The Guru Kid

I too think that this can be regarded as terrorism. They are not attacking individuals but rather the "ideology" of whaling ships. They hope that by doing so, others will be discouraged to continue doing that.

That makes sense. Even though the video game company owns the code, how the code is arranged is of value to the buyer.

I find it funny that you don't consider electronic (i.e. computer) generated things to be values. How is selling a house to some other player in a video game different from selling them a computer program? they both have real world values to the buyer. Would you consider it a "real world" value if instead of it being inside the game, i printed a screenshot of it and sold that?

After reading the posts on this thread, I've come to the conclusion that it is not immoral to buy gas. But i also agree with Bob Kolker in that the US government should not have favorable foreign policy with a country that violates human rights and breeds enemies against us. The only reason for the government to behave favorably is because of the philosophy of interfering with the (international) free market. i.e. "We have to be nice to these folks since they provide a useful (essential) commodity to our citizens).

I thought of an argument for continuing to buy oil. There are many countries in he world that violate human rights and they do it either by selling some other commoditites such as diamonds or without any major wealth like previously in Afghanistan.

The need to buy oil because it's a necessity of life also leads to foreign policy issues by the US. We are allies with Saudi Arabia, a country that violates human rights and is a breeding ground for fundamental Islam and terrorists. Up to what extent should our need for oil supercede our need to stop, or at the very least shun, such nations.

Nations such as Saudi Arabia are known for their human rights violations (espcially against women). The government is mostly funded by oil revenues. Knowing that your money is going to the funding of such immoral activities, is it immoral to buy gas?

Once a child is born with down syndrome, someone has to take care of it. It is the parents' responsibility to take care of it (adoption works too). I know friends whose siblings have the syndrome and it is really not that bad. Although I am sure that if they had a choice they would have chosen not to have it.

I know a lot of Objectivists may not favor him because of his view on immigration and abortion (which is not as bad because i think he favors state rights on that issue but he did vote for the ban on "partial birth" abortion), but i'm starting to think he is the best reuplican candidate out of the bunch. Granted he will likely not make it through the primary. I wonder if he will, as he has before, run as a libertarian or an independent when he loses the primary. Guru

Those two sentences contradict each other. If truth was relative, why would there be a need to determine it? You could just make it up and call it "my truth". Guru p.s. Objectivism

In one of the lectures by Leonard Peikoff, he was asked how he was sure that reason was the only means of knowledge. He said something along the lines of, "I had a dream about it. Is that an acceptable answer? If not, then are you looking for a logical answer of why reason is the only means of knowledge?".

@DavidOdden I remember reading in one of the threads that you were a paid linguist. So yes, i was referring to you The professor actually wants to discuss how QM does not violate the law of identity (like i mentioned before, he's a Rand fan and considers himself an Objectivist). But knowing that most people on my campus would either not know or care about the law of identity, i decided to not make that the central theme. I wrote a paper last year about the death of science in Modern Physics (although i had mixed feelings about it being a physics major) heavily influenced by the Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin. I don't know how to share the paper online but the point of it is that the new found goal of modern physics of uniting everything into one fundamental theory has driven physicists towards coming up with grander and more mystical theories: case in point being String Theory.

Thanks for the replies. I think i will use, "The philosophical problems with QM" as my title. Then i will have bullet points of some of the problems and perhaps at the end some catchy slogan about the cat. I will also try and research some of the Objectivist arguments against QM in detail so i can ask intelligent questions later. I'll try and post some sort of summary after the event. Cheers, Guru

Hello all, I'm the president of my college's (Worcester Polytechnic Institute) philosophy club and being in a technical institute (rated #1 by princeton review in political apathy) I'm trying to hold discussions that pertain to science. One of my physics professors, who is also an Ayn Rand fan, has agreed to give a talk on the subject taking the view that QM is misunderstood and doesn't violate the basic axioms. My fundamental concern is about narrowing such a broad topic so that it is interesting to both physicists and philosophers. Also, i would like to advertise with a catchy phrase so that people would show up for this. Maybe some of the linguists can help me out here.

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but being a physics and math major, i couldn't help but bring the topic of parallel lines back. The concept of parallel lines is a *relationship* between two lines and NOT an identity by itself. Thus, parallel lines can NEVER intersect. What does happen however is that upon changing from Euclidean to non Euclidean space, the two lines are no longer related in the same way as they were before. To give another example, a triangle is defined by a closed surface having 3 vertices. The total angle between the three lines changes from 180 to >180 when going to curved space. The relationship between the angles change but a triangle is still a triangle.

