vaclav-KI

Yes, you can see it that way and I admit it implies that - *if* you want to see it that way. Thing is, I meant that when venturing on new grounds, one can easily fall into the trap of some irrationalities that one may not recognize as such immediately. That's simply the consequence of doing something new as opposed to sticking to the familiar. It has happened to better people one could say here. It is not any problem to steer clear of possible irrationalities when one is not doing anything original but realistically it can and does happen when one does original work. I certainly wouldn't think that irrationalities help one to develop successful theories. But they happen and it is no tragedy if you correct them when you recognize them as such. Here, you claim that I said something which I never said or even implied. Read again what I said there: Everybody not bent on interpreting the worst out of what I said in that quote (turning the meaning around) would see that I meant to say in that second sentence that "it doesn't always work that way that you are able to go from beginning to end product of some original thinking and not make any mistake there, even serious one at times and one may labor for a while with that error." I grant you that if you carry the meaning from the first sentence there to the next one literally, then yes, I would be saying that "for really original thinking, the strict compliance with Objectivist principles is not required and not even realistically possible". But that's just ferreting the worst possible meaning taking out of context what I said there, nothing else. I understand that obvious comment would have been that if I talk about those things that I do (original work etc), that it would be fitting if I came up with something first before I criticize anything. If that is the case, you would imply there that only those with original work behind their belt can properly talk about these matters, else it is arrogant to do so and one should keep silent. I don't see it that way though I admit I raised some expectations there which I perhaps shouldn't have given the work is still in progress and as you have yourself identified, its riddled with fatal holes, so its back to beginning for me I guess. ---------------------------------------------------------------- You quoted me there: "Instead the rule is that original thinking is done by those who never even heard of Objectivism and aren't particularly rational even in their own field." From the comment you made there, I gather you put the worst possible meaning (others there obviously did anyway) that could be read into it as it stands, taken out of context. That context (which gave it meaning) was, that Objectivists do not seem to produce much original thinking as one might think should be the rule, instead the rule is that "original thinking is done by those who never even heard of Objectivism and aren't particularly rational even in their own field" and what a shame and puzzle that is and why Objectivists can't do it if the non Objectivists can (somehow). I didn't want to imply there that Objectivists principles somehow stifle creativity, that not being particularly rational somehow fosters or facilitates one's creativity (like when one is let roam freely as some mad genius). Rather I believe the case is that those creative people with all the possible irrationalities (that they might have) actually happen to have a very healthy first hand grasp of facts of reality which translates to their having highly integrated knowledge in a given area (usually in a very specific delimited area of their interest) and thus they are able to come up with original work in that area. Of course, it doesn't simply 'happen' to them, they almost certainly worked hard on acquiring that grasp from childhood onwards (the phenomenon of 'thinking child' applies here). On the other hand, one can have people thoroughly familiarized with Objectivism, with its new revolutionary view of reality and the magnificent 'toolbox' that its philosophy of science represents, yet they never do any original work and do not seem capable to. The reason is that they lack that first hand grasp of reality and the concomitant deep integrations of one's knowledge that it implies that one either does or does not acquire during one's early childhood formative years and when they become acquainted with Objectivism later on in life, they are not capable of turning those tools of Objectivism to their advantage. It doesn't matter how thoroughly they get to know that philosophy, it is extremely unlikely if at all that one could gain that kind of first handedness at some later stage in life that enables one to be creative and come up with original ideas if one didn't gain it during one's very early years of life. That I believe is the secret why some individuals are original inventive thinkers even while they may have explicitly rejected philosophy of Objectivism due to some form of irrationality or other, while others more honest and in consequence equipped with superior tools that Objectivism can offer are not capable of employing those tools to generate original thought. Those magnificent tools remain dead tools in their hands, being just tools they cannot help them overcome their creative sterility. One's creativity must come first and tools can only enhance it, not bring it about. Of course, there are degrees of creativity, it is not the case that one either has it or one does not. But clearly if one doesn't have it, in no way should that imply that Objectivism is somehow at fault. Also I can see that this is a sensitive issue to discuss, one risks to earn ridicule if one takes up this issue while he didn't (yet) come up himself with anything, on the other hand, those with proven track record of coming up in past with original ideas would be seen as boasting... but I believe the issue can be discussed objectively without bringing in personal issues of one's creativity or the lack of it as the case may be. vaclav (knowledge integration)

