stephen_speicher

The answer is, of course, that we are not cogs, but volitional beings. If we knew all of the initial conditions governing the physical determinstic behavior of non-volitional entities ( a somewhat daunting assumption), and if we knew all of the laws of physics governing that deterministic behavior, then indeed we could predict all, moment to moment, but only if volitional beings did not exist. A bit of a quandry there though, since the very act of such a prediction implies the existence of a volitional being, and the existence of a volitional being obliterates prediction for all actions and processes. We are not mere puppets being moved about on the stage of the universe, but rather we change the storyline, change the words which are uttered, and choose to direct the scene as we see fit (if you can withstand such a Hollywood metaphore!). That we are volitonal beings is not something to be questioned. You can take your own word on that. I do not know what level you are at in your studies, but I suspect you have not yet studied quantum field theory. Ask one of your professors to explain virtual particles in the context of quantum electrodynamics (QED). Virtual particles are mathematical abstractions, not physical existents in QED. They are a sheer artifice of perturbation theory. QED is an Abelian gauge theory; we start with the QED Lagrangian and we model, for instance, a massless vector particle as a gauge field. The whole artifice is built upon renormalizable quantum field theory with a boost from perturbation theory. Virtual particles are states, e.g., just an internal line on a Feynman diagram. They are, in effect, mathematical abstractions. Problem is, as Wolfgang Pauli liked to say, it's not even wrong. Until you study quantum field theory and general relativity in depth, you will benefit from, and most likely enjoy, a wonderful little book by GR expert Robert M. Wald: "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics," _The University of Chicago Press_, 1994. Most good technical books on these subjects are written, at least, on an advanced graduate level. But the level of this book by Wald is such that a bright undegraduate can wade through it and get a really decent grasp of more esoteric areas as the Unruh effect and Hawking radiation. The author is the same Robert Wald whose "General Relativity" text is a staple nowadays in most advanced courses in general relativity. Wald is brilliant, and very clear writer. You could benefit greatly by supplementing your physics studies with Objectivist epistemology. Probability is an epistemological concept, one which refers to our assessment of what we think we know. The physical world is deterministic, and any lack of knowledge on our part is not due to a supposed inherent randomness in Nature, but rather to the fact that we are not omniscient and, at any given time, there are conditions and processes about which we do not know or understand. You seem like a bright young student of physics, and you seem to like the subject you are studying. Believe me, I can identify with that. I have a profound love for physics and its history, and I must say that a proper philosophical base has been a wonderful asset over the years in all of my studies. I would suggest concentrating on the technical aspects of physics in the courses you take, and learning a good philosophy like Objectivism to help you evaluate and separate out the good and the bad parts of whatever you learn. Just meant as a helpful suggestion.

Dark matter is not really a theory. It is an ad hoc notion used as a placeholder, where it is hoped that it will be replaced by an actual theory. So-called dark matter was created in an attempt to account for certain observations which cannot be explained by the standard theory. For a really brief, but relatively nice, non-technical introduction, replete with interesting observational images, you might try the presentation by the people who run the Chandra X-ray observatory. http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter.html As to a "new gravity theory," there are so many that without more specific information I do not know which one you might be referring to. There are varieties in loop quantum gravity, superstring theory, double special relativity, VSL theory, supergravity, etc. Probably the best to look, if you want a non-technical presentation of some of the current darlings, is the popularizations in Scientific American, New Scientist, and the like. They love to focus on speculation, and I am sure within the past year each would have had popular articles on this. If you find the particular theory you are interested, then I can explain more about it.

RadCap, I've made my case as clearly as I can. There is no point in repeating myself, so I will let this rest. Perhaps some other time one or both of us might have something new or different to say. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Well, Parmenides only work ("Peri Physeos") is a bit obscure, and written in a sort of verse. But, here is one famous sentence from a translation of that work. "Nor is there any more of it here than there, to hinder it from holding together, nor any less of it, but it is all a plenum, full of what-is. Therefore, it is all continuous, for what-is touches what-is." But, this is not a very complex philosophic issue, and there is not too much to be said about it. Some philosophers have found a multitude of ways of saying the same thing, sometimes over and over. It all boils down to a simple grasp of "What is, is. What is not, is not."