Okay, i was being sarcastic when i said that.But, parallel lines can never intersect. It's the same argument as having same-sex marriage. It just doesn't make sense to say that. Having said that, i agree with Korthor in the point that sometimes science can be counter-intuitive. But it can never be counter-logic and that is what the other members on the forum are arguing. Back on topic, the best time to spread the pro Global warming agenda would be during harsh new england winters. When you car gets stuck in -10 degree windchill, you just want to f ing KILL Al Gore for fighting against warming.

The Theory of Relativity is based on the fact that parallel lines intersect? Wow, i guess my physics professors must have forgot to mention that.

@hunterrose 1. Your analogy doesn't make sense because slaves were forced to be slaves whereas illegal immigrants are free to leave. 2. I do, however, understand your overall point on the matter. Like i said before, i would prefer a complete overhaul of the system so that open immigration is allowed. But why is it that people only think in terms of deportation or amnesty? There is a middle of the way which would be to grant illegal immigrants work visas. My last conclusion would be to say that if you stand for amnesty for illegal immigrants, you should also stand for amnesty for legal immigrants.

Okay. So I agree that illegal immigrants are not "cutting the line". The reason that i disagree with legalizing via green card or citizenship is because I know of many cases, including my own, of legal immigration. First, you have to work hard to find a sponsor (for the H1B1 work visa) who won't charge you too much for sponsorship or a college (for the case of an F1 student visa) which won't demand to see a large sum of money in your bank account. Then there is a long process of applying for a visa (imagine the dmv but much worse) which also has fees associated with it. You can choose to bypass this entire process...by immigrating illegally. The same choice exists when one's visa is about to expire. You can choose to pay large fees to a lawyer (if you're very lucky it will be paid by the company). Then you have to wait for months, if not years, for each step of your application to go through (labor etc.). More fees, more forms to be filled, more waiting. Why should i put up with all this when i can just choose for my visa to be expired and have the government grant me a citizenship. Moreover, i think that the "rule of law" and the "unfairness" arguments are connected. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is unfair to legal immigrants because they choose to follow the law. I would, however, be fine with the idea of granting work visas to illegal immigrants or granting GC and citizenships to ALL immigrants.

Even if i follow your latter analogy, i don't think that the feeling of being cheated is an illusion. What it is implying is that if you go to the US in a legal manner you will be uncertain about your position in the future for all the years. Your visa can expire at any time (what i mean is you may not get an extension) and then you are forced to go back. But, what you're saying is that if that happens you should continue to stay and wait for the government to finally grant you citizenship. So not only are you encouraging people to break the law and cross the borders (which is dangerous because we cannot check criminals), but also to overstay their visas. It's a different matter to consider a law immoral, but to punish those who follow it and reward those who don't is just plain wrong.

I agree with the fact that illegal immigrants do not slow down my line for a green card but, going forth with the analogy of waiting for a movie theater ticket, how would you feel if you were waiting in the line to get into the movies while others were allowed through the side door? Illegal immigrants break the law and go through the process faster than those who obey the law. I only disagree with the idea of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants assuming that the other laws for immigration stay constant. I would much rather prefer that the US be open to all immigration (with the exception of criminals etc.).

Being a legal immigrant on a valid visa to the US, I don't totally disagree with Ron Paul. I especially like the no amnesty for illegal immigrants as I think that is unfair to the millions of legal immigrants in the US who have to go through a lot of pain to gain citizenship. Having said that, I would rather see a complete overhaul of the immigration system that would allow for anyone (who does not have a criminal record) to gain a US visa and stay as long as they'd like. I would also like to abolish the welfare system and income taxes so the debate over whether illegal immigrants should get welfare is irrelevant.

Full time student of Physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. I hope to do experimental research in Applied Physics/Engineering.

The United States' current military capacity is more than enough to fight the wars it is fighting. So, since there is no emergency in obtaining large amounts of land for training etc. the military can slowly and without use of eminent domain buy out the surrounding land to expand the base. Another option i can think of is to say that the government gets "first dibs" on any surrounding land that is voluntarily up for sale. But I am sure that it can outbid any private competitors even if it didn't have such an advantage.

Quick thoughts: 1. So far, no one has mentioned the Wave Particle duality which implies that there is no definite position of a particle. There is an area over which the particle can be found. 2. The uncertainty principle only works because of human interaction. But it also says that such an uncertainty is *built-in* to the system regardless of how powerful our instruments may get. The uncertainty is the *minimum* that has to exist. Most instruments are far weaker in their ability. 3. Physicists are known to use imagination, even mystically so, in order to create theories that can best fit the data. The way to deal with it is to meet it with skepticism not because of its far-fetchedness (?) but rather the amount of proof it has in it. Vineet Barot 2nd year student of Physics amateur historian of (modern) physics.