Dsandin said: Accepting "the proper metaphysical foundations of identity, determinateness, causality, locality, and plenum" is NOT in any way any sort of guarantee or even an indication of the correctness of any theory, that is, satisfaction of these rational requirements is not by itself sufficient to establish any theory's validity. Those are very simply only the necessary preconditions that must be met by any theory just to qualify for attention and nothing more. The fact that TEW complies with these requirements may thus be viewed as a great example of doing physics (I agree with you there) but that alone doesn't yet make it a great theory. It is very well possible that the theory may be totally wrong despite satisfying those 'proper metaphysical foundations of identity...' etc. A theory may satisfy all those proper foundations indeed yet it can turn out to be totally arbitrary (and in that case, it wouldn't be a great example of doing physics then, would it. Whether the physical facts of TEW represent a correct identification of reality or not hinges solely on the fact whether the reality really is functioning the way that TEW claims it does. If it should turn out that reality doesn't work as the theory says, than what good is it saying that it was a great example of doing physics... Those proper metaphysical foundations should be applied to one's theory as a background running check to see if one is still on correct tracks vis a vis metaphysical reality (one then knows theory should be changed if it doesn't satisfy them) but of themselves they can be quite pernicious if employed as some selective criterion or guidance when making one's theory which is just what the author seems to be doing here when he applies the requirement of locality (see following quote): In the case of TEW, we do not have a single piece of positive evidence for the physical existence of the reverse waves/fluxes the prediction of which lies at the very heart of the theory, nor do we have a single piece of positive evidence testifying for the theory in the way of some hitherto unexplained results of some experiments or theories that TEW would handily expect them to be just as predicted and readily explain them, i.e., TEW doesn't bring with it any new hitherto unknown integration of known physical facts and thus no additional new physics as one would typically expect from new theory. The closest in this respect would have perhaps come the re-explanation of the special theory of relativity but there again, nothing new is (or apparently will be) discovered and that which would be new (reverse wave 'influence on the velocity of particles'** with all it implies) again relies totally on the existence of those reverse waves (or 'waves/fluxes'). Given that and that it is to be hopped that 'being on the same level', they might soon be verified in similar and positive way that particles were verified to exist (I assume, by the 'same level' is meant the same level of metaphysical reality). The argument made in the double slit experiment doesn't qualify as supplying in some way a "direct evidence of the fact of reverse motion" unless the author considers the logical processes of his mind constituting such. This claim bases its validity on the logical process of exclusion (elimination), that if the forward wave picture leads to (admittedly) unsupportable contradictions, that the only other logical alternative one can think of - the reverse wave picture - (which in addition complies with 'the proper metaphysical foundations') must of necessity constitute physical reality - hence the claim that it "provides direct evidence". There is one thing about this argument that I think deserves being pointed out: that argument is based on the unquestioning acceptance of facts as presented in the classic quantum mechanical interpretation of the double slit experiment, i.e., that two elements are involved - particles and quantum waves - and those are both taken as given and the solution is found in the rearrangement of one of them (the waves are postulated to move the other way than they do in classic description). As a rule, it generally doesn't pay in physics or in any science to simply accept the basic elements of any established but questionable theory, no matter how rock solid they may seem and how long they might have been established. ---------------------- I myself couldn't and wouldn't put any such weight on our logical processes in a case like this one. What if some premise in that argument might be wrong. The only part that would be indubitably correct in that statement is that "a particle cannot be both a particle and a wave" ...at the same time and in the same respect... I would add. That could not be contested. All the rest in that quote is highly debatable (surprising as it may seem to some, especially to Objectivists). At least I personally suspect viable alternatives there that could possibly lead to satisfactory resolution of the whole quantum mechanical weirdness while also being compliant with most and perhaps all those 'proper metaphysical foundations' listed above. In my opinion, to claim a 'direct evidence' for some theoretically postulated new physical phenomenon, one must either have a direct experimental evidence for the phenomenon that proves its existence (the double slit experiment doesn't qualify as such, that evidence is only of logical inferential kind, not direct experimental evidence of the phenomenon at hand) or there should be (a whole slew of) fresh integrations following the identification of the phenomenon which would tie together some loose ends of our previous hitherto acquired knowledge and which would thus make us more secure about the overall validity of our knowledge while at the same time expanding it. Apart from the direct evidence of the senses and the basic axioms of (Objectivist) philosophy, the only other way we have of being sure of something - of anything for that matter - is that we can seamlessly join it, integrate it into our knowledge base we have acquired so far and that we hold is a correct identification of reality. When that something is a new piece of knowledge, a fundamental new knowledge at that, such as the phenomenon of reverse waves in this particular case, we expect more than just seamless (i.e., non-contradictory) joining, we expect to see new connections and thus deeper integration of our current knowledge, especially when we talk about such fundamental piece of new knowledge that these reverse waves certainly are. ------------------------ It would seem that many adherents of TEW are sold on its validity because they see it "doing physics the right way by accepting the proper metaphysical foundations of identity, determinateness, causality, locality, and plenum" and because they see the double slit argument for the existence of reverse waves to be watertight. However it may be, I believe that one can disagree with the theory and yet remain an Objectivist (that is, its rejection should by no means be interpreted as disagreement with the proper metaphysical foundations or as agreement with the current QM interpretation of the double slit experiment). Of course, if there really is a 'direct evidence' for those reverse waves, than the disagreement would imply that one doesn't accept 'direct evidence' for some physical phenomenon out there and that would put the matter into a different light... The usual saying that 'the onus of proof lies on those who come up with new idea' applies here. ============= ** these two quotes do not quite seem to 'square', on one hand, the waves/flux is only supposed to guide particles but in the second quote, it can determine the velocity (dynamics) of particles (photons)... what gives?? vaclav (knowledge integration)

