Ilya Startsev

"In this case, reductionism works." Hence reduce the universe to hydrogen and forget about all the rest, right? Andie, what is electron made of? Please, don't tell me that rationalist math says it's fundamental without any experimental evidence! As for the rest, I am glad you know some Russian.

Oh, really? You know, I have communicated personally with Dr. Sheldrake and I've convinced him that his morphogenetic fields are really electromagnetic in nature. All the factual evidence he provides fits the view we have on electromagnetic phenomena, especially in this book by a prominent Russian scientist.

First of all, hydrogen is not all there is to the universe. To see why it's not enough, read Sheldrake's The Science Delusion or watch his TedX presentation. My terms are based on non-metaphorical reasoning. You seem to accept the term "vacuum" as a void with positive measurement. Do you imply that (virtual) particles are (such) energy? If so, you remind me of Lenin, who also based his definitions on "tested" and "meaningful" results and metaphorically compared society to nature (on page 167 in Volume 1/50 of his Complete Works [in Russian], 1967). Lenin's conceptual metaphor Society Is Nature, when taken literally, leads to technocracy. Where does your metaphorical thinking lead?

I've never read Where Mathematics Comes From (although I've read about it), but I recommend you to read Philosophy in the Flesh: the Embodied Mind & its Challenge to Western Thought. In Chapter 22, he rips Chomsky's grammar to shreds. I loved it!

Yes, argument is used as if it were a weapon and fought as if with weapons. The blunder is on my side.

Jacob, in my thesis I've chosen to analyze Rand's speech and essay "Philosophy: Who Needs It." I apperiate your suggestions, but I am more interested in her rhetorical method of invention, rather than mere style. As I show in my thesis, metaphors are not just stylistic devices (as Aristotle originally defined them), but they actually carry philosophical meaning. I've used Peikoff's Objective Communication: Writing, Speaking and Arguing, where he talks aplenty about style and things like that, and I judge this to be enough to stay within the boundaries of this project. However, I did not intend the thesis to be only for academe. That's why I posted it here. I hope that Objectivists would find something useful from it as well.

The bolded and underlined are corrected to: "based on reason, even if that reason is judged differently." "Rand is further trying to convince the conservatives, by challenging the foundation of their morality, to accept reason over faith" "in need of a true shepherd. The shepherd, in this case, had to be reason." "no longer rely on all humans to act as rational animals." "Although Rand started as a militant atheist, over time she became considerate of similarly-minded, idealistic theists when defending Capitalism. With theists on their side, Objectivists could inspire others to use reason selfishly and thus motivate them to become atheists in the long run. This tactic would be enough to reinforce Objectivists in order to accomplish the shared goal, the target of their mission." Of course I've read Atlas Shrugged.

Good stuff, Greg. The parts in bold were corrected to: of "the truth" as the best method Would these work? Also, "a philosophical battle is a nuclear war" is freaking amazing Thank you, Greg!

Here is the draft [link deleted at author's request] of my Thesis paper, which is forthcoming. Be my guests to critique it. Note that the cited page numbers may be a little bit off. I will correct them later.

What you call vacuum I now prefer to call (zero-point) Energy, so there is no confusion of quantum scale vacuum with cosmic scale vacuum, which is called dark energy and supervoids. The latter I chose to call Plenum. Again, the different names are to avoid confusing different scales. I think the confusion was started by Hawking, to be honest. To say that the Universe was a particle is the ultimate jumping of scales. After Hawking, Krauss's "nothing" is a simplistic follow-up. What's a metaphysical difference between quantum "nothing" and cosmic "nothing"? None. Problem solved, right? That "solution" of false connections of Being is what contradicts Aristotelian clear and non-contradictory logic. Einstein's genius was that he realized that empty space is not nothingness. This, of course, is completely ignored by his follower Krauss. As for all the quibbles about QM and your defense of QM on this thread: I had been a believer in QM until I found out that quantum physicists pretty much are only colliding hydrogen ions. They have their entire standard model based on a single, incomplete, and most basic element of the periodic table. Come on, until scientists will be able to directly play around with fundamental particles, we won't truly know whether QM is right. As for my Model, my elaboration of it is on my blog (work-in-progress). Therein you will also find a way of "returning to the essential Aristotle."

