Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

PRODOS

Regulars
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PRODOS

  1. Good evening AristotleJones. Thanks for your comments. Let me share with you the following … In section 10.2 of the TEW book Lewis Little notes: I don’t believe conventional theories are able to explain this. In contrast, the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is able to offer an explanation. One that is not based on fields and one which involves no nonlocality, thus meeting an essential criteria of objective/realist theories - a criteria which other electromagnetism theories lack. Such an advantage however does not of course, in and of itself, prove that TEW is correct. As far as I know, no distinguishing experiment with a distinguishing prediction has been offered by Lewis Little at this point in time. Whether or not such an experiment gets offered at some future date, either by Dr Little or some other scientist, I don’t know. I note that Lewis Little does write about many, many problems/anomalies with existing standard quantum and classical theories - especially their frequent departure from the rules of objectivity. Of course, criticism of other theories and interpretations - even if valid - are not in themselves proof of TEW's validity. If by “arbitrary” is meant this: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html … then I don’t believe Lewis Little’s theory or any of its aspects can rightly be termed “arbitrary”. Not even the “speculative” idea of the “vecton” fits into my understanding of “arbitrary”. Regarding the “explanatory power” of the Theory of Elementary Waves I consider it impressive because the same postulated entities which the TEW introduces – not arbitrarily, but through inference and induction - in order to account for a wide variety of quantum mechanical observations are ALSO able to account for special relativity phenomena AND offer a promising explanation for various classical electromagnetic phenomena which have been described by conventional theories but never explained. I know of no other theory whose explanatory power has such scope or effectiveness. The “rejection” of field theories by TEW is not a rejection of the utility of their equations. And the same holds true of the equations of quantum mechanics. I agree we should not reject field theories without sufficient reason. It is not correct that the TEW “is without a demonstrable observational foundation”. Many of the “conventional theories” you refer to are not in fact explanations. They consist of useful – indeed, magnificent - models and equations, but they don’t, in my view, meet the criteria of a physical theory or physical explanation. Notwithstanding the merits or deficiencies of the Theory of Elementary Waves, classical electric fields, magnetic fields, and gravitational fields do contradict locality and physicality. It’s not necessary to study or like or know anything at all about TEW to recognize the deficiencies of field theories as physical accounts of the physical world. Indeed! Sure. Thanks. Best Wishes, Prodos
  2. Greetings. Lewis Little has been very busy lately, so I haven’t found the opportunity to forward him your questions yet. (on top of which I was “busy” myself, being ill for a couple of weeks) For now, therefore, I offer my own humble understanding in response to some of your questions. In chapter 10 LL states: "Simply by applying the principle that behavior is necessarily behavior of something, and by remembering the principles of TEW, the correct theory of magnetism falls into place almost effortlessly." I understand from this that the postulating of “vectons” is merely an attempt to apply the “principles of TEW” – as established earlier in the book - to electromagnetism, the behavior of electric currents and fields, and magnetic fields. LL speaks of “the correct theory”. From the viewpoint of TEW, the classical conceptions of fields - whether gravitational, electrical, or magnetic - are rejected. Classical fields are treated by the TEW approach in a manner similar to the way quantum theory’s formalisms and quantum nonlocality are treated. Harsh words indeed! Here’s how I see it, and it’s probably not the way Lewis Little sees it: I treat TEW (and other theories) as “projects”. The TEW project centers on attempting to provide a strictly local, strictly deterministic, strictly physical interpretation of all physical phenomena. At a narrower level, the TEW project sets out to re-examine the results of key experiments and the predictions of key equations and formalisms and apply a methodology which preserves locality, identity, cause-and-effect, non-contradiction at every step. The TEW approach also preserves special relativity at every point of its methodology, since special relativity is considered by TEW to be well-founded. Is there any “observational evidence” for vectons? What about for Lewis Little’s reciprocal elementary waves? I would answer: There is sufficient evidence to make these TEW notions worth studying further. And that these TEW notions have sufficient explanatory power in themselves AND in comparison to other theories to make them worth studying further. But that doesn’t mean they’ve been proven. As far as I know, the Theory of Elementary Waves has not predicted any new observations or offered any new experiments which would distinguish it from other current interpretations. There are no such predictions or experiments offered in the TEW book. I raised this question in my November 2008 interview with Lewis Little which can be heard to downloaded @ http://tewlip.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11 I’ve been familiar with the TEW for a few years, and only first learned of the vecton approach at the time of reading LL’s book - and was quite taken aback by it. Especially in section 10.4 where Lewis Little discusses moving electric currents, how they create the magnetic force, why the magnetic force acts in the direction that it does in relation to the direction of the electrical force, and most astounding of all in my view, the way relativity theory come into the explanation. I see what you mean. But the term “push” is not a redundancy in this case. It’s needed in order to distinguish “pushing” from “pulling”. Because electric fields and magnetic fields can sometimes push away (the way like charges repel) and sometimes pull in (the way opposite charges attract) it’s necessary to speak of a “push vector” to indicate the direction of the effect. Did he really say that? I’m not doubting you, but I would like to know more about any such view by Einstein if you (or anyone else) happen to have a reference. Just my curiosity.
  3. Good afternoon. I do appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration, however if there's anything specific you want to ask about any aspect of TEW, please let me know. It will be my pleasure to assist as best I can. Direct email is probably best: [email protected] (But please make the subject line clear so my spam-filter-on-steroids doesn't accidentally trash your email) You don't need to buy the book and you don't need to be a member of the TEWLIP forum. Your questions, comments, and criticisms are most welcome.
