Cake

If I had to sum up objectivism in one phrase, I would say "think for yourself." On one hand, I agree with your answer, Diana, that participating in a religious ritual is giving sanction to it. If this fellow does not want to sanction the rite, he should abstain from doing so. However, I believe that even asking this question is inappropriate of someone who is committed to objectivism. If Ramana is unsure, he is going to have to decide on his own. No slogan or philosophy has been able to remove the responsibility of choice from human life. He should not denounce religion just because Ayn Rand said so, for the same reasons he should not believe in religion just because his parents said so. With that said, I am convinced that it is not a sin to be unsure so long as you genuinely seek answers. If you need more time to understand, and to become decisive, take the time to think. It is worth the effort. As a corollary, if I was in that situation and I wasn't sure about religion but decided to go though the ritual anyway, I would not feel badly if I later became an atheist. I went though all sorts of religious ceremony before I new better, and I feel no guilt about it. The point is not to transgress on your convictions. If you are a convinced atheist, going through ritual would be an insult to yourself. If you are not convinced, it would be less bad and more forgivable. I respect Ramana for the courage to stand up for what he believes in, and wish him all the best.

I really think that the goverment subsidy/regulation tangle is the single most salient point about this whole mess. As long as subsidies are given to big oil, no "green" technologies can compete. The price of oil will increase because it is a limited resource. The price of solar/wind/geothermal/etc will decrease as technology gets better. Do the math. Why is anyone worried?

What I took from the Jmegan's earlier story is that our "urges" are simply physical sensations that we have come to associate with a particular action, or set of circumstances. My point being, is that we are free to rewire our heads though conscious decisions to turn negative urges into positive ones. Im no psychologist, but, it does't seem that happiness should be defined in whole or in part on something like urge satisfaction. I also will not advocate a repressive attitude, but rather a knowledge of what these feelings are, where they come from, and the knowledge that one is totally in control of them (at least on a long term level). I think evolutionary psychology is a real mess, in other words. It is like a cat chasing its tail, full of rationalizations, and no clear direction (as evolution is ad hoc on any meaningful human time scale). lgk

I think this is exactly what he should say, followed by... for the wine. I'm half kidding here, but it seems that there is too much analysis here of your value structure, your goals, your reasons for hanging out with people, and no thought as to what needs to be really needs to be judged: HER. So you talk with her and you made out with her one night. GOOD. if you talk to her on frequently you obvioiusly don't think she is annoying and stupid. As far as her being permiscious, judge her for yourself. If you want to pursue her, you should find this info out from her. This only works if she's honest of course, but I doubt as an objectivist you care to associate with dishonest people. BTW pancho reminds me of the old lady in the boardroom scence of tommy boy "and that's when the whores show up." and her husband saying "I slept with a prosititue in 1954 and she still won't let me forget about it."

I find adages like this one to be so overused that they kind of lose thier meaning. I know that it is easy to see that one should make conclusions based on the evidence presented, but often it can become difficult to make sure one is using reason properly when faced with a alot of evidence that can be misinterpreted. I understand what rationalization is through this definition. I would like to know what induction is, and how rationalization is different than something like theory testing? I am trying to get technical, so please dont respond with vauge generalities.

I am having a tough time understanding exactly the difference between using reason to come to a conclusion and rationalizing an incorrect one. Any ideas?

I think the real take home message is that in morality you must have abstract principles that you apply to determining what is right and wrong. This, I think, is one of the most difficult points to really get. Think about the alternative if it helps. Without defnite principles that determine right and wrong, any action can be justified by taking a poll, or invoking god's will or any such whim. The other really difficult point to realize is the difference between what is "reasonable" and what stands up to logical inquiry. Things that are reasonable are really better termed fashionable, as they are a reflection of the mindset of the time. What stands up to logical inquiry is much more permanent. As was well demonstrated by source, common sense breaks down if one rephrases an argument, while logic should not, because common sense uses a "gut-feeling" as its ultimate test of truth. (there's nothing wrong with using a gut-feeling, but only as something to clue you in that you need to think about something more) One more thing: the argument about taxation ultimately resulting in more evil may be true, but its appeal is still to common sense, because we don't have an "evil calculator." This is why we need abstract principles of justice. But no one belives in principles anymore, so arguments of this nature don't tend to go well. lgk

--------- from dictionary.com end- Something toward which one strives; a goal. See Synonyms at intention. means- To design, intend, or destine for a certain purpose or end: a building that was meant for storage; a student who was meant to be a scientist. n 1: how a result is obtained or an end is achieved; "a means of control"; "an example is the best means of instruction" -------- whether something is designated as a mean or an end, depends on what a person's goal is. to define a goal, one needs intent. therefore, it is implicit in both concepts If your definitions are different, please let me know what they are

