[Quantum Physics / Quantum Mechanics]

Retract my previous statement. Local hidden variable theories are out. Bohmian mechanics are a nonlocal hidden variable theory.

Still, the inability to know simultaneously both the momentum and position of a particle is a permanent limitation of scientific or human capability, so what is the objection to ascribing it to the nature of the universe?

You made the objection yourself: Man is incapable of knowing simultaneously the momentum and position of a particle. That man's ability to conceptualize goes unsurpassed by all other organisms does not mean that there necessarily can not be aspects of the universe that we are incapable of understanding for lack of empirical evidence. Homosapien is the most recent step in a long line of evolution that is based on the ability to survive on Earth. One of the results of our evolutionary tract is the human eye, a sensory mechanism, whose effectiveness is tied directly to how much light is available for it to receive. Insofar as particle physics is concerned, the only way that we have been able to research is through the use of light. To put it another way: of all the senses humans have, only one of them has proven suitable for research in particle physics. That sense is based on light, and that is exactly the issue. Because we have found no other sense that can be used to study particles without interfering with the particles themselves, we have to turn to reason to tell us the rest: A is A; things can not be while not being, or exist here while existing there; things must be discrete. It is for this reason that the Uncertainty Principle and the science behind it is only proof that we are, at our present level of sophistication, incapable of studying particle physics any further than we already have.

[Quantum Physics / Quantum Mechanics]

I think the entire issue stems from an irrational, but nearly unanimously accepted, explanation of the Uncertainty Principle. The common view is that the inability to know simultaneously both the momentum and position of a particle is a feature of the nature of the universe, and not simply a limitation of present scientific or human capability. Perhaps it is a problem that we will never be able to solve, but that does not mean it is a feature of the physical universe. It is because of man's nature that we must use light to observe these particles, and in doing so we cause the effects on them. It is only by ignoring this fact that scientists can accept such things as "the cat is both dead and alive".

The Uncertainty Principle, and the science done in its name, is only proof that we suck at observing particles.

[Aristotle and the Unmoved Mover]

What do you want to know? I can only offer a summary of Aristotle's ideas until you tell ask for something more specific:

Aristotle observed that there are bodies in motion and asked the question "what set these bodies in motion?" He deduced that there had to have been an "unmoved mover", that is, something that caused the first ever movement without having moved itself. When first trying to understand this concept, many people make the mistake of imagining stationary, motionless bodies; one of the bodies moves, which causes a chain reaction. Likely, the flaw in their interpretation is that they never address what causes the first movement. The only way to avoid an infinite chain of events (a body moves which causes another body to move, but the movement of the first body was caused by another moving body, which makes it the first moving body, but it was moved by something, so on and so forth until you go insane), Aristotle reasoned that there has to have been something that caused the first movement, without moving.

[Color Blindness and the validity of the senses]

I am curious how many people here see a difference between picture A, B, C. These are supposed to show different numbers. By carefull side-by-side comparison in that order, I can sense that there is some difference between A and B but it is unnameably subtle. B and C are totaly indistinguishable.

I see the number 56 in the first image, but no numbers in the other two. But, that's no surprise, I've known about my color blindness for a while now. I have a weak case of Deutoranopia (red-green).

I don't lack the ability to see red or green, and the only time I see gray is if that is the intended color. And while it may be difficult to imagine being color blind, most of us don't see things much differently from those with normal color vision. It doesn't really present any significant challenges in day-to-day living, even though it has had profound effects on my life:

By the time I had enlisted in the Navy, I had been training for 4 months to get into peak physical condition because I intended to join the Special Forces (SEAL) program. I did extremely well in all parts of the physical exam except the color-proficiency portion. Because I failed that part, I was denied entry into the SEAL program. Even worse, I was suddenly unqualified for the majority of jobs in the Navy, and the jobs left to choose from weren't interesting to me at the time, so I wrote a letter of separation and de-enlisted. I had nothing else planned for life at that point. I was going to be a SEAL with an education from the US Naval Academy. I'd be able to do just about anything I could want with my life. But, that's all water under the bridge now.