Yes I fully agree with that view of universe that it shouldn't be viewed as entity in itself and that was preciselly the reason why I initially didn't want to call my conception of plenum/ether an entity because I conceived of it as coextensive with the universe. That was why I chose to call it existent (perfectly valid term, more general than entity as per ITOE quote in my post) and leave it provisionally there till I or somebody else comes up with some physical theory that would demand some specific differentiation of that existent, almost certainly into the entities that you have as your plenum only then I will be able to have some model and will be able to postulate more about them than just saying they are entities and packed etc. There is an interesting quote from L Peikoff on the entity definition from his 1976 lecture series on tapes. It is also in H Binswanger's Lexicon p146 hardcover. I will just select few brief sentences. I see this as supporting the very view I was arguing for (a while back on this thread), just didn't recall at the time where I got it from. Note specially the 'primary' and 'extended' senses plus that universe can be talked about as entity also, albeit in extended sense. Interesting isn't it?? But enough of that. I can say for myself that your view on plenum will not be lost on me and I will work myself to something just like that via some physical theory in due time. Ok, trip, that's fair but don't make it too pointed, you can always get to that in second round if I maintained it in argument once you pointed it out to me. But I think I was also guilty of coming out too sharp on some points of yours that I commented upon. Lesson learned. When we speak about ether, plenum, and its makeup like if its composed of entities etc., its all physics, not philosophy at all although one uses philosophic principles to determine the plenum in some basic ways. And one can't go much further as to its makeup without some physical theory dictating further details. You haven't seen the paper, how can you judge it from the little I posted here. I refer to the last sentence in this quote, comments like that don't belong on intellectual forum. So please, refrain from making these belittling remarks. They are simply not warranted even if you were right in them. Thank you. First off, I do not make light of it at all, on the contrary I see it as a matter for serious discussion. Philosophy of Objectivism does have 'something of deep relevance to contribute' and that is rational philosophy of science as found in ITOE and in various contributions from Objectivist intellectuals. I definitely believe that that is invaluable intellectual 'toolbox' but not much has been done with so far. Yes it is hard to do original and profound physics. And it doesn't help if whatever one comes up with on here, one meets exacting demands of having it all 100% agreeing with Objectivism on all points regardless if its still a working concept or developping theory. What I mean is that anything that is original and profound will not be always up to scratch to stand up to full out criticism simply because original physics takes long time before it settles in one's mind and gets properly integrated etc. It is not helpfull at that point to have to explain at every point how it conforms to Objectivism to one's critics. For example, if those physicists who worked out quantum mechanics from Poincare to Einstein and Bohr had to defend their theories (while they were working on them) here on this forum if they happened to be Objectivists (which they weren't of course) then we would have no quantum mechanics today because you wouldn't allow them proceed, they would get bogged here into defending their irrationalities and would never get anywhere. With all their shortcomings, they did make something that I'd rather we have today even if it has irrational picture of physical understanding that came with it rather than have nothing. When Einstein said to Bohr that famous line about God not playing dice, Bohr certainly didn't turn on Einstein accusingly with 'you believe in God??' and the rest of discussion certainly wasn't argument on that point (but it would be so I imagine, if Bohr really thought Einstein might really believe that). While Objectivism is the greatest thing that happened in the past century any way you look at it, if you will attempt to do original work in physics (or in any science for that matter) and check every single step you make as you make it if it conforms fully with all Objectivist tenets, you will just get started on your original work and that will be as far as you will get, I mean it will end at start very likely in my opinion. I grant you, such strict compliance is required and quite realistically possible if you do just low level thinking over old grounds with some minor variations on established theories (pretty well all 'new' physics in field are of that kind). But when it comes to really original thinking, you will soon find that you can't always have it proceed in orderly way by the book and at every step conforming clearly with the right principles or Objectivist philosophy of science. That happens simply because new concepts, new original ways of thinking have to be digested first, identified, integrated etc and before that fully happens (might last several years, even a decade), you will be an easy catch for the critics honed in their art (because that's all they usually do), who will want you to explain it in ways that do not conflict with Objectivism on any point and if you won't be able, they write you off. But much worse thing is that you don't even need to face harsh external critics, the selfimposed criticism of this kind is enough to stifle you. (I speak generally here of any Objectivist, don't mean you in particular of course, nothing here I write is aimed at anybody in particular). That is the reason I think, why scientific discussions of Objectivists typically never get off ground and go somewhere and become new original discoveries (of course I mean students of Objectivism but that is too long to write all the time). Instead the rule is that original thinking is done by those who never even heard of Objectivism and aren't particularly rational even in their own field. That's a fact of history and I just thought tables should be turned now that we had several decades with Objectivism in finished and settled form. I imagine I am not alone thinking along these lines, that Objectivism should start bearing some fruits. PLEASE!! BRUSH IT ASIDE?? I believe I said something there that I will make a statement on TEW. I have it now half written and might finish it by this weekend. I got to know TEW (only roughly) in late nineties and I read on it quite a bit in the month before I started posting on this forum but I didn't expect writing a statement on it. It is not easy to formulate if one doesn't think its the greatest latest... because then I wouldn't have to face much any criticism, you must understand that. Perhaps you also might write few lines why you think its great as you say here (beyond stating that it complies with locality determinacy etc. as you posted few posts back here) Thing is, the hostility (evident in certain remarks made in reference to my person or my ideas I presented here - like that '88 year' remark which is meant to ridicule or bellitle or...) that I perceive here in some comments of yours and other people here do not make it easy for me to even come with pleasure on the forum or write a statement on TEW, that is another reason it takes more time than I would have thought. I cannot promise anything because of that. vaclav (knowledge integration)

