Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

StrictlyLogical

Regulars
  • Posts

    2795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    190

StrictlyLogical last won the day on September 14

StrictlyLogical had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

17799 profile views

StrictlyLogical's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

555

Reputation

  1. We never had a proper government... one consequence of which is the "ping-pong" diplomacy with China which evolved over time into a freer economic and trade arrangement. That strategy was fueled by the hope that economic ties would spill over into ideology and social change... but things changed drastically with the the current regime.. dashing those hopes for the foreseeable future. So given we are where we are, even if we had a proper government (which we don't) we are so in bed with the world and China, change must be strategic, and gradual, so as not to shock the domestic economy, banking systems, supply chains etc. I do agree, had we never become dependent upon and intertwined in globalization, we could take such steps as you posit, but I think only baby steps in the right direction are possible, even if we know the correct destination.
  2. I do not think a proper government can wage an economic war simply for the sake of staying on top or any particular economic indicator such as "the economic size of America's industrial base", certainly not with rights respecting free countries which pose no long term existential threat. But just like a real war, sometimes, we don't start an economic war, but we have to "finish" it, especially when it is part of a cold war, an ideological war, with a communist dictatorship. There does come a point when a proper government limits the rights of its own citizens from having commerce with a communist dictatorship, its "companies" or "citizens". Moreover, when it is necessary to do so, it must be done strategically in view of the kind of war and adversary. Protecting the rights of all citizens of a free country includes international diplomacy and rules of engagement with foreigners, especially those who are a long term potential threat.
  3. Yeah… So Objectivists stand for free trade with communist dictatorships?
  4. Not so. The two slits do not serve to measure the presence of the electron at either slit, however the interference pattern confirms the electron passing through both.
  5. This is not a fact of the observable universe. Countless experiments have been done, one does not measure two dots on the screen, not if a dot measures the presence of a single indivisible electron, whose indivisibility is quite well measured. Philosophy depends upon a strong understanding of what one knows from perception and what one can conclude from what one knows and just as importantly accepting and identifying the boundaries of what one does not know from perception and what cannot be concluded from what one knows.
  6. This does not lead to your claim and cannot form its basis. When you say "two detection" events what exactly do you mean? I suggest that only ever one election is detected at the screen and always at localized singular places, but the pattern again is some variant of K3 no matter what the distance.
  7. PA The electron doesn't pass only through slit1 (otherwise K1 would be formed) PB The electron doesn't pass only through slit2 (otherwise K2 would be formed) PC There is nothing in the barrier through which the electron may pass to form K3 except the two slits CA: The electron must pass through "both slits"to make K3
  8. SK Imagine covering one slit leaving the other slit open and observing the pattern K1. Imagine covering the other slit leaving the one slit open and observing pattern K2. Now observe the pattern K3 with both slits open, it is neither K1 nor K2 and it also is not a sum of K1 and K2. Without use of any science to speculate about what is "really going on" K3 is not K1 AND K2, K3 is not K1, and K3 is not K2. To make K3 the electron needed to pass over, by, through a screen with two open slits. K3 requires as a necessity, electron passing + two open slits + hitting a screen. How to put this into words is somewhat academic, but the electron interacting with and being processed through the TWO slits is what makes K3 and K3 is real.
  9. With regard to knowledge of the outside world and the acquisition thereof there is no necessary contradiction between much of psychoanalysis and claiming we start as a tabula rasa with respect thereto. If one were to hold that the human mind is structureless, bereft of any instinctual predispositions and absent any hard wired basic traits one would be wrong…. But as to “concepts” those are not formed and cannot be held or maintained in the same way as the “content” which we come with by default. Concepts are formed afterward where there were none.. ie on the blank tablet of conceptual knowledge which we spend the rest of our lives accumulating.
  10. I agree very frightening... the work of the actual courts and legislatures have not led us towards what we both agree would be correct and due regard for the 1st amendment, in a proper, individual rights protecting nation.
