify their aggression and mass murder, knowing they exist doesn't magically transform morality from black-and-white to whatever form of relativistic grey like you and others here are attempting. Now, I'm interested in the actual reason all of you are doing this... I want to believe it's just fear that would cause people to defend evil but I'm truly not sure atm
  21. Uh, I made more rational connections by the time I was 18 months old then you will ever make in your entire life.
  22. It's not a "need" it's just a fact that I'm intellectually superior. Also, I'm not a db, just a dick, and you just suck but other than that me and you have nothing in common.
  23. Oh, I understood completely. You were attempting to question my "qualifications". But, why is an actual general (who's almost certainly far less intelligent than I am, as you also are) more "qualified" to speak accurately about these issues than myself? Because said intellectually inferior general attended West Point and was indoctrinated into collectivist military type thinking? That's actually a disqualification for proper thinking no matter how otherwise competent the man happens to be. Specialization, and people like you that are overly obsessed and irrationally only respect the ideas of "experts" is a cancer on man's advancement as a species. A proper man should be able do and understand everything (within reason).
  24. There's no contradiction and it's not hubris, nor a need to "punish" Putin for his international terrorism and/or war crimes that were carried out on his own orders (implicit or explicit), even though he certainly deserves to die for all of that. It's about the right of the (relatively) free nations of the world to protect the rights and lives of their citizens from the death and destruction from an evil tyrant. An aggressive defense is not just for the current threat but also a warning to near (and far) future threats from other tyrannies such as N. Korea and China that the lives of the relatively free loving people of the world aren't open to being sacrificed at the whims of their evil ambitions. Would I love to see non-war solution to this problem that doesn't reward evil rights violating aggression? Sure, who wouldn't? But it's NOT possible. Therein lies the actual contradiction: you and others believing that such a solution exists and/or is possible. Sometimes, as was the case during the Second World War, evil has to be defeated to be stopped, it can't be negotiated with in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons one doesn't negotiate with terrorists or a criminal with a gun to one's head. Who wins and who loses long term in such a "negotiation", and does the "negotiated" result end the threat or encourage more terror-for-loot in the future?
×
×
  • Create New...