Richard Rahl

Are you an Objectivist? Because an Objectivist would recognize that precise use of language is the key to understanding reality. It is only through careful understanding of the definition of each and every word that you can understand what is really going on around you and interact on an intelligent level with others. "Close enough", especially when applied to language is a subjectivist position and just plain lazy to boot. Make no mistake, I'm horrible at spelling too, but I don't get upset about people correcting me (unless they're trying to avoid the fact that I just nailed them to a wall), I get upset at myself for being too lazy to go into Microsoft Word and type it there. Your argument that people "get what I mean" is a short sighted viewpoint that's only end result is that some day someone is going to do something based on what they thought you meant but didn't and you're going to be a very heavy price that you'll no doubt blame on them instead of blaming on the person that caused the problem in the first place because of their imprecise use of language... i.e. you. [Edited to capitalize "Objectivist." Oh, the irony. --Matt]

(Disclaimer, I'm not a physisit by trade, I simply read every physics text I can get my hands on) A couple of points about the assertions made throughout: 1. Simple relativity is not difficult to derrive and is demanded by simple Newtonian physics that every grade 12 student knows. Thus to say that relativity cannot be true is irrational, because the language of the universe demands that it is true. General relativity, while vastly more complex is not that difficult math, and follow directly from Simple relativity and Einstien simply took those mathematical equations and ran with them. There really isn't something to be disproven in Einstien's theories unless you can disprove the math, which no one has ever been able to do. So if you're going to kick around anything, kick around the assumptions in Quantum mechanics that have been made simply to explain observations without regard for actual proof. Oh, and then there is the whole irrational number thing I don't want to get into 2. The only logical position is that the unvierse is infinate. Does that mean that it's bounds are infinate? No, it simply means that the energy that the universe is made up of is and that it has no beginning in history and no end. It is constantly changing, and as time goes by, the universe gets bigger much like men get a beer gut, but it's just changing. Now the only question left is if there is new matter being "recycled" out of the waste energy of the universe as postulated above. 3. Any "creation" position is someone that is religious trying to bring a God into the equation to make themselves feel better through rationalizing. It's not science and the logic is circular. You can always trap a religious person by asking who created God. They're only rational answer is that God always was, for which you ask, "why would you make up a god when it's far more likely based on Occam's Razor that the universe just always was in some form or other" (and then they'll shut down, and the conversation if it continues will get really stupid, and then tomorrow they will think that they were drunk or something and feel like they have a hang over and will dismiss the whole traumatic event as some freakish acid trip and be done with it, and go back to believing in the irrational. (i.e. don't bother with the conversation) 4. The some form or other was energy. The big bang was simply the culmination of energy in one location causing matter to be formed from the super-dense energy. 5. Space is not nothing. There is dark matter, where ther is no energy or matter. In fact it is the dark matter that is causing the universe to continually expand. We don't understand dark matter enough yet to speculate whether energy or matter can come from it beyond the opposing force that pushes matter away from it (causing the expansion). 6. Curved space is one of those "magic" theories. No proof, no evidence no nothing other than it happens to explain something and there is no apparent contradiction. That isn't proof of anything, it's junk science much like most of what is going on in Quantum mechanics right now. It's scary how far everyone has progressed down a path that starts with assumptions that are held to be true, simply because they happen to explain away several problems, and btw, there are other explainations that also solve those problems AND make Newtonian physics work consistantly with quantum mechanics. (and they haven't been proven either) Please correct me if I'm talking out of my ass on any of this. While I understand physics pretty well, I don't possess what Rand would call "accademic" knowledge so I could be one of those dangerous people that have a little bit of knowledge... any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for the welcome everyone I'll try and be a weird Canuck for you and say "eh" lots