  4. Good evening Arisotle, Actually, I did PM you the thumbnail sketch. Twice. On March 31 and re-sent it to you via PM on April 05. Here's a copy ... Bye for now.
  5. Good evening. softwareNerd ... Your post sets up a false dichotomy between dogmatism and skepticism and campaigns for the former. Very amusing. But you've misrepresented my argument. Why have you done that? softwareNerd Secondly, it is fine to take all concrete instances of X shunning Y and classify them as a single concept of "shun". However, it is wrong to assume that all concretes under such a concept are good or bad. That would be like saying: that dog is dangerous, therefore all dogs are dangerous. Since I didn’t make either the generalization you refer to, nor the assumption which you have improperly assumed I made, your chain of logic and therefore your conclusion does not apply to what I wrote. If it did apply you would have made a good point. But alas, no. softwareNerd The other mistake you make in your post is an argument that goes like this: since TTN and others made some arguments that are invalid (your claim), that somehow weakens their argument that one ought not associate with crack-pot theories. No, I didn’t say that nor do I mean that. What’s with all the straw men? softwareNerd As for amateurs and niche theories, they are fine. How can any Objectivist claim otherwise without obvious contradiction? However, any layman who wants to get deeper into economics would do well to read Keynes or something sympathetic to Keynes. I don’t grasp your meaning. Could you please elaborate? I mean, the bit about Keynes. softwareNerd Regardless of those, to me, the bottom-line is this: if TEW and his supporters claim that his theory has nothing to do with Objectivism, well and good. Hang on a sec. A statement such as: “TEW does not claim to be an Objectivist theory of physics” is significantly different in meaning from your: “TEW has nothing to do with Objectivism”. Do you understand the difference? And you really must tell everyone here at ObjectivsmOnline.net what you think of David Harriman's statement: "we must fight for Objectivism as the foundation of physics". Pretty please. softwareNerd This thread, and ones like it in other forums, won't dissuade a really curious person who wishes to pursue the field in more depth. I like curious people. They make damn fine Objectivists. softwareNerd It simply makes explicit to the newcomer that Objectivists -- as such -- do not agree with TEW... and that's something you agree with. “It simply” does that? How innocent and pure you make it all sound. What about the elephant in the room? Any comments on that? Grames I did study it, up until the point I grasped that any reverse wave theory contradicted the results of the Aspect experiment. I can understand why you would believe that. However, my study of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) experiments – including the Double Delayed Choice version - lead me to the conclusion that they do not and can not rule out the TEW. (PM me if you’d like further notes or just email me directly: [email protected] ) Grames It doesn't take a PhD to make it that far, so I have my doubts about what the PhD's that can't even reach that conclusion are really up to. I don’t understand what you mean. Your sentence structure has an awkwardness about it which makes it hard to follow. My impression is that you seem to be attempting to communicate something through innuendo. Grames Objectivism comes into this in the following fashion: once one understands a particular idea is false, it is immoral to continue to act as though it were true. I understand you to be saying something like this (to use my personal example): “If I understand how contradictory, wrong, and destructive ideas such as nonlocality in fact are, it would be immoral for me to act as if such ideas are true. Others – whether because they are wrong, dumb, dishonest, or evasive – may object to my position and even rail against it, but to deny what I know, what I understand, would be a grotesque act of immorality.” If that is what you mean, I couldn’t agree more! Grames It becomes difficult to continue to associate with those who do not yet grasp their mistake, even if they are not immoral. If I think you’re dead wrong about something which is important to me, I agree that there is indeed the potential for awkwardness between us. And this awkwardness and frustration may even reach a point where I decide I don’t want to continue communicating with you because you seem arrogant or unwilling to learn. Or even because it’s just too much effort. But there are many other possible paths.. For instance . . . Not that long ago a fellow who believed I was quite wrong about an idea which he held dear and had as a consequence cut off ties with me for several years, phoned to apologize and tell me that I had been right after all and would now like to meet up for a coffee, if that was okay. I certainly didn’t expect that! I can also recall several examples over the years where I have been quite wrong, but a patient (well, most of the time) friend has been willing to go over the issue with me repeatedly. Finally I “got it”. Another example (which makes me chuckle as I type) was a friend whom I was thoroughly convinced was wrong. So wrong! As I tried for the nth time to convince him of his errors I realized that it was HE who was right and that it was ME who had been wrong all along!! Quite funny. That certainly taught me a valuable lesson. And I’m now very happy to have the opportunity to share it with you. Prodos Study everything. DavidOdden Up to a point. It does not take much study to understand why communism is false and not deserving of further study. Are you saying, with your example, that there is no context within which it would be worthwhile to study Communism today? That there is nothing more to be gained by studying Communism? Would you include all strands of Communist ideology as well as the history of Communism’s implementation and promotion in your assertion? I sincerely hope you’re not saying any of these things, and that I have mistaken your meaning. I would appreciate your clarification please. Especially since I have myself been studying many aspects of Communist ideology and its offshoots over the last 6 months and have enriched my understanding considerably - even though I'm an ex-Commie who thought he knew a fair bit alredy. Nazi aesthetics is another very interesting field. And Kant, since the posthumous publication of some of his notes. My statement "study everything" is probably better understood as an attitude or inclination. Of course, you're right when you reply "up to a point". We can't really, literally study everything. Anyway, try one of my "Capitalist Crosswords": http://discovercapitalism.com/capitalistcrossword/ (There are more, but I haven't uploaded them yet. If you want the answer page just email me.) DavidOdden A prima facie case for TEW must first be made: Who would you suggest as the arbiter of what would qualify as such a “prima facie case”? To whom would such a case be presented? DavidOdden Objectivism does not grant credibility to arbitrary claims. Are you saying