All of your counterarguments are excellent, but I prefer my counterargument while staying within Lakoff's own political frame. Lakoff accepts these two conceptual metaphors: Government Is Nurturant Parent Citizens Are Children I believe that his metaphors entail two additional conceptual metaphors, namely: Country Is Home Locking In A Room Is Imprisonment If all these metaphors are the case, then what kind of a nurturant parent would force its children to pay in order to stay at home? Even if a child is wealthy, say he or she has won a lottery, forcing him or her to "invest" or else "imprisoning" him or her in a room would lead the child to not freely "invest" by giving what the "nurturant" parent says. Why can't the child invest how he or she thinks best? Can't children mature without parenthood? Lakoff's "nurturant parent" image is hiding a dictatorship underneath. Either pay or go to your room!

Yes, it is sad. I was actually quite into Lakoff and his theory of conceptual metaphor until I found out his political views. I am still applying his methodology in my projects, though, but I will argue vehemently against his tax-heavy view of government. Lakoff, as I see him, is of a new generation of dialecticians. While Marx applied dialectics to social groups, Lakoff applies dialectical metaphors to all fields of knowledge. I am from Russia, and it surprises me greatly that Lakoff is so covert about his views on socialism. I am pretty sure he is a socialist, even an egalitarian, but he does not officially proclaim himself to be so. He is one of those intellectuals, like Kant, who has gotten himself lost in his own theories and completely forgot about reality. He is more dangerous than Kant, however, because he uses modern neurological evidence to support his conceptual views. Nonetheless, the military is a perfectly public, but, in Objectivism, privately funded organization that has caused all the major technological breakthroughs. Were Lakoff to mention the details hidden beneath his argument, his argument would collapse from its own weight.

This argument for taxation is made by Objectivism's contemporary archenemy, George Lakoff (2014): A tax cut proponent says, “We should get rid of taxes. People know how to spend their money better than the government.” Reframe: “The government has made very wise investments with taxpayer money. Our interstate highway system, for example. You couldn’t build a highway with your tax refund. The government built them. Or the Internet, paid for by taxpayer investment. You could not make your own Internet. Most of our scientific advances have been made through funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health—great government investments of taxpayer money. Computer science was developed with taxpayer money, so was the satellite system, so were the chips in our cell phones, so were the wonder drugs we need. No matter how wisely you spent your own money, you’d never get those scientific and medical breakthroughs. And how far would you get hiring your own army with your tax refund?” (Ch. 16) I disagree with the argument and actually see many weak points in it. I just thought you should know. Lakoff is using a tricky strategy involving metaphorical frames, and he is currently the most clever intellectual who is supporting the left. Reference: Lakoff, George. (2014). The ALL NEW Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

I haven't written in a long while that now I completely agree that there is no spatial void, vacuum, or nothing and that Krauss is trying to limit our knowledge by misnaming dark energy. If there were spatial nothing, then it could be used to interchange any scale and thus contradict the very nature of space and reality. There is indeed no empty space. Thank you once again for helping me in correcting and updaing my Model. I have no more conflict with Objectivism on this topic.