I agree completely, and in fact this may be a more correct argument than my previous one. But I still think my arguement is a good one. The point i was trying to make is that an end is a conceptualized goal, but a mean (in this context) is defined relative to an end. One cannot separate the action "reaching and end" from the action "using a mean" without using the concept of mental intent. It is an implied concept in both mean and end. I think that the terms ends and means have an action and a conceptual component implied in them. In any case, this argument still works even if I grant you that ends are only mental entities. It is true that morality is a "principled way of selecting actions." There is no morality without action. How can we judge the morality of others? I cannot know (in general) all of somone else's philosophical priciples with complete certianty, because they exist in his mind, which I cannot completely know, and which is subject to change (notable exception of John Galt). I also should not have to completely deduce your philosophy before I judge an action as wrong or right. My point is that a philosophical principle is only good or bad if it is translated into action. A book on Marx is amoral even though it contains a philosophical principle because it cannot act. I totally agree with you here. Purpose is absolutely paramount when one is choosing a course of action. But action needs to occurr in order to have it evaluated by a set of abstract principles. Nothing moral happens without some kind of action (even if that action is thinking), but a thought, in and of itself, is amoral. I hope this clears up my point which was grossly oversimplified in my previous post. I agree with you here also. I think my point here was to create a constructive dillema that could easily be posed by a non-objectivist. I was trying to shoot down the idea that the whole course of action that was undertaken could defined as a single action. For example, i could say (incorrectly) that my curing cancer is the action and killing a half dozen healthy and innocent people was just a part of that action. Compare this to buying a steak from the butcher where reaching into my pocket is a part of that action, and you might see what sort of argument I was trying to prevent. My point is that every time you have a moral interaction it needs to be separately considered. I think my logic still works although my premises may now take a slightly different form. I almost forgot. My real last name and my name in here are pronounced the exact same way -- CAKE (caps only added for clairty ). Im glad you asked. If I ever get famous, I dont want people walking around talking about cack, khaki, cakey, cocky, or cock. This was a real pain growing up, so i take some pains to set the record straight when I can.

I think I have the correct argument. Things like ends and means to those ends are concepts relating to a person's intent. Such a thing exists only in a person's mind. What really counts in morality are actions. As a result, intent is not a morally important concept. Now there is some leeway as to how one may define an action (whether or not you consider the whole course of events or each action individiually). Now I believe, as Mr. Delaney said, that defining an action as a group of actions is arbitrary. Things that are arbitrary cannot be used as a justification. Therefore, each action must me considered separately. If it is evil, it is evil. Stealing is stealing no matter what action occurrs after it. If you accept my premises, the conclusion follows from statement logic.

It is hard to think of a time when a hunger pain was just an unnamed discomfort, but your point is well taken. We do have to learn even the most "obvious" associations. I like your story about tomato soup.

Evolutionary ethics and psychology are definitely guilty of not recognizing the single most important product of human evolution; we have brains that can reason. This point has been brought up several times but I think it is worth repeating. In regards to free will, I would say it foolish to think that our evolution has not given us biological drives (eating, drinking, having sex) that can influence our behaivor. However, it is still a volitional process of the mind to acknowledge and act on those drives. On another related topic, I find that much of psychology tends to invert the causality of brain physiology and brain function. I think our minds function to produce a particular pattern of physiological response in the brain. For example I disagree with those who say that there is something wrong with someone's "brain chemistry" and it is the cause of their depression. Its a bit of the chicken and the egg story, but i digress. My point is that our genetic heritige in regards to brain function is irrelevant in comparison with our ability to make conscious decisions.

I am a student of chemical physics at the university of minnesota (go gophers). I am both interested in the topic and I may be teaching it someday. (My interest in alternative theories is definitely more recreational and my research is more in solid state.) My first teacher of QM in the chemistry department said something like "dont try to make a picture of what is occurring" as a warning to the (usally highly visual) chemistry students. I guess I am still rebelling against that advice, but I am not finding any clear answer. Its not really a big deal, but there is a something that is occurring, and therefore some mental image of what is occurring must exist. I am curious to know which books you find particularily insightful (orthodox QM or otherwise). I may get the time to read them one of these years. I had not thought of this question of induction. I can't really argue with anything you say here but I wonder about the validity of ideas that would be nearly impossible to emerge simply from experiment (the possibility of quantized time and space for example). This is all very interesting. This point about smuggling in your own theory is a good one, but again, I cant help but ask if the possibility for forming a mental image of the situation is irrevocably doomed... This is beginning to sound very epistemological. I can't possibly imagine that some learning style (visual) is fundamentally unable to comprehend some part of nature. Naturally, mathmatics is required to make any understanding quantitative, but qualitatively, anything should be able to be understood through many different learning styles.

