Objectivism Online Forum

# Doug Morris

Regulars

1549

• #### Days Won

40

Doug Morris had the most liked content!

• Gender
Male

## Previous Fields

• Sexual orientation
Straight
• Relationship status
In a relationship

## Recent Profile Visitors

4422 profile views

161

1. ## Examples of Arguments Lacking Horizontal Integration

The electron goes through both slits as a wave. The wave determines the probabilities of the various ways the electron can be detected by the screen. When the electron is detected by the screen, it is always detected in only one place, regardless of the specific nature of the wave. The electron is detected in only one place because there is only one electron. Thus the electron being detected in only one place proves nothing about the nature of the wave, and therefore proves nothing about how the electron interacted with the barrier and the slits. If the detector is placed close to the slits, this affects what slice of the interference pattern is detected, and therefore affects the probabilities of various results. But it does not permit there to be two detection events. That K3 is not the sum of K1 and K2 proves that the electron passes through both slits. There is still an interference pattern for a single electron. We just can't see it because it only acted on one electron. If I do a dice-throwing experiment, and I only make one throw, I only get one throw-outcome, and therefore I can't see any experimental evidence of the probabilities. But the probabilities are still the same as if I made thousands of throws.
2. ## Reblogged:Whoever 'Won,' America Lost

How does this apply to Trump's lies about the 2020 election?
3. ## Reblogged:Whoever 'Won,' America Lost

This is at least as good a description of Trump as of the Left.
4. ## Examples of Arguments Lacking Horizontal Integration

Is P1 really true? If the wave properties of the electron are important, can't it go through both slits?
5. ## Examples of Arguments Lacking Horizontal Integration

Actually, this is an example where a premise is either ambiguous or false, due to switching or sloppiness in the definition of "profit".
6. ## Does Howard Roark’s initiation of force against property owned by others conform to Ayn Rand’s philosophy?

It seems to happen a lot that a quotation is attributed to a famous person to draw attention and to lend a (fallacious) air of authority. My favorite example is a quotation I like very much. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force, and, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master." This is usually attributed to George Washington. However, the earliest actual appearance anyone can find seems to be around 1900.
7. ## Does Howard Roark’s initiation of force against property owned by others conform to Ayn Rand’s philosophy?

A more reasonable interpretation would be that there would be no need for bombing if Keating had been able to sue to enforce the contract, as would presumably be the case if the Cortlandt building had been privately owned by a capitalist businessman. However, that would not have made as good a novel.
8. ## The Brainiacs Strike Again

I think the "70% confident" means that the other figures were arrived at with the help of statistical methods that give correct results 70% of the time.
9. ## Does Howard Roark’s initiation of force against property owned by others conform to Ayn Rand’s philosophy?

At one point Cortlandt is referred to as a Federal Housing Project, so presumably it was the federal government. Also, it was made clear that suing to enforce the contract would mean suing the government.
10. ## Does Howard Roark’s initiation of force against property owned by others conform to Ayn Rand’s philosophy?

In the case of Cortlandt, the "owner" was the government, which already complicates the issue. Also, it was not possible to sue the government, so the normal recourse for enforcing a contract was not available to Keating and Roark. I'm not sure how this should affect the matter; that might require another discussion. But it at least complicates the moral issues involved.

12. ## Some details on physical force.

Intent can serve to distinguish between violations of rights due to negligence and violations of rights due to malice. But how much difference does this make when determining whether, or to what extent, rights have been violated?
13. ## Some details on physical force.

A general statement would be that we violate someone's rights when we deprive them of their freedom to act. Much, but not all, of this would be covered by depriving them of life, property, or the ability to use any part of their body, or by creating a danger of any of this, or by threatening to do so. This still requires clarification and line-drawing. Why, exactly, is intent important? This still requires clarification and line-drawing.
14. ## Some details on physical force.

We also need to get clear what exactly distinguishes government from other institutions. (By the nature of the institution, not just its purpose.) We also need to get clear what exactly entitles government to intervene in a situation.
15. ## Some details on physical force.

Might it help to use phrases like "physical coercion", "physical expropriation", and "physical damage" instead of "physical force'?
×
• Create New...