Quite frankly it shows that Tolkein didn't try to put any philosophy in his books. They're plodding and relatively pointless other than as bedtime stories for his kids, which was the original point of course. They made good movies because of the imagry that he portrayed (ad nosium), but have very little substance compared to most of those that came after him. (Brooks, and Goodkind to name a few) Tolkein will definately be around though in 100 years, as will JK Rowlings and JK Rowlings is better writting. They'll be there only because of the marketing campeign that has cemented them in the heads of this current generations. In 100 years they will be "classics" regardless of the quality of the writting or value to society (much like Charles Dickens) simply because we're told their good, and nostalgia will make them better than they were (exactly like Great Expectations, possibly the most boring and pedantic book ever written second only to anything written by Margarette Atwood). Rand, and Goodkind are on a different level. They stand as philosophical works along the lines of Locke, and Aristotle. They will endure. Especially if Goodkind comes out with his mass market fiction and even more especially if Wizard's First Rule ever gets made into a movie of the epic proportions of Lord of the Rings which it has in spades if done by people with vision, which from my brief interactions with Terry Goodkind online when he's doing chats, it is definately a pre-requisite that they be done right with people that "get it".

You can't debate with circular logic, which by definition is required to believe in God. Worse, you can't debate with people that don't recognize anything but a book that was written 2000 years ago, and then so heavily edited by the Roman Catholic Church over the next 350 years so as to be completely unrecognizable and fit with the position of the winning side in the "Self-determination" versus "God and church as everything" fight that happened around that time. (And then it took 1000 years for it to finally come to the fore, and the result was Protestantism, and even then, they still have to work from a book that is largely fiction by this point.) You can’t debate philosophy with people that don’t know why they believe what they do. “Because God said so” is not a reason why, it’s an excuse. The point being, that if the person only knows the bible as a reason for their entire basis for life, you’re not going to be able to carry on an intelligent debate. As for the suggestion of doing it in socialist forums: You have the same problem. And since socialists are the result of Altruism and Subjectivism (no matter how much socialists dislike religion, socialism was born from it.), you have a group of people that believe that there is no such thing as the truth, thus arguing is like quicksand, the more you fight the faster you sink. You will not change these people’s mind by carrying on a logical debate. They do not believe in logic. The only way these people will change is through evolution much like what happened during the renaissance. We must fight back, take back our freedom for ourselves whether it be through a “Galt’s Gulch” or otherwise. Only when we are more prosperous than they, and they are destitute because those that work hard and produce more than they consume are gone will they “vote with their feet” as the author of “The Capitalist Manifesto” puts it and embrace that which makes their lives better. But make no mistake, this, if started today, would take centuries to bring us back to the heady days of the founding fathers of the United States and many more to build a nation that understands why it believes what it does, and thus protect it, where the founding fathers did not, despite their best efforts. (as exemplified by the American government’s theft of your money to support the “victims” of Katrina)

I like any novel that has a clear, non-contradictory message that the author isn't trying to hide. To that end Terry Goodkind is excellent and keeps getting better! I can't wait for him to start work on his fictional novel that is not fantasy that he keeps mentioning in his chats. We'll finally have a writer of the level of Rand writing a novel that has the reach of Atlas... Terry Brooks is one of those authors who says it, but very subtly. I wish he would speak it more clearly and bring it to the fore more often, but all the same, it's there and there is a message and it's a good one.

Greetings fellow objectivists. It is good to finally see a forum where rational animals can come together and share ideas in fair trade! My name is James Hancock, I live in Ontario, Canada and I seek the company of greatness. To you, the individuals that are hopefully the best of man, I salute you and hope that I may contribute my fair share in trade for your ideas, insights and wisdom. Along the way, I seek my soul mate, the woman that is my equal, that inspires me and for whom I will inspire in return. To any women in their twenties looking for their equal to share their life with, let's talk Also, I've read the rules of the forum and just wanted to know if there is anything else I should keep in mind. Thanks to the owners of this board for providing a meeting place for greatness. Oh, and one more thing: Sometimes I forget to use Word as a spell checker and, well I'm a horrible speller, so please forgive me now for any trangressions I make against the English language, I know it can be painful!