I am clear on what you are saying. If something happens over here that causes an instantaneous change over there, it is superluminal causation, regardless of what changes, or how it changes. It is easy to get stuck on a picture of how things occurr and come to improper conclusions, sometimes. Thanks, it looks like I have a little reading to do. All models aside, what would you say would constitute a philosophically valid model of quantum mechanics? I would say the following has to be true of such a theory: Deterministic causality of particle motion A Definite state of a particle Corresponds with experimental evidence (I say philosophically valid because I just lumped everything associated with correct physics into the experimental evidence part)

If one thinks that energetic interactions that constitute causal mechanisms between two particles travel in space at a finite speed (for example light waves) then, to determine that speed, one must define an interparticle distance. There need not be an interaction that travels faster than the speed of light in the case of entanglement if the two particles cannot be definitively separated. In other words, the idea of superluminal causation (defined as packets of force that travel faster than light from one partricle to another) requires the boundary of each particle clearly defined. Should the ultimate constituients of matter actually resemble waves, this boundary is not clearly defined (nor should it be). In such a case, an interaction between the waves that is a result of physical contact of the two waves can occur instantaneously betwen two waves whose centers are quite separate. As I think about this I find that any little dot theory postulates two entities other than particles themselves to explain what regular QM does. 1) a wave that governs particle motion 2) a mechanism for superluminal interactions Let me just say for the record that I find a little dot theory to be conceptually simpler, intuitive, and not prone to contradictions and indeterminism. I just think the experimental evidence leans the way of the wave. Also, could you give me some kind of a list of the different quantum theories that you have read, along with a quick description of them? It also makes me wonder just how many alternative theories have been developed by good scientists, not to mention the thousands (mabye more) that have been thought up some who might be more well described as crackpots?

The "little dot" assumption requires that we postulate some other entity, namely some kind of quantum wave that governs particle motion. If one takes sort of an Occam's razor approach, then they have to go about finding some more logical interpretation of QM. This is obviously a rationalistic device, but in science simpler ususally is better. One other (admittledly silly) question still arises in my mind. What is the shape of an elementary particle? Such a kindergarten question does nothing to refute a little dot theory, but it is answered by regular QM. Im not sure that is entirely correct. Such superluminal causation seems to be something that is a result of assuming a finite and definite end to a particle. In a pure wave theory one could say that the particles are still "touching" no matter where they are. I would argue that such infinitesmal wavefunction overlap can be neglected in almost every case, with entanglement being a prime counterexample. Thanks for the history. I have heard about the aharonov-bohm effect, and found to be a pretty compelling argument for pure-wave theory (much to my chagrin at the time as I had come up with a little dot theory of my own due to my dissatisfaction with QM). Im still not entirely convinced that understaning a wavefunction as a description of an electron "blob" is untenable. I know that things like phase differences and imaginary wavefunction components complicate this understanding, but some rational all-wave understanding must exist. I think that part of the problem with interpreting the double slit experiment (for example), is that no formulation of QM (that I know of) describes the dynamics of electron localization at an elementary level (like F=ma type of undertanding). I think such an understanding is necessary to avoid the fundamental indeterminism that is present in QM.

I think bell's response to the double slit experiment is well thought out and is a valid explanation of the interference pattern that is seen. What I have a difficult time with is why a theory of elementary particles must first begin by assuming that particles are little dots. It seems unnecessary and slightly rationalistic. I believe that the entanglement issue is the real trouble for a theory that makes the "little dot" assumption. I think bohm tried to resolve the touble by explicitly placing non-local terms in his equation (correct me if i am wrong). It seems funny to make such a claim. What i think is ridiculous is the mystical interpretation that is given to current QM. It seems to me that the posulate that fundamental particles act as waves does not necessarily imply that they do not have definite properties.

While it is true that I have not read up on bohmian mechanics, I am not ignorant of TEW or quantum mechanics (I have taken three classes on QM and have read all I care to of Little's work). I just find it totally ridiculuous that people cling desparately to the notion of a particle as a little dot in space. I just want to know why one needs to make this assumption when the results of so many experiments seem to contradict it. In another note, having an opinion does not make one a crackpot. Whether or not you choose to think about what I am saying, dont think you have this problem solved, or insult others who are trying to form a hypothesis. With that said, I agree that it is important to consider the source of a comment on an internet forum. Experts are few and far between, and listening to a poseur will make one into an idiot. I also agree that it does no good to anyone to go spouting off about things you only have a vague knowledge of.