Polarization, momentum, energy, coherence, etc... (What is a "TEWIUD"?) Who is this "we" that you refer to? The indirect effects of which I speak have been observed in countless thousands of quantum experiments by real physicists. To understand the details of this requires a thorough knowledge of experimental physics and a detailed understanding of the theory. I have both. As to an "arbitrary a priori hypothesis": Such an assertion is itself arbitrary, if not backed up by a technical grasp of the physics involved. If you are prepared to do just that, feel free to make your technical case on the forum devoted to this. We welcome people with a good grasp of the technicalities of quantum field theory and relativity. But, to get an audience there, you must make a case, not present arbitrary assertions.

When I was a kid, A friend of mine had a line which I always thought to be funny. "You cannot argue with anyone who believes in nothingness. There is nothing to argue about."

I understood that, RadCap. I was just making light. I thought not, but perhaps my Betsy story needed a smiley. The trials and tribulations of electronic conversation. p.s. What does "RadCap" mean, or stand for?

I am aware of the metaphysical distinction, which is why I myself pointed it out, RadCap. But, in addition, I am suggesting you consider the possibility of making the same normative evaluation of differing metaphysical conditions. A gun as a weapon is metaphysically different from a knife, but if you are murdered by either weapon, it is murder nonetheless. A pointed gun is forcing my mind -- the relinquishment of my wallet -- just as much as a bullet does by disabling me. Each is an act of force.

Yes, the thief threatening to shoot me with his gun is not the same as the thief actually pulling the trigger. The metaphysical distinction is between a pointed gun and a bullet entering my body. But such a metaphysical distinction does not imply the necessity of a normative distinction. Both the threat of shooting and the actual shooting are acts of force, which is why I am forced to hand over my wallet if I do not want to be shot. A friend once put it in very clever way: "I regard the bullet entering me or not, as a time difference, not a force difference." As I said earlier, I have not really read the previous posts, so I do not know what definition you refer to. But, let me say for the record, just because I so much love and admire my wonderful wife Betsy, does not mean I agree with everything she says. If you were a fly on the wall of the Speicher household, you would get an earful. We first met one evening at a lecture and talked and argued till 5am the next morning. We just celebrated our 37th anniversary, and we haven't stopped talking and arguing since! An active mind is a wonderful thing, indeed.

y_feldblum, previously I answered a single-line question here about the TEW, expecting that would be that. I should have made it clear before that there is an appropriate forum for discussion of the TEW, and I am always happy to answer any reasonable questions there. Since I did not make this clear before, I will answer a few of the questions you posed, but any future questions about the TEW should be addressed to the TEW list. The answer to your question regarding relativistic concerns and the speed of the elementary flux is a bit involved. The waves are not waves in a medium; they are the medium. The phase velocity of wavefronts can be either greater than or less than c, but the coherent signal is independent of the wavefront, and it travels at c. It is in this sense that we say that the elementary flux travels at c. With the phase velocity being in the direction of the particle following the reverse wave, a proper relativistic transformation of the phase velocity occurs. But the only way that the coherent signal can transform properly -- the only way to achieve relativistic invariance of the waves -- is for the coherence velocity of the wave flux itself to travel at c. This is what I meant by "relativistic concerns." If you want to learn more about the details of this, see Section 7, "'Relativistic' Transformation Of The Waves," in Little's 1996 paper, available in html or pdf at http://www.yankee.us.com/TEW/ As to your question about special relativity: The TEW does not claim that special relativity is wrong -- it affirms the necessity of the Lorentz transformation -- but it does provide a physical basis for understanding why the mathematics of SR work. SR is a geometric theory; the TEW is a physical theory. Regarding gravitational lensing: You are confusing gravitational lensing with just light deflection. The former is a consequence of the latter, but the latter has other effects as well. Newtonian physics had no counterpart of lensing, but it did predict the deflection of light near the Sun, one-half the value of that predicted by general relativity. It was in 1919, when the Eddington expedition confirmed the general relativistic prediction by measuring the slight displacement of stars during a solar eclipse, that Einstein was catapulted into world-wide celebrity fame. The whole history of this phenomenon is fascinating, and if anyone wants to hear more about it, feel free to ask. As with SR, the TEW affirms general relativity and it gives a physical basis for the curvature of spacetime and for gravity. It is completely consistent with general relativity. Any future questions about the TEW should be addressed to the proper forum, accessible from http://speicher.com/tew.html