Well, if you said that ether concept was not equally as general as the concept of plenum, that ether carries negative historical baggage as you outline here and that this was generally not the case in regard to plenum... then I take this to mean, you were advising me to go with plenum, that it would be wiser choice. Nothing more and nothing less. It is quite another thing that you then pointed out that it is fine with you if I choose the other. Point remains, you didn't think that ether would be the better choice of the two and that if it was your choice, you'd go with plenum. I think now, it was my poor choice of word I used there (ditch), I think that's what made you come at me as you did. It was a bit strong and I apologise. That reference was uncalled for. I am truly sorry now I asked you for anything. That was just a short quote and on the point, I hope you didn't imagine there is nothing more, you didn't expect me to quote here the full paper or even the whole page with the rest of the history of ether and inertia?? You pointed out in previous post in reference to one of the excerpts that That is what the "confused and mistaken" refer to I take it. Point is, if I went into such a great detail of the history of ether as you mention it here, I would be writing a paper or even a whole book on the subject of history of ether alone. This is just a paper, not a treatise and history will be only small part of it. It will be long only several tens of pages. In the paragraph before the one in which I mention MM experiment, I talk about Newton and in the paragraph after the MM experiment, I talk about Einstein and then I talk for couple pages about ether, rest of the paper deals with physics at hand - Inertia and Gravitation. The idea is to leave the rest of ether argumentation after physics are dealt with, that way one has support of some physical theories worked out. It is better that way in my opinion than to try and attack the ether directly without having any examples to illustrate and argue from. The historical account is supposed to be only a brief introduction to the paper, only a cursory examination of major historical points as they have bearing on the paper at hand to establish context, that all. All ether theories of old are dead and none has shown in some believable way how to account for the fact that speed of light is constant which is a single major hurdle for any ether theory to pass, old or new. If it can't deal with that, I wouldn't care for the rest of what it might say. And while you are perfectly right that MM experiment 'left open the possibility of other ether theories', the point is, those theories didn't subsequently explain the null result, not in any satisfactory fashion. And that is why I said the following: "wind experiment of Michelson-Morley constituted a turning point in the development of the ether idea that led to its eventual dismissal by the majority of modern physicists." Notice that I didn't say there that those ether theories were abandoned in the aftermath of the MM experiment, right there and then. I have said that MM experiment "led to [ether theories] eventual dismissal" and that they were dismissed by the "majority of modern physicists" which clearly implies that some of those theories had some middling existence long after MM experiments for them to be dismissed by modern physicists but dismissed they were and even if that happened for some other reason, they wouldn't have passed the new criterium that the MM experiment established (of light speed being constant) anyway. That's what I meant when I said what I said. vaclav (knowledge integration)

I have already explained in my reply to Betsy why my take on entities is the way it is. I just made a mistake talking here on Objectivist forum about entities the way I do in my paper on Inertia and Gravitation. On one hand, you (you and Mr Speicher) would have me ditch the term 'ether' in favor of the term 'plenum' because of how it is perceived nowadays by physicists, on the other, you would (you and Betsy) have me employ the term 'entity' as if I was addressing my physics paper solely to Objectivist community for whom it is a staple, stock in trade term so to speak to use. Thing is, you hardly see physicists making use of the term (unless they are Objectivists) and they only understand the term in the way the general public does. If you talked to little kids and wanted to speak about entities, you'd do well to speak just of 'things' and confine yourself only to objects easily encompassed by direct perception with clearly delimited outlines etc. If you addressed yourself to general adult audience, you might speak of entities but still you'd be well advised to confine yourself to more basic and common usage of the term. Addressing yourself to physicists is really the same as addressing general public when it comes to speaking of entities. Its all a matter of context. Ether as such is perfectly general concept (same as plenum is) of the ultimate 'stuff' existing out there everywhere in homogeneous form. Sure there are many physicists out there who as soon as they see the word in your paper, they will query you about the kind of ether you talking about (and or what you gonna do about this or that model of ether that was developed in past by somebody and that they might still believe in) because they automatically assume everybody must choose some historical model of ether and perhaps modify it but essentially continuing with some ether that somebody in past worked out. I am not addressing myself to such physicists and they don't count anyway if they approach physics that way - that you start where your predecessors left off (AR said something to this effect in ITOE and if I should have a motto, this one would be it). In that section of ITOE to which you call my attention to ("Properties of the Ultimate Constituents" in the chapter "Philosophy of Science") My opinion is that AR talks of the 'ultimate constituents of universe' because the question was brought up in that form by the seminar participants who were practicing professionals from various fields (incl. physics likely). That is how the problem is approached by mainstream physics today, where the thinking is in terms of going deeper and deeper into the heart of matter in that style where you go from matter to molecules to atoms to protons/neutrons/electrons and then you go to quarks and then... and you end when you can't find anything deeper down. While that is one valid approach to investigate reality, the ultimate picture of reality might not be of this kind at all where you would say, these are the ultimate constituent particle entities (or