To help generate some feisty discussions, I provide you with the following. Keep in mind that it is a philosophical treatment of physics. I am not a scientist, but maybe this will be interesting in a speculative sense. I am open to your ideas. Excuse the complexity: the amount of ideas and integrations contained therein truly boggles my mind. Maybe I can simplify all this with your help in later posts. So, here is my conversion of the physical theories into Aristotelian logic (as in my Model--I will write about the correlating logical metaphysics later on my blog). Gravity (as all) is partially explained by electromagnetism (as some). This is the explanation provided by the Alfven-Klein model. This matches the Newtonian tradition in physics, as data first, theorization later. On the other hand, electromagnetism is NOT gravity. Einstein, Hawking, Krauss, and the rest of contemporary physicists imply that electromagnetism IS gravity (also see Interstellar (2014) to find out the flawed interpretation of singularity in an overall flawed movie that is currently (since yesterday) the most popular movie. Current popular cosmology is based on mathematical models and does not completely match physical evidence or physical problems (such as baryon asymmetry). The reason for this is the inherent contradiction in the current physics, thanks to the flawed dialectics started by Kant. To say that some is all (and improperly integrate physical evidence--I should say, disintegrate it; see Rand and Peikoff for similar argumentation) necessarily entails going from existence to nonexistence. However, there is one contention that Alfven-Klein model also does not resolve. If physical universe is eternal, then so is the anti-universe. I believe (and support with my Model --level 15), the eternity is merely a constraining factor in analysis. We can always find problems within eternity by conceptualizing it in finite -- and thus also bounded in time -- physical data (and this is perfectly natural). The evidence for cosmic (above black holes) singularities and anti-singularities (as cosmological double layers) that produce all kinds of universes could be inferred from the cold spots. General singularities do not imply the eternal nature of the universe. Instead, they imply the points of annihilation of matter and anti-matter that produces high-energy photons that we cannot see because our minds currently can only perceive up to 7 Hz. CMB can be reinterpreted (as Eric J. Lerner had done), so the conceptions of early (from nonexistence, Krauss's "nothing," Kant's noumenal reality--or really, original photon entanglement on a large spacetime scale rather than the less energetic photons we can sense as quantum fluctuations) and current/future universes (toward existence) can be integrated. All the plasma that we do not see (also could be called aether) is there on the larger cosmological scales. If not particularizing the evidence, such as through the Michelson–Morley experiment, aether may indeed be found. On larger scales, such as magnetosphere and beyond, solar wind may indeed have effect, as predicted by Dayton C. Miller's Ether-drift experiments, and perhaps also this. This is also talked about by one of "cranks" - Nikolai Levashov - in one of his articles, criticizing Einstein. Although Levashov's model of the universe is also strange (it involves seven matters in a heterogeneous mix), it leans more toward the plasma model and against the relativity/quantum model. The other “crank” we’ve talked about earlier, Nassim Haramein, is leaning more toward the relativity/quantum model and is adding some “plasma” (plenum, aether, whatever) to it. Even though the cranks provide no solid answers (or much evidence in consensus--sounds conspiratorial, I know), their ideas provide clues as to how the universe may actually be. What if we put the matter/antimatter into vacuum as plasma model suggests and find it in the singularity as Haramein's theory geometrizes? The esoteric and mainstream do not have to conflict, you know. If the debate of static versus "created" universes is not obvious, esoteric and mainstream are inseparably entangled now. To see more, among the already mentioned, static universe models can be found in (early) Einstein before he “repented,” Erich Regener, Walther Nernst, Fred Hoyle, Louis de Broglie, Max Born, P.A.M. Dirac, Finlay-Freundlich, Nikolai Kozyrev, Jayant Narlikar, Halton Arp, Andre Koch Torres Assis, C. Johan Masreliez, Nikolai A. Zhuck (all from this Russian site). Of course, there are others, but some of them are truly coocoo, such as the author of the site--Ivan Gorelik. Nonetheless, they are very advanced mathematicians and physicists, and we should not simply brush aside their ideas and findings.