In that note you say Yes, a threat of physical violence is a form of force. But, seizing property is not simply a threat of physical violence -- the threat being "I will physically stop you from regaining your property -- but the seizing itself is an act of force. Do you see the distinction?

Okay. Thanks. I haven't encountered any of his posts that I recall.

_feldblum, there are too many little quote and re-quotes here, so I will break my reply into two smaller posts. I would like to concretize your star example so that I can be absolutely sure about what you claim. Say, for instance, that by some means we determine that the distance between Cygnus X-1 and Gamma Draconis is approximately 7100 light years. Are you actually claiming that those two stars are separated by that straight-line distance, and inbetween those two stars, along that straight-line, is, absolutely nothing? If so, philosophically speaking, I am speechless. Now, scientifically speaking, the claim that "we have the technology and the equipment to detect any entity such as the one under discussion," is scientifically naive. There are many things in science that we are currently unable to observe directly, but are known to us by their effects. In fact, the standard theories are full of entities for which there is no direct observational evidence. For instance, in quantum field theory, QCD (quantum chromodynamics) is currently our best gauge theory of the strong interaction. There has never been any observation of the quarks and gluons of QCD, yet they form the very basis of the theory. And, the existence of gravity in quantum field theory implies the existence of a massless particle of helicity +/- 2, but no one has ever detected this graviton. And in supersymmetric quantum field theory it is known that the graviton cannot be in a supermultiplet with particles of helicity +/- 5/2, so it must be in a supermultiplet with a massless particle of helicity +/- 3/2. This particle is called the gravitino, and it forms the basis of the field theory known as supergravity. And, can you guess what? No one has ever directly observed a gravitino either. So, your complaint that we have not directly observed the "entities" which exist between Cygnus X-1 and Gamma Draconis does not, in and of itself, disqualify a scientific theory predicated on the existence of such entities. Afterall, if you were to apply that requirement to our standard theories, our best theories would then just evaporate. I'll address some of your other points and questions later in another post.

And your claim is that this represents only a threat of force, not an act of force? Sorry, but any action which takes my property without my consent is an act of force. Are you seriously going to argue that, when I thief points a gun at me and demands "your wallet or your life," that such an act is merely a threat? Under normal circumstances I choose to keep both my wallet and my life, but here I am being forced to choose between the two. The thief is forcing my will, plain and simple.

First, who is MS? Is MS -> y_feldblum? Second, I do not know what MS' position is, but an act of force can be through either direct or indirect contact. If I put my hand into your pocket and take a $10 bill, I have made direct contact with your property. If I guess the password to your online banking account, and transfer $10 from your account to mine, I have then made indirect contact with your property. Both are acts of force in that I have taken your property without your consent. Does that make what I said previously any more clear?

Pardon me for budding in, especially since I have not followed this thread, but this statement puzzles me. Seizing property is not simply the threat of force, it is an act of force. If you take the property of another without permission, that is the use of force. One's property is an extension of oneself, and the right to property means the right to use and dispose of it as you see fit. What else is force if not an act propagated against yourself or your property without your consent?