puffs or whatever) and they are the most basic stuff there is and they have such and such properties etc. What if it is not numerous 'constituents', entities (like some tiny particles or something) but a 'constituent' (singular) - an ether/plenum homogeneous single entity existing out there that is nothing like particles of matter and of which we might not be able to find its constituents (parts of it) in that traditional fashion of working our way down as when we talk of matter. But the question formulated the way it was brought up in ITOE brings such premises into it and I don't think it is warranted at all. That is why I wouldn't feel bound some way to what AR says there or would seem to imply (that the ultimate stuff of universe should be entities, except for the usual rational approach to investigation of the ultimate reality that she gives a guidance there for. I propose only that there is ether, a unique existent (an entity) spanning the whole universe which is existing everywhere permeating all of existence throughout and which is finite (definite) as regards the properties it may be determined to have and that is all. Any further determination as to whether it has parts qua numerous discrete entities and what those parts might be etc., that should all be driven from top down by demands of particular physical theories, not postulated philosophically as some logical starting construct. I've seen it quite a few times when Objectivists (students of) took up some line or idea from AR as a lead up to some theory of their own (as deductive start for it) but it never came to anything. So many decades passed already with Objectivism being known by many people, amateurs and professionals in sciences but we have yet to see some advance in sciences made, on major or even minor scale. You'd think that rational philosophy of science that Objectivism supplies would be a powerful springboard to those scientists familiar with Objectivism and that they would virtually monopolize Nobel prizes awards and put on even keel some ill areas of physics but nothing like that happened, there are not even advances yet unrecognized in the field (ok, there is TEW but I've no idea if its author even benefited from Objectivism plus I have serious misgivings about the theory). Instead you only hear about 'hot discussions' on various subjects going on among Objectivists for years but there are no results. Apparently, rationality and correct philosophy of science is by itself not enough to come up with something. "There is no issue of the void, no need to explain why it isn't there, since "void" is an invalid physical concept (being a reification of nonexistence). There is no metaphysical problem there at all." [sarcasm] Yes, void creates no metaphysical problem for majority of professional physicists, they easily admit void or imply it and don't apologise for it. [/sarcasm] It would be nice world if you didn't have to even mention the word (as one properly shouldn't have to in this context), if the issue of it didn't come up at all in physics of today. OK, shoot me down because I didn't formulate what I said there like a lawyer in a fool proof way. I didn't mean it to imply that void actually exists out there and that we have to postulate ether or plenum to banish it, that was just a way of speaking that I didn't expect I would be caught up on. I really would much rather have you arguing for those densely packed entities and putting that picture into some broader setting of some physical theory. Then we might argue over that. vaclav (knowledge integration)

There is one telling quote from page 24: I take this to mean, that it is the author's belief, that physical brain accounts for the mind, i.e., that mind is totally physical phenomenon and that would be contrary to Objectivist view. I only read the text this far as of now but in the light of this quote, I would assume the rest of the book will be an attempt to show how the physical brain can account for mind. What might be shown however is different thing, it may not be what we call mind but just the workings of brain. It certainly is interesting reading and perhaps the hologram model of how the brain works might describe how the brain in principle works (brain is marvelous piece of machinery to be sure) but in the end, what we call mind might not be covered under this theory at all (including free will). vaclav (knowledge integration)

well, I take ether idea in its plain original meaning, that there is something out there everywhere permeating everything including matter, so that universe can be full of something which insures void doesn't exist because that would be logical impossibility. I can't walk in shoes of other physicists that worked with the concept before me. In the paper, I state it plainly, after briefly describing the unfortunate history of ether that we have to leave all that behind and make new start with ether. It is somewhat on the parallel with AR's claiming back the concept of selfishness and even calling it a virtue and all that on the cover of a book. I hope I can say enough of substance about this new approach to ether to make people start thinking that it is something fresh and worth looking at this time around but mainly I have to rely for its new acceptance on getting new results in physics that I get by working with the idea of ether as opposed to conventional physics which is today stuck on many fronts with no solutions in sight and it is preciselly because they threw the bad ideas of ether with ether itself (throwing out baby with bath water comes to mind). True enough but I have never given much thought to the term plenum and never used it and that was source of some confusion on my part. Problem seems to be that plenum can be employed fairly liberaly it seems whereas ether is historically firm, for better or worse and you say worse. That is one thing I can always change when its completed. I posted something on ether while you were posting this, right after this one of yours, you can see I am plowing my way and doubt very much I could get much help from history. I suppose it shows that I am no expert on history and its true, I just pay lip service to it to get to my own thing. I may have phrased it awkwardly, that's precisely what I meant, that it gave the null result and as consequence, (some) physicists in light of this experiment decided to abandon the idea of ether because they interpreted that result to mean that the ether couldn't exist. this is how I treated it in the paper currently in progress: Looking at it now, I capitalized the 'Theory of Special Relativity' but I would like to ask what is the difference between Theory of Special Relativity and Special Theory of Relativity if there is any. I am inclined to think it is a matter of taste. Also if it should be always capitalized in text, my grammar is failling me here and it shows I am not native English speaker and so any remarks you want to make in the way of grammar are welcomed. Thanx for your and Betsy's comments, they are stimulating and who knows I might get back to writing those papers that I mention here, most of what I figured out so far is still in my head only. vaclav (knowledge integration)