Objectivists should be pretty happy about the following: [Eric] Lerner, a plasma physicist, points out flaws in the Big Bang model and proposes an alternative theory: an eternal, self-sustaining "plasma" universe where electromagnetic fields within conducting gases provide other, simpler explanations for observed phenomena. - Gregg Sapp, Montana State Univ. Libs., Bozeman, about this book from this theory

It's interesting too that Krauss is leaning more toward contemporary liberalism, whereas Objectivists lean more toward the republican worldview. I am reading a book on moral political metaphors, and it looks like the "uber-legislator" role conforms to following Strict Father morality as authority-centered, hierarchical, self-disciplined, etc. Your view of philosophy seems to be narrowed down to semantics. However, it is more conceptual than merely linguistic. Spacetime is a mathematical concept that refers to physical data, yes, but space and time are also irreducible primary categories in Aristotelianism and primary perceptual conditions in Kantianism. All of these concepts that entail space and time are what metaphysics is about. Remember that we had metaphysics before we got all the science today. I would argue that metaphysical developments by these philosophers conditioned the perceptions of our scientists and also everyone else. I think Rand makes the argument very clear that philosophy is determined in science.

This is a salient point. Some mathematical notions when applied to physics do sound counterintuitive but interesting nonetheless. So the mathematics becomes a sort-of metaphysics that necessitates some of the non-observable physics. By "metaphysics" I mean the notions of existence as well as spacetime. But the issue here is that Objectivism breaks existence down into observable objects, whereas we have no clue of what "objects" vacuum is made of. Of course once objects materialize we can judge them to exist and have identity, but the process of this becoming must still necessitate a referrent of some perhaps deeply entangled state of non-observable universe that is in vacuum. Either way, the Objectivist principle and the physicists' math are two different authorities (even though Rand mentioned that her metaphysics is similar to quantitative nature of math). By having philosophers and scientists follow these different conceptual "necessitators," reconciliation of science and philosophy becomes a problematic experience.

I have not read the book. All I have seen are his two video presentations: one is his famous 2009 presentation that inspired him to write the book, and the OP. Thank you for clarifications. I thought that Krauss wanted to differentiate his own theory from the Big Bang theory. I know that his PhD dissertation was related to dark energy, which is a hypothesis explaining vacuum, such as Eridanus Supervoid. Now, what does not make sense to me is, if Krauss says that vacuum has positive and negative gravitation or that it has energy, why is vacuum not structured then? If vacuum is a form of energy, then the energy can structure it through its frequencies and vibrations (even if we cannot measure them yet). What made me think of this is Nikola Tesla's quote: “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” Well, "man is mortal" is not even an essential feature of man, since mortality applies to every organism. Which means that, even for an abstraction, identity is not enough to explain existence. My question is: How many identities do you need to explain existence? I have done it in 35. But note that the way I was able to explain existence is through its relationship to nonexistence (in my Model, the quantum voids).

Andie, Krauss relates vacuum and the universe differently than how the universe is generally conceived to come into existence, that is, through the Big Bang. On the other hand, Objectivists relate existence to the universe. To Objectivists, the universe is eternal; it has no beginning or end (edit: in time, but it is finite in space somehow). Of course, I do not yet see how scientific data about the beginning of the universe (whether from nothing or a singularity) relates to metaphysics or Objectivism's first principle. But what do you think? Did the universe have a beginning at all? And what theory do you lean more toward? Regards, Ilya

Yes, vacuum can only be conceived, but at least in a way that connects with physical evidence of perceived and sensed realities. If Krauss conceives of "nothing as an empirical non-reality", then this seems senseless. It's better to conceive of vacuum as structured space, as Nassim Haramein does, although I wouldn't take his word on anything besides vacuum. But the idea of structured vacuum, in my opinion, is pregnant. I am trying to see how Krauss (or Haramein, for that matter) may connect to Objectivism's concept of existence. I am starting to question whether existence is identity now. Identity is one piece of knowledge, but existence is everything (i.e., all knowledge there is). So, Greg was probably right when he basically said that "all is all" and "some is some." In my definition of these terms, "existence is existence," and "identity is identity." You should not take all of knowledge for some specific piece of knowledge. Too much is lost in the process of converting existence to identity.