TEW begins by assuming that particles can be classified by a specifiying a single location in space. This is a claim that tries to force the classical notion of a particle into the quantum world. There is no basis for such a claim. Also, I believe that these super luminal interactions are a conclusive argument for the infinite extent of a quantum particle, if one is given that relativity is accurate.

If the conclusion you reach is a contradiction, check your premises. There is a premise you will want to check in this whole deal about the uncertianty principle not allowing a particle to have a specific momentum and position. The implicit assumption is that a particle is a little round point in space. In other words, no one is taking the wave nature of particles seriously. There is no such thing as a point particle in the quantum world. The uncertianty principle follows directly from the nature of waves. If you want to learn more, check out Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles by Eisberg and Resnick. Read through secton 3-3 and 3-4 (in the second edition). Note: I do not agree with the copenhagen interpretation as it makes that same assumption about particles being points in space. That assumption leads to contradiction.

What I meant by not agreeing the wave-particle duality, is that it creates a tension of combining two pictures of a particle which never coinicide. I believe that this tension can be relieved by showing that the assumption that a particle is a single point in space is fallacious. Equally ridiculous is the assumption that a wave means only a sine curve. It is well known in the scientific community that Fourier showed that the addition of sine waves of many different wavelengths can yield almost any shape. (Dont get bogged down in the almost.) If one adds enough sine waves together, one can even reproduce a "wave" that has an infinite amplitude at a single point in space and zero amplitude everywhere else (the definition of a point particle with infinite density, a dirac delta function). My general point is simple. The wave/particle duality is acutally representative of a continuum of possibilities ranging from a single point in space to a single sine wave. The only difference is how many terms in a Fourier series you use.

I would like to preface this by saying that I was raised by existentialists and therefore was never really told what to do. I was further interested by ethics when I was 13 when I discovered the difference in the attitudes of people of different cultures (specifically the european outlook on alcohol). I discovered Ayn Rand in class on justice that I took while enrolled at a catholic university. The professor was a man who had an undergraduate degree in mathematics, a masters in theology and a doctorate in economics. I took what he said seriously just because of the train of thought that he had travelled on to get where he was. I forgot about Atlas Shrugged, but some time later was reading The Plauge by Albert Camus (the last existentialist book I will ever read). There was a line that said something like "certianty lies in the everyday activities of earning a living." That was enough to make me read Atlas Shrugged in three days. I have been learning and applying that knowledge ever since. Oddly enough, I came out of that catholic university an athiest.

I was once intrigued by a question asked about the nothingness surrounding an atom. I have one quick question. By nothingness, do you mean empty space (the vaccuum) , or do you mean the pure absence of being?

I believe it was Lewis Little who developed the theory. I have read the introduction, the experimental section along with outline of the theory. It is very well thought out and preserves (almost) the mathmatical formalism of quantum mechanics, while providing a very reasonable basis for it. However, the theory carries with it the assumption that a particle must be single point in space. This assumption is one many people make in conceptualizing the phenomena associated with the mechanics of subatomic particles. If an electron is a wave of a certian amplitude, it can interact with two slits to produce an interference pattern, or be affected by a field which enters part of its wave amplitude. I do however find certian parts of quantum mechanics to be philosophically repugnant. 1) wave particle duality- I think they should remove the particle part altogether 2) fundamental indeterminacy- This obviously contradicts the law of identity. I think it represents a lack of knowledge about the nature of what is being described. (shouldn't that be obvious to everyone? apparently not.) I think the tendancy for physicists to overgeneralize is mostly responsible for this one (I am a more of a chemist myself). Note i did not mention non-locality. It contradicts relativity, not identity. (see the journal of objective science)

It is true that there is alot of space inside an atom. What is not true is that there nothing at the heart of matter. One should be careful to separate the concept nothing from empty space, i believe. As for what constitutes matter, it might be worthwhile to consider the question "what should the shape of a fundamental particle be?" While a more serious student of physics may consider this question ridiculuous, it may lead a relative newcomer to consider all the possibilities for the spatial extent of a particle. (infinitesmal point (dirac delta function), sphere, square, star, wiggly string, heart shaped, etc) What i take to be the basic idea of quantum mechanics, is that a particle has the shape of a wave. Now there are again problems with such a simple interpretation like what to do with the negative and imaginary parts of the wave. (i believe no one has a good explanation for the meaning of imaginary numbers as physical solutions) Many people use quantum as a vehicle for their wildly fanciful philosophical theories, or are generally tripped up by its conclusions. I however think that the basic understanding I have presented should help folks to steer clear of too much trouble. PS I am thinking of writing a book on this subject someday. If anyone has any thoughts on this explanation, i would like to hear them, regardless of the education in physics you have. [email protected]