I am going to quote a short passage from my own paper that I mentioned in my post already: ('the idea of motion' mentioned in the quote of course refers to Einstein's stipulation on the inaplicability of motion to ether as one major restriction on it, one which I agree with and I make sure ether conforms to it) On p. 157 at top in ITOE, AR calls concepts mental entities... I recall some discussion on this issue perhaps in a Q&A with L. Peikoff somewhere, where people asked about cloud of gas, is it an entity... and so on (yes it is in certain perspective, as well as the ocean and puddle and drop of water etc.) I also recall a statement that entities primarily mean concrete physical things we perceive, things that form a definite unit that holds together in a definite shape and is separated from its surrounding... something to this effect, I think it might also come from ITOE. I just take the position that for the purpose of basic philosophy, entities are primarily your plain concrete material objects that we perceive with our unaided senses but the term can also be used in the extended abstract meaning such as when concepts and mental events are said to be mental entities. However, in physical science context, it might be advisable to relegate entities back to their primary meaning to refer to just physical matter in all shapes and forms and for the rest use the term existent. Point here is, this is physics and not a paper in philosphy and also it is writen for other audience than just Objectivists. Even talking of entities in a physics paper is pushing it I think. Also observe that you said 'mental' entity - not just entity but mental entity - when you refered to thought. That qualifying term 'mental' serves to clasify this particular class of entities to special category of abstract entities. Keyword is 'special'. Outside of Objectivist circles, people do not think of thoughts as entities or mental entities and entity to them normally means a thing. That I believe is also how AR wanted people to view entity in basic philosophical discussions like in ITOE. I came to see it as wrong to think of ether in terms of 'individual components', be they entities or whatever and to approach it like that in general. Ether is the most fundamental existent there is in all of existence, it is at the bottom of everything and nothing is at the bottom of it. [that's good line, I might include it in my paper] It is the last stage of existence as we may know it, unique in itself, nothing like matter, and as such, our knowledge of it will always of neccesity remain quite limited in comparison to our knowledge of matter world that arises out of it and that our material senses can directly or indirectly detect. In short ether is not something to be investigated same way as we investigate matter to find its component atoms and then find their component particles and state that matter consists of subatomic particles or as we can divide the ocean into drops of water and study the molecules of those drops and then state that ocean consists of densely packed entities and those entities are molecules of water... It is misguided to talk about components or parts of ether. vaclav (knowledge integration)

Yes, plenum and ether are both quite generic terms, total agreement here. I take it they both mean the same thing and are postulated for the same reason - to get rid of the void which is an epistemological dead end. [edit - halfway through replying, I determined to use only the term 'ether' throughout this post and stick to it in my other work as well, 'plenum' is a term that has much wider usage than ether has and that could lead to confusion] I also see the term 'ether' as quaint and carrying lots of negative historical associations and the reason I prefer it to plenum is perhaps precisely because of that, somewhat in that spirit that AR chose 'selfishness as virtue' for the title of her book. Plenum is a term that a philosopher would be more likely to employ and ether would be more likely chosen by a physicist In this connection, if you get rid of the problem of void by accepting ether (something currently unspecified that is everywhere), why fill it with entities then. As I understand this view, that is being done precisely to get rid of the void, when you are trying to specify what the ether actually consists of because you want to make a step beyond just stating 'there is something everywhere'... that is, your densely packed entities are then what the ether consists of. That's why I took the densely packed entities for your specification of ether and pointed out its shortcomings as I did - that it won't do as ether and its not just its discretness but more importantly, that it is entities, i.e., matter. Ether is more fundamental than matter (entities). Again, once you agree there is ether, there is no need to pack it with entities to solve the problem of the void and if you introduce it for other reasons (as something existing above the underlying ether, like filling it or whatever), then it really should be part of some wider theory. That should be so whenever you go past what philosophy can specify and it certainly cannot go as far as specifying the nature of ether or any specification like entities everywhere etc. There you are on the grounds of physics. As it stands, I grant you it seems like a logical thing to do, especially for one with knowledge of Objectivism in which philosophy, entities play major and fundamental role. It is then just one short step to make them into what the ether actually consists of. But I don't think you will get far that way, working from bottom up by specifying entities in what seems unavoidable choice and then presenting it to physicists working in the field and awating if they come up with something. I believe the nature of the ether as it will be uncovered one day will be arrived at from the top - from macroscopic phenomena down to microscopic - and it will be mostly if not solely done by process of induction (the last steps that will end at the plenum anyway) and with no prior assumption being made about its nature. Reason being that it is almost certain, new concepts will have to be coined along the way, same as physicists of today use concepts that didn't exist before the new fields of physics were opened up, like 'strangeness' or 'spin' etc. properties of particles of matter for example that have no counterpart on macroscopic level (those words denote new concepts of particle properties but old existing words have been used to denote them in the context of particle physics) That gets me to another objection you made: There are qualities/properties (attributes) of ether but appart from those logically required ones such as finiteness etc., they will be all new qualities that matter/entities do not have and they will be determined in the course of working down to the