Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Plasmatic

Regulars
  • Posts

    1960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by Plasmatic

  1. Again agreed. The focus seems to me should be on stressing the fact that physics has nothing to do with philosophy in so far as the theories don't violate metaphysics or epistemological soundness. Considering we all agree that physics should not be deduced from metaphysics this seems to be all thats needed to address worries of some thinking Oism "endorses" a particular theory. I think the reverse is true as well some seem to treat other Oist poorly who disagree on matters that have nothing to do with philosophy as such. Not sure if were veering off topic again though.
  2. Thomas I am in complete agreement with this last post of yours.
  3. I have to say I come across this assertion every time im in a debate with someone of any philisophical significance. Ive yet to have a single person give one instance of her "redefining" any word. Im always hearing people tell me that im using "technical" definitions/words. The folks at Maverick have been doing just this.
  4. I have to respectfully disagree entirely with this statement. Indeed one should not have an opinion at all, if the subject is beyond ones level of understanding one has no ability to judge the "credibility" of one on the subject. This forum is not a peer review setting and should not be left to only "credible", "scientist". So while trust from experience with a person does matter ,it should never be the basis for accepting something as true.Besides altonhare has given his own reasons out right. If one doesn't know what they mean then they shouldn't judge them. Likewise since no specific reason for dismissing his comments have been given for others to evaluate one shouldn't judge at all. Indeed one cannot "judge the judges" comment because there where no reasons given at all. So one should simply dismiss the invitation to do so unless they are given reasons to consider for themselves. Now Im not saying Travis has any obligation to do so. If he finds it not worth his time and doesn't mind how it might appear ,then he can do what he wants. I simply do not make decisions on that basis myself.
  5. Also I thought this quote from Travis' paper is relevent : J.S. Bell’s Concept of Local Causality
  6. Absolutely! The "magic" lies only in assuming relativity is inviolable as your premise. Littles theory can be excluded simply by virtue of the fact that is not "non-local". Not to mention that a "wave" is not what a thing is but what a thing does! [of course one would need to look into Bohms use of "wave" even prior to his interludes with Jiddu Krishnamurti] I recomend to others reading Travis' paper on Bells concept of local causality. http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0401 As well as browsing the book by Maudlin he recommended : http://books.google.com/books?id=dBkRiBzq4...=result#PPP1,M1
  7. Travis I was wondering if I could get you to comment on the assertions on Relativity and the "pseudo tensor" below? edit:[i asked because your comments "Unless you put it back in by hand at the world-mind interface (i.e., unless you cheat" and "But this is very different from giving up the whole attempt to describe physical reality and instead just tossing around symbols, one term from which eventually is supposed to correspond to some kind of subjective conscious experience for some particular subject. " reminded me of the comments below on relativity. hope it isnt too off topic ]
  8. I was a little stuck in my head here. I had Harrimans lecture comments on Bell in my head when I typed the above comment in response to your comment below: THE CRISIS IN PHYSICS AND ITS CAUSE 1:09:45 I was referring to the alternative "assumption" that has been chosen by many instead of questioning the latter assumption/solution above. I think you did answer that in your response though. Ill check out Maudin.Thanks.
  9. Say Travis whats your best suggestion for digging deep on the specifics on this alternative solution to Bells experiment? I mean its a no brainer to me that the alternative others have chosen is the wrong one but I need to really get a better grip on the 2 interpretations and there concrete origin. I know youve written a couple of articles on this somwhere...Thanks!
  10. Binswangers comments on ; "Physical object" has several contrasts--things in the other Aristotelian categories (non-ousiai) and mental objects. So I don't see why "physical object" was even used as an example. As well as the comment by D Barnes : "However, I do agree with him that there are mental (ie non-physical, or abstract) objects as well as physical objects, ie that we are dealing with a dualism at least. Rand herself is unclear on the issue, and that lack of clarity pervades Objectivist debate. Mr Binswanger is to be applauded for taking a much less equivocal line here, as he has done for some time. " Remind me of the thread on "The locality of abstractions" I started here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...c=14272&hl=
  11. http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/det...f-the-Milky-Way David can you post where I can find a single source for Lematre NOT claiming that the "universe began" with the bb? Im asking because Ive never seen a single instance of what you claim [bB = presnt order of universe vs beginning of universe], and Im sure you have a good reason for asserting this. Where did you aquire the info that Im missing? As an aside the BB is a failed theory for other reasons aside from the ex nihilo philisophical veto here discussed. Despite the popular "confirmations" one hears all the time. But this is another story.
  12. is working backwards or "bottom up". We work from observations forward . The reverse is why physics is in such a mess force fitting ad hoc reinterpretations to fit theories. Equations should be a result of observed phenomenon. This is why so much of modern physics have equations with no objective referents.
  13. As to a fluid-like aether . The analogy does not escape the problem we are discussing. Fluids are compressable precisely because there is 'space' between the constituents comprising them[discontinuous object]. All of this brings up whether there is a fundamental constituent/constituents which would by definition be continuous. Again I recommend Harrimans lecture on space. He mentions the analogy of some comparing 'space' to water opening up and the fish moves through the opening or something to this effect.
  14. So your saying that the "space-time" of modern science is only reified by physicist [most that ive read] but not meant to be so by GR itself?
  15. I wish this were true Thomas. Modern physics does indeed attribute a geometry to "space and "time" that "warps" and bends" as if it were a causal entity.