Now, I'm in college and studying for a degree in Mechanical Engineering. My original motivation for studying ME was to get involved with the field of aeronautics/aerospace, but because of color-blindness the FAA won't let me anywhere near planes, jets, or spacecraft. Thankfully, as I've been exposed to more and more through my degree, I've come to love many other things besides air and spacecraft. Now the biggest complication color-blindness creates in my life is that the drafting software I prefer to use draws datum planes in brown and highlights them with red when they are selected. Sheesh. I know I'm especially annoyed because of my color-blindness, but I can't be the only one who thinks that is just bad design.

[validation of egoism]

Start with the most basic question: have you chosen to live, or have you chosen to die? If you've chosen to die, why are you still here? If you've chosen to live, that fact defines the standard by which all other choices are to be evaluated -- do they support or thwart your fundamental choice?

I suggest he start with an investment in his own education and get ahold of some Objectivist literature.

["Community service" and help in good will]

Calling it "community service" is a disgusting trivialization of the efforts of the firefighters on that day and of the men who fight in the resultant war to this day.

I hate this man with nearly every fiber of my being.

[Absolutes and Objectivism]

What can change is the nature of the context - but not as often as you might think. 99.99% of the time the context does not change, and so the moral principles applicable to that context are omnipresent. Only in rare circumstances - genuine lifeboat situations - does that particular context not hold. We don't concern ourselves too much about them, precisely because they're rare and their examination tells us nothing about how to live our lives in the ordinary course of affairs.

JJM

Would you mind giving an explanation of why lifeboat situations are an exception? I've reached my own conclusions on the topic, but would like to understand exactly what you mean before I present them.

[How do you reject Physics Determinism?]

Ask him what he thinks of the idea that all particle physics is based off Neils Bohr's model of the Hydrogen atom, and that the model was based purely on classical physics which could be applied only to atoms with one electron (that is, only Hydrogen, and Helium and Lithium in certain ionic states). Ask what he thinks of the fact that all of quantum mechanics is based off this insubstantial model, which is no doubt the reason for such phenomena as the uncertainty principle, which states that we can only observe the position of the electron or how it is moving, and not both simultaneously. In other words, ask him how particle physicists could be so certain that all things are determined when the very act of observing the particles interferes with (ie: changes) them, therefore ruining their chances of ever knowing everything about the particles. Ask him what he thinks of the hole that particle physicists have dug themselves into by basing the entire field of quantum mechanics off Bohr's model, which has left them with the inability to answer such simple questions as those that pertain to the spin of electrons.

And ask him why he thinks that, despite all of this (and more), physicists haven't gone back to the basics and re-evaluated the positions of Schrodinger and Heisenberg to find out where they went wrong. And tell him the fact that "quantum physics is responsible for so much of the technologies we enjoy in the modern world" isn't reason enough for it to go totally unquestioned. Any foundation can be built upon, no matter how weak.

The entire science is based on a single model and a few equations discovered by a man, Bohr, who was very explicit in making sure that the science world new that his model breaks down completely when you apply it to the multi-electron level. This is reason enough to question any and all assertions that come from the field of quantum mechanics.

[Open for Business!]

Pretty cool!

I have only recently heard of SpaceX and am really excited about their success. Another company that I have been following relatively closely is XCOR Aerospace. Bill Whittle at PJTV did a piece on them a little over a month ago:

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with...ne_Before/2187/

[Legal recourse for uninsured victim of a car wreck?]

Thanks for the replies.

[The John Galt Effect]

Bravissimo!

[Legal recourse for uninsured victim of a car wreck?]

On the way to my car this morning, I was welcomed by a crushed rear passenger door. There was no one around to admit to causing the damage, and no note containing their information. Needless to say, I was furious. That fury has only now become mild annoyance.