level of plenum. There are certain attributes that ether does have and that are known today but not recognised as such and they are not qualities that matter can have and that's all that I am ready to state. I write about all this in my unpublished paper 'Inertia and Gravitation' and so will not reveal those things here for understandable reasons. Ether doesn't have the properties usually found in matter simply because it is not matter. Here you use the term plenum in way that is not compatible with it being synonymous with ether (ether wouldn't be used the way you used the word plenum here). I said above all that I wanted to say on this particular point and now will just make short note on this different usage of plenum and ether. You seem to use the term plenum here to denote entities around us like tables, planets, stars... all making up universe ("plenum of entities throughout existence"). But you would never use ether concept that way, ether specifically means background 'something' to matter but it doesn't include matter/entities in it. Somewhat like the soil of farmers field forms background to vegetables growing on it but the field is not vegetables and vice versa. You'd never use the term ether to say 'ether of entities throughout existence' as you do above with plenum. I never paid much attention to how pple use the concept of plenum but it can apparently be used in expressions that are not compatible with the ether of physics (the ether of Michelson-Morley experiment in short) although it can be used in the way ether is. I will use the term 'ether' here in this post and in my other writings exclusively henceforth. That view I assumed because I took those densely packed "entities" to play the role of ether, that is of general background to matter or something fundamental like that. Its not enough in physics to reject void in a statement, you have to provide something, some idea of something (such as ether) to banish it from consideration at its root. Those who wave arms around and point at entities around us and claim 'this is all that is and it fills the world to scuppers'... well, I never understood that and take it for mysticism. Not saying that's what you are saying but it seems something like that ('accepts only physical entities as concrete existents'). What you say above about void and absolute space and time etc. is confusing to me and I can't comment on that. Well, why not replace those many densely packed entities with one big entity and be done with it. But on more relevant note. I simply see all this talk about entities in this context (nature of ether) as not productive, leading anywhere. Talking of entities in other ways than say philosophy of Objectivism talks about them is just rationalism (I mean when other posters here talked about their 'smallest size' and all that, almost recalled to me that line about how many angels can stand on the pointed tip of needle, surely you will know the allusion). If you didn't mean those densely packed entities to mean stand in for ether (the background continuum to all of existence that ensures there is no void), then I am lost and if you and other posters here meant it as such, then I just say, I don't see it as a valid picture of ether. Ether cannot consist of matter (entities), which claim is somewhat similar to that one where consciousness was argued on this forum as not consisting of matter or reducible to it (view to which I subscribe). But I am affraid this discussion should be continued on a more appropriate thread already out there in progression. Great, this will take us solidly back on topic but I think I should comment on that in another post here. vaclav (knowledge integration)

Well, I for one don't have to do any finger crossing with you and let it stand at that. vaclav (knowledge integration)

right, the concept of 'infinitesimal' (as well as that of 'infinity') is to be used strictly in mathematics when dealing with limits, it doesn't refer to anything in actual physical world although it may be used in mathematical methods of physics. OK, check your premises then. You yourself have adopted 'unjustified premises' in fixing on the "metaphysical fact that there must be things everywhere". I happen to think that that is unwarranted starting point. The old concept of ether was much better way of doing away with void because the concept of ether was quite generic, i.e., it didn't smuggle in anything beforehand and physicists could make it whatever they actually found out there in physical world to exist and/or they could give it any properties they saw fit in the light of their various theories/hypotheses. (It is different thing that they made extremely poor job of that which led to untimely dismissal of ether from reputable physics) Also, the whole history of physics has shown us that when going into the heart of matter, the reality never repeats itself and all analogies that tried to build deeper structures of matter from what was already known of higher structures failed (atomic structure wasn't found to resemble that of solar system etc). If reality was anything like that, the end of physics would be nigh if it wouldn't already be here. In the same vein, I don't believe in talking of entities or their attributes (like size or whatever) when you are thinking of the most fundamental stuff the existence is made of. I also do not happen to believe that postulating densely packed entities does away with void in a satisfactory fashion. I do not believe any discrete stuff as such, entities or whatever will do in that regard, never mind that you are taking macroscopic picture of reality as presented to our senses down to the most fundamental level. Why is any 'discrete stuff' not satisfactory? Well, for one, it still implies the existence of void albeit one that is 'banished' by being filled with entities. Then you have many questions as to the exact conditions existing at the interfaces of those discrete entities related to closeness of contact among those filling entities and you will be asked about theories you have developped as to the motion of particles of matter in these entities or through them and if you have some integrated picture of how exactly matter as we know it relates to this substratum made of denselly packed entities... Basically it won't do to postulate something like entities being everywhere and leave it to physicists to incorporate this 'metaphysical fact' into their theories for you, somehow. vaclav (knowledge integration) public note to moderators: when making my very first post here, I pressed the Submit Post button and then I realized it being my first posting here, I better should Preview Post first. I hit Escape key fast and clicked on Preview Post button before the post was posted and somehow that was interpreted as trying to spam the board while all I did was trying to post proper and all... By doing that, I earned some warning %bar under my name, unjustifyingly in my opinion since I did precise opposite to being some bad element on this board, so...