  16. As to the aether I thought this quote of Rand would be of interest; Now I personally have been studying certain aether theories and the "rejection" Rand talks of and theres more garbage than not on the subject. The same way that one cannot consider the concept of distance an entity, the Aether theories for the most part reify other things such as "time" and "space".These are more often than not already reified in modern physics. An example is the assertion/usage of "waves" "angular momentum","velocity" ,"forces","fields" ,as if they were nouns and entities or causal primaries. Even the oft missed and denied electrodynamic properties of plasma that pervades the universe as the primary state of matter [the 4th state] begs the question as to what is between the particles that become ionized. We us the words force and field to refer to the observation of the "action at a distance" we observe between the primary causal entities interacting dynamically. But this is a discription used as a definition. there are no "fields" apart from entities causing them through dynamic relationship with other entities. A wave is what something does NOT what something is. The particle theories do not explain convergence in any causal manner they just use description as if they were definitions. I agree with David Harriman and reccomend his PHYSICIST LOST IN SPACE. He refers to space as "a sum of places" and that there is "no nothing". At the end in the question period where he alludes to the fact that we havent even answered very fundamental questions such as when he stated "I think we need a non-contradictory view of what light is." I would add that we need to go back and correct fundamental errors such as using descriptions of dynamic interactions[forces and fields] as though they where nouns and causal primaries. Aristotle pointed out that entities are causal primaries a long time ago. As to space and time I like these links: http://www.quackgrass.com/time.html http://www.quackgrass.com/space.html For a controversial view of aether {as if everything else ive said wasnt controversial ; ] } that I find much less distateful than others try this: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?articl...rds=aether#dest
  17. First of all this quote cannot be fully unserstood apart from a grasp of Rands/Oist epistemology. The whole reason she would even state 'If those creatures incapable of rational existence are sub-human" is a result of the application of the method of using essential charachteristics as the defining essence [epistemological for Oist] of existents. Man is defined as the rational animal because reason is the MOST ESSENTIAL charachteristic of our "species". Not understanding this is probably why this passage probably seems "odd to some. It is perfectly rational to differentiate existents from one another and categorize them according to essentials.This speaks to the comments about "liberterianism" which is most pointedly expressed here: as well as deconstructionist comment : Which I find to be quite a common assertion by opponnents of Oism. The problem being that most people dont define there referents much at all and the result is floating abstractions that mean watever the user happens to sniff out in the fog of his own usage at the moment. So when one comes along and nails down an contextually absolute definition reletavist and subjectivist jump all over this as if one was "moving goal post". This being said Id love for you deconstructionist to give a couple of examples of a "redifinition" of Rands that is of much consequence any way. I curious! The most disturbing thing here is that the initial qoute of Rands comment actually asserts the opposite of what deconstructionist claims.She clearly differentiates the hypothetical species from the rational animal by the hypothetical charachteristic of being " incapable of rational thinking and of independence, and therefore they need an enslaved, controlled, regimented, "protective" society in order to survive --" from the human species by "definition" [again defined by the essential charachteristics of the referents] and explicitly states "Their requirements are opposite to ours. They'll perish without us, anyway. But we will not be sacrificed to them. We will live in freedom -- whether or not others will or can live that way." Her usage of quotes in "protective" demonstrates that the comment is refering to others view of what said hypothetical "species" needs are! Rand then went alon to affirm the Objective NEED of freedom for the rational animal to exist as such.The rest of the context of Rands ideas of the nature of "freedom" can be contextually discovered by actually reading Rands comments on said subject such as the one posted by Jake Ellison and actually INTEGRATING THEM CONTEXTUALLY. Dave is absolutely right when he said : as well as : All of this being said I consider Pinker to be a major influence on currrent thinking on the topic of Tabula Rasa etc. In fact Ive more than once considered committing a bit of energy into intellectual activism on his assertions!
  18. Thomas Plasma Cosmologist have pointed out the fact that the electric nature of plasma causes redshift as well. Optical techs use Induced Electric Dipole Redshift to bend light in the lab every day! The fact that the universe is 99. something percent plasma taken in to account we need to wonder why the redshift= distance thing is still around! Halton Arp has shown much wrong with the correlation. See SEEING RED.
  19. Greebo I enjoy Gennadys stuff! Not that I agree with everything though.
  20. ?????? Well if you would like you can PM me any time.
  21. "Rational theologian" is an invalid concept. Like square-circles,no offense intended. The "belief" in god is irrational because it the acceptance of an invalid concept and unprovable arbitrary hypothesis. You just expressed your article of faith. You "do not intend" because it is not possible ergo your "faith".
  22. Hebrews yes. My mistake its been a while-about eight years. 5287. hupostasis hoop-os'-tas-is from a compound of 5259 and 2476; a setting under (support), i.e. (figuratively) concretely, essence, or abstractly, assurance (objectively or subjectively):--confidence, confident, person, substance. My man you are still not getting it. "foundation" granted it still make the point that the only foundation ones hope is on is his belief it is so. This is the very opposite of having causal expectation based on percieved identity. I have quite unconventional views on science so its best we dont get into that one.
  23. Its not faith because its based on my own experience of having done the same. Now I will concede I should have written can instead of "will". The point being that the misintegration must be corrected first. This is all based on the point that there are some who consider religious belief a matter of "provable facts". When they realize the ,misintegrations the will be confronted with the error of this thinking.
  24. Cheif lets not bring biblical etymology into this because all id have to do is point you to the definition of faith in Romans to make my point if I considered it "proof". "the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen" . Meaning that a persons belief/faith is the "evidence" that the thinged hoped for exists. In other words what ever i want to believe is true. The primacy of consciousness. Causal expectation as with ALL concepts for Objectivist have percieved instances i.e. concretes as referents.
×
×
  • Create New...