At any rate, my situation got me thinking about laws concerning accident insurance/liability. Because it is the law (Texas), I have insurance. And my insurance company would be happy to fix the damage, as long as I pay a $500 deductible. Fine, those were the terms of the contract I signed. The problem is, I can't afford a $500 deductible, and because my car is fully functional, I won't be getting it fixed. This made me realize something I had never thought about before: Every month, I shell out the dough for something that, when it is needed, I can't even afford to use. Then, I asked myself, why don't you cancel it? Oh yeah! Because I am required by law to have it.

But let's say I did cancel my insurance. In the event of an accident, one in which I am the proven victim and a police report is filed that the other person involved is at-fault, do I have any legal recourse? Or does the fact that I am without insurance mean that I am responsible for all repairs to my car, even if I am the victim? Is it possible that not having insurance would be enough to absolve someone from having to take responsibility for their actions? It sounds totally ridiculous, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Thanks for any input on this matter.

[Prelude to civil war]

This is kind of funny in a sad sort of way. I mean when was the last time that two politicians had a "serious discussion of the intellectual issues" on anything.

Every time a politician opens his cake-hole the only thing that is coming out is pre-packaged, programmed and spun doctrine of their political party.

The sadder part is that most people would not listen to an honest debate because they too have been fed the same talking points.

Politics as a profession is a shadow of what it was when our countries were created and honest men engaged in the exchange of ideas based on principle and the statesman's lot was considered honourable.

There is a recent book that deals with how this came about. If you're interested, here a link to some info: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Birth...5312874/?itm=25

It will be my next read, after "1776" by David McCullough.

[Honesty in advertising]

When it comes to advertising, it is in the advertiser's best interest to be honest and to not misrepresent. Lying and misrepresentation is only profitable in the short-term, but devastating to a business in the long-term. If a particular company claims its toothpaste whitens teeth knowing full well that it doesn't, in the short-term they will see a boost in sales. In the long-term, they will see sharp declines in sales, which could lead to bankruptcy, because the product doesn't do that which was advertised and the company eventually loses all credibility (think late night "if this product was at the last supper, it would be Jesus" infomercials).

Incentive to lie and misrepresent only exists to an extremely short-sighted person. But, being that they are extremely short-sighted and extremely short-sighted people have a particularly hard time with becoming successful in any field of business, it's not likely that you'll ever see an advertisement by one of them.

[HECC passed the House Health Care Reform Bill last night]

Thanks, Craig.

[HECC passed the House Health Care Reform Bill last night]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/31/h...s_n_249150.html

House Health Bill Clears Last Committee Before Floor Vote, Recess

After nearly two weeks of delays, a health care bill passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee late Friday night, setting the stage for a full floor vote in the lower chamber -- but not for more than a month, as the House will be on vacation until Sept. 8.

The committee passed its reform bill 31 to 28, with five Democrats joining every Republican in voting no. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders said at a press conference earlier Friday that they will spend much of their August recess working to reconcile the Energy and Commerce bill with the stronger bills passed by the Ways and Means and Education and Labor committees on July 17.

The HECC was the last committee needed to pass the bill, and they rushed it through before recess. Now, very literally, the only thing to do on September 8th is enact it into law.

My only hope is that 5 weeks is long enough for the public to learn enough about this bill to become angry. Already, more people than I could have imagined are realizing what this bill really means. Let's hope the trend continues throughout the recess.

[Hello. I am Peter Keating.]

Thanks.

[Hello. I am Peter Keating.]

I think that you are being dishonest; that is to say, that you made all this up to try to get someone to congratulate you for being honest, while you are in fact lying.

If that's what I wanted, why wouldn't I leave out the part where I said that it would be bullshit to congratulate me for being honest?

It's the truth. I could have opened a blog or a livejournal or any number of different accounts so as to vent my frustration, and I've thought about doing that on many an occasion. But, somehow, it feels better to say this kind of thing to someone who will know exactly what I mean, even if that person couldn't give two rat's asses about me.

[Hello. I am Peter Keating.]

I've been registered here for a little while but never properly introduced myself. Here, I am going to introduce myself in a manner I've never done before: by telling you about myself.