Following the Model above that you have (hopefully) at least partially understood, you can now overlay on it all the major philosophies. Again, starting from nonexistence at the bottom (where you start to read) and going toward existence at the top (where you end), we have the following diagram: The what, or object, of reality – 1; the how, or means of sensing, perceiving, or conceiving, of reality – 2 Plato: P2, M1 — physicalistic metaphysicist misintegrating, realistic idealist Aristotle: M2, P1 — metaphysical physicalist integrating, idealistic realist/mystic Kant: M2, E1 — metaphysical epistemologist disintegrating, idealistic materialist Rand: E2, M1 — epistemological metaphysicist misintegrating, materialistic/realistic idealist me: E2, P1 — epistemological physicalist (Rand’s “epistemological,” Aristotle’s “physicalist”) integrating, materialistic/idealistic realist/mystic Ninth Doctor argued that Kant was not a materialist but a transcendental idealist. Well, a transcendental idealist is like a transcendental humanist, a transidealist is a non-idealist, just as a transhumanist is a non-humanist. Kant was indeed a non-idealist. Moreso, he rejected realism and believed that mysticism was meaningless. That's an eliminative way to figure out that Kant was a materialist. Another way is to look at what he advocated. Kant advocated to not perceive reality as it is (that's mere appearances for Kant), but to go beyond forms and to find particles on the other side. Matter that only consists of particles is what Kant was calling the noumenal reality, and it was his ultimate goal to reach it by the means of his ideas. Thus, Kant fed his consciousness, as every materialist does, to raw and primal matter. Yes, Kant was going against consciousness toward nonexistence. The scary thing is that most philosophers did that, including Rand.

I have been reading about Parmenides, and I've realized that the problem stems from him. He originally claimed that existence is indivisible, eternal, does not change, move, or become; and that existence is "all alike," homogeneously and equally distributed, so any difference may not "prevent it from holding together." Frankly, this is a bunch of bull that only non-humans like transhumanists should admire. Nonexistence and existence are inseparable but distinct, for if you take one away from the other, what you get at the end is nothing at all--the complete destruction (about your way, not my way). By pretending that existence is what it is and that it is not related to nonexistence, one simply lives in ignorance--it's like saying that nonexistence is nonexistence and existence is existence for all eternity. All connections, such as between all and some, break down. Again, what we get at the end is complete destruction (about your way, not my way). We need to realize that we are partial and not complete--complete is existence towards which we should strive. We should not strive toward matter--matter alone (particles in void) is nonexistence. If one may have known that at first there was nonexistence, from which he derived existence, and then intentionally forgot about nonexistence, then one is evil because the pretense of existence that is really nonexistence is evil. If Parmenides does not sound evil to you, check whether your ethics is not obsolete. Once again, I offer you the (updated) Model. The Model is the relationships between nonexistence (from the bottom and all around) and existence (the top and in-between). Without the two, the Model will seem like a bunch of words put together that have no relations or connections.

I told you about this double government stuff, and here is more discussion that you think you could continue to ignore: https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html Guess what? You better not ignore this any longer. And here is more on conspiracy theorists to back this up: http://www.naturalnews.com/047168_conspiracy_theorists_sanity_propaganda.html

It does not convert it--it presupposes that "A is I" for there to be a substitution in the first place. It's like in math: A=I; I=I. Since we know that "S is P" is equivalent to "S is P", all we need to look at is all and some. One can also claim that existence is the universe. The universe is an identity, so one can substitute the identity for existence. Yet, you also claim (correctly) that existence is identity. Yes, there must be a contradiction on your part. Consider how the following relate and whether you see any relation between the two: All physical objects exist. Some physical objects exist. If I claim that all physical objects exist, do I not claim that some physical objects exist? If you say that all and some are not thus related, then you are probably only thinking about a loss of meaning entailed in converting all to some. Yes, there is a loss of some meaning, but the essential meaning is retained, that is, that physical objects exist. Of course, I do not support statements that conceive of the universe only as a collection of particles, but essentially they are right. The universe is particles, even though the proposition ignores that besides the universe and particles there are other things in existence. Other things, such as human bodies, for example, are beyond the mentioned propositions or are simply implied by them in their intermediacy.