For me, I look at punks and don't feel any need to be 'open minded' or active minded, that is, to dwell into their 'culture' because what I see is heavy emphasis on differentiation through looks, appearance, and it includes permanent disfiguring or staining of their skins by tatoos and that in my view is something done only by those who are very much concrete bound bordering on savage primitive existences and I don't believe there is anything worth there to look at any more deeply than surface appearance. It is my prerogative sometimes to simply judge by outside appearance and be done with it. In some cases, I am willing to forfeit potential gains by not examining something in depth but that is the risk I am willing to take in certain cases like punks and such like. Let them first do something to attract my attention to them, why should I go out of my way first at someones bidding. Typical person that advocates open mindedness is somebody who is total relativist/subjectivist in regard to values and morals, someone who is unable to judge anything rationally but only emotionally, who himself has to open up and fully immerse himself in something to decide whether it is to his liking or not. If you state some reason why you dismiss punks as I just stated above for example, you get told 'but you can't tell by looking from outside and judging from that, you have to experience their culture from inside, you have to listen to them and try to understand them...' and the unstated premise in all that is that understanding as such is emotional thing, not rational. In those other untypical cases when somebody asks you to be open minded on valid grounds, it is likely futile thing to do anyway and it is better to simply present facts that you want somebody to be open minded about than to appeal on him to open up his mind. vaclav (knowledge integration)

L. Peikoff in his lecture "Why Ancient Greece is my Favorite Civilization" gives an interesting angle on this issue. He said, the Ancient Greeks would have thought the skills of todays professional sportsmen admirable ....... BUT only in slaves... supposing one had slave and had no better use for him then to train him in a sport to such a degree. (understand the talk is of slaves in old Greece) Apparently Greeks would see the honed specialized skills of todays top sportsmen not worthy acquiring for men since they believed in well rounded universal development, like say doing a pentathlon in Olympic games and having good education (like rhetoric etc) and good looks (body bearing and muscles) to top it off... He said the Greeks wouldn't consider running today's marathon (40 miles+) as sport since that would take such specialization that one who undertook training for it wouldn't have time to lead the life proper to man. That is how I remember this part of lecture from memory, last time I listened to that tape is something like half a year, so if anybody wants to have some argument with that, let him look it up on tapes first. But the above is essentially what he (LP) tried to put accross in the lecture on this point - Ancient Greeks and sports. Personally, I have always seen top flight pros in any sport as leading (very much) impoverished lives and usually the talk is about the first third of one's life that falls near 100% victim to the sport one does. At least nowadays many of them make enough financially to set them for life and that is something to consider. There's many a men who worked most of their lives at routine factory jobs and made a pittance in comparison and if they dedicated part of their lives to some sport 100% and made it to top, they wouldn't be loosers any way at the end of it and very likely would enjoy it more. I suppose thats the way it really is in reality. Moost top sportsmen wouldn't in most cases lead some more worthy alternative lifestyle anyway, so it is perhaps from this point of view not much loos for them that way. On the other hand, Greeks wouldn't have dreamed of specialization we now have in most productive professions, not just sports but again, the question would be if that is quite right. Myself, I have always been an example of such universality that L Peikoff outlined in his lecture on Greece now that I think of it. I used to do sports like cross country skiing and bicycling and rock/ice climbing, I even took ballet dance classes when ~ 30 yrs of age (I didn't race on skis or on bicycle but I did it way more than just recreational pastime, the ballet was of course just interesting to learn a bit, that all and I was still quite trim at that point for it) and I got pretty well acquitaned with Ayn Rand's philosophy and read various books in philosophy (appart from Objectivism) and studdied physics at university all the while keeping bread on table by manual labor (housepainting on my own). vaclav (knowledge integration)

Reading various threads on the matter of consciousness on this forum, I didn't see anybody mentioning the following excerpt I took the liberty of quoting here in its entirety. It is an answer L Peikoff once gave to somebody in audience at TJS conference, which I think could be taken as an 'Objectivist stance' on the matter at hand. The square brackets contain words that I had trouble deciphering (it is an unedited verbatim transcription I made from audio tape for the purpose of quoting here). vaclav (Knowledge Integration)