I was glancing through some of the earlier posts here, and this caught my eye. It is a common mistake to think that the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment proved there is no ether. The experiment failed to detect a stationary ether, but did not alone rule out a partial dragging theory, such as that advocated by George Stokes, where there is full drag at the Earth's surface, tapering off to zero at some distance. However, 38 years later Michelson, who himself was an advocate, disproved Stokes' ether theory [ A.A. Michelson and H.G. Gale, "The Effect of the Earth's Rotation on the Velocity of Light," _Astrophysical Journal_, vol. LXI, Part I, pp. 137-139, Part II, pp. 140-145, 1925]. In 1892, however, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, a Dutch physicist, devised an ad hoc means of explaining the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of an ether. What was later to be called the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) shares the same mathematical formalism and makes the same experimental predictions as Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR). The two theories -- Einstein's SR which discards the ether, and Lorentz' LET which relies on it -- are experimentally indistinguishable. The difference though is that special relativity led to general relativity, and it was also quite naturally integrated with quantum mechanics in QED (quantum electrodynamics), while LET essentially stagnated and led nowhere. "y_feldblum" was wrong in appealing to the Michelson-Morley experiment, but he was correct that today's standard theories are not modeled on an ether concept.

Truth is contextual, but not infinitely flexible. Words have a specific meaning in whatever context they are used. It was stated that "The so-called law of supply and demand is based on "context-dropping." Not only does this assert that the law of supply and demand drops context, but the use of the qualifier "so-called" is demeaning of the law itself. And, since later the law is placed in scare quotes ("law"), the intention is quite clear. Ayn Rand read and enjoyed von Mises' article on Say's law, and von Mises acknowledges, as did Say emphatically state, that commodities are governed by the law of supply and demand, as is money. As Dr. Binswanger is so fond of saying, supply is demand. And Richard Salsman, noted Objectivist economist, has noted that Say's law, which he refers to as the "A is A of economics," means that "supply is the source of demand." Or, even more accurately, that "supply and demand are the same things, but viewed from two different perspectives." There is no "context-dropping" involved, nor should one validly qualify the law of supply and demand by referring to it as "so-called." I am not particularly interested in debating the details, but in addition to reading Say directly, I would suggest John Ridpath's excellent lectures on Say, available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore at: http://www.aynrandbookstore.com/

The elementary flux travels at c, the speed of light, a fact which is imposed by relativistic concerns.

That's okay. For things of value, I am willing to wait.

You are very welcome, Mr. Halley. Now, if you will just whistle the theme from your Fifth Concerto for me, we can call it even.

The key point is that man is volitional and by proper use of his conceptual consciousness he possesses the ability to adapt the environment to suit his own purpose. Ayn Rand wrote a series of brilliant critical articles prompted by Skinner's book Beyond Freedom and Dignity. There were four articles starting in the January 17, 1972 issue of The Ayn Rand Letter and continuing through the February 28, 1972 issue. Some, if not all, of that material is reprinted in her compilation book Philosophy: Who Needs It.

I am glad you enjoyed the articles, and thank you for the kind words. The articles are in need of an update to reflect a number of changes and clarifications as the theory has developed. My own grasp of the issues has also been extended since the initial writing. But, nevertheless, the articles still communicate the essence of the theory in a non-technical way. Incidentally, seeing your avatar makes me glad to have you on my side, considering all the armor you wear.

I am not sure what your standard of "efficacious and proud" is, but mine is exemplified in a marvelous film made just two years before the (poor, as compared to the original) remake of your The Thomas Crown Affair . See the billionaire businessman portrayed by Anthony Hopkins in The Edge if you want "efficacious and proud" wrapped in a thrilling story.

"argive99," I am not sure exactly what you are asking. There currently is no text which presents a non-technical or a technical understanding of quantum mechanics which is causal, local, and determinstic, all of which are fundamental requirements of a proper philosophy. So, if you want a non-technical presentation of qm, in historical context, minus the philosophic grasp, I would suggest Jim Baggott's "The Meaning of Quantum Theory," _Oxford University Press_, 1992. This is a short and relatively simple book, but it covers the essentials of the field in a manner accessible to the layman. The last I looked it was out of print, but readily available on the used book market. For a non-technical overview of Little's TEW, which is a causal, deterministic, and local theory, see my three-part article at: http://speicher.com/tew.html I am very well-read in the field so, if you can be more specific as to your objectives, I can make various recommendations.