I heard of Ayn Rand's novels when I was young, but only began reading them last year. The first of her novels that I read was "The Fountainhead". The reason I read it is because I enjoyed pretending to be some well-versed intellectual, and because I enjoyed having something to talk about that would make me seem smart because most people haven't read her novels. I then read "Atlas Shrugged". I agreed entirely with the message of these books, I didn't yet see how it applied to me. It wasn't until I began reading "For The New Intellectual" two days ago that it happened. In the section on "The Fountainhead", I reread Howard Roark's speech to Gail Wynand about Peter Keating, king of the second-handers, for the first time since I read the book last Fall. Howard Roark was talking about me.

I am in my mid-20s. I am very intelligent and very knowledgeable, but I am not wise and am often quite hypocritical. I enjoy reading. I enjoy good conversation. I act on impulse most often, and must force myself, against great resistance, to act on reason. I lie often. I work a job I hate to put myself through a degree that I think I'll enjoy doing for the rest of my life, but I'm not completely sure. I'm vain. I'm superficial. I force my personality on people, constantly trying to prove that I am smart. I annoy and drive everyone away because I am so damn pretentious. I'm an engineering student. I feel better about myself when someone finds me physically attractive because of "good looks" than when I actually achieve something through effort. I don't know if that last bit is true because I hardly ever achieve anything because I'm lazy and I procrastinate, and when I do achieve something, I find it far less enjoyable if there is no one there to see it. I get by in life not by cheating or taking credit for other people's effort, but because things have always come easily to me, be they tests of physical or mental strength. An obvious consequence of this last bit is that I operate at nowhere near my potential. A little less obvious is that I'm growing more and more afraid to actually try because I don't want to learn how much of my potential I've killed through inactivity and under-utilization of my mind. It goes without saying that I seek people's approval so that I may validate my worth. As you can imagine, I'm depressed all of the time because of this. I know that the way to stop being this person is to keep in mind the things I have learned from Objectivism, and use all the will power I have to be a moral, productive human being, but I am so unsure of myself that even though I know this is the answer I still want someone to tell me it is the answer and that "I CAN DO IT! ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TRY!"

I do not expect your sympathy and your guidance, but I want them, and it makes me feel pathetic. A small part of me is wanting to be praised for being "brave enough to be honest." But I know that's bullshit.

This is the most honest I've been since I can remember. What the hell am I hoping to accomplish here? I have no idea, but it feels good to be so brutally honest about myself.

I am Peter Keating. (Wasn't that clever?)

[Music and Movie Piracy]

I thank you folks, especially Dave.

[Music and Movie Piracy]

I was recently talking to a friend, trying to convince him that piracy is wrong, when he hit me with something that I haven't been able to argue. He was downloading some movie, and I asked "How can you reconcile piracy with Objectivism?" He replied, "Rights shouldn't always be protected. I do not acknowledged the rights of socialist governments, or any non-capitalistic government for that matter (dictatorships, communism, etc). The 'Big Four' companies in the movie industry have used government coercion to usurp control of the market. And, just as I have no problem with relieving a criminal of his rights when he fails to recognize the rights of others, so too I have no qualms with relieving arbitrarily established monopolies of their rights."

And I'm spent. The only argument I've been able to make is that, if this is his reasoning, he shouldn't be downloading the movie he is, because it happens to be a movie that is produced by Magnolia Pictures, a holding of 2929 Entertainment, which is owned by two men who made their fortune during the dot-com bubble when they sold their website, which they built from the ground-up, to Yahoo. He agreed to this, and admitted that he should have looked into the producer and distributor of this movie to decide if it was consistent with his argument. But that's all I have.

Does he have a point? It's so hard for me to believe because I have told myself for years that all forms of piracy are wrong because the owner of a particular product has the rights to it's distribution. But, I never thought to question whether or not the rights of the companies should be respected. To be honest, it is sympathy for the "artists" that gets me to buy their music, which isn't a good mindset to have. After all, if someone associates with criminals, even unknowingly, their life is still their own, and there is no reason to have sympathy for them. They are still accomplices.

Your thoughts?