  11. I do not believe in the concept of rights having exceptions. All rights defined properly are absolute and have no exceptions... the so call exceptions are really simply events, actions, situations, what have you etc. which fall outside of the actual area of the right. Its like pointing to a map having an area purportedly showing what is your property ... but then saying this bit is really George's and that bit is really Ken's... in truth the map was drawn up wrong... draw it right and all of it, as indicated, is absolutely and exclusively (and exclusive of Ken's and George's) your property. Concepts are the same, they can be sophisticated whether nor not they can be referred to with a single word, and just because we do not always have an easy way to express or summarize a concept does not mean the concept itself cannot have a "border" which is sophisticated. So a right to freedom of expression means you are free to say what you believe, what you think, to joke about what you do not etc., not to commit libel for the purpose of ruining someone's career or life, nor a right to incite a stampede in a theatre by yelling fire when there is none... nor the right to threaten a person to make them believe you actually intend to kill them ... what is absolute is not the right to SAY whatever you want in any circumstance with no repercussion from the state... speech can be fraud, speech can be a kind of assault (serious death threats)... but if we are careful about what we mean, i.e. freedom to express one's opinion... then we have something which is an absolute. I do not have all the boundaries of this concept "freedom of speech" determined... that is something proper courts and legislatures determine, in accordance with the constitution over many many cases and bills, over the years... it certainly is less than you can say anything at anytime to anyone, but something more like you can express yourself without fear of government initiating force against you. Tara Smith says something about this which is much better than how I try to explain it: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3166234_code955231.pdf?abstractid=3166234&mirid=1&type=2 Here is ARI referring to the paper: https://ari.aynrand.org/tara-smith-pinpoints-confusions-in-the-free-speech-debate/ I will read the rest of your post later.
  12. Our complex world is far larger than most people's ability to personally access geographically, and requires that we rely on communications, media, publications, etc. to perceive reality thereby or to receive claims by other people about that reality. We live in an age where increasingly, media can be faked or simulated, photoshopped, AI generated etc. We also live in an age in which civility and common decency for some has eroded such that brazen dishonesty and bias is rampant. Of course everyone says they are unbiased or at least, telling the truth. "Consensus", we here all know, is not a measure of reality by any stretch. 100 popular lies to evade reality are no more truthful, by virtue of how many or popular they are. The only thing in any society protecting whatever freedom they have from those who aim to reduce it, for any reason, is ABSOLUTE Freedom of Expression (within the proper definition of what that constitutes). ANYONE advocating anything other than this should be regarded with the highest of suspicions. ........ A factchecker claims nonbias and truthfulness... such is profered as ... fact. How does one "check" such a claim? What organization or person is devoid of any possible bias, motivation, indeed personal experience? Even were the entity to personally believe in their objectivity... those kinds of people are even more risky to trust because they do not see thier own biases, their own emotional hangups, their own skewed bias confirming thinking, and the more intellectual, often the more self-unaware... I do not know of a model for any "central" single organizational fact checker, curator, claim debunker, etc. which has the kinds of checks and balances, that could satisfy me given all the concerns above. The only "system" I could think of would need at minimum to allow completely disparate views and all of them, each allowed to present evidence (not merely links to other "opinions"), without moderation (which itself could introduce favoritism). In fact even popularity (upvoting answers) could be a false-positive bias for truth... choosing or ranking any answer or any answerer are fraught with the same problem. “Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?” -Groucho Marx and we are living in a world where this has never been more relevant. In the end I suspect there cannot be any solution better worthy of trust, and at the same time requiring diligent independent scrutiny, than everything which can be said and heard in a totally free market of ideas.
  13. How can the residents be "overwhelmed", aren't the game wardens and police the ones overwhelmed? I assume the town is civilized and lives according to the laws of the land, enforcing, and handing out fines as required.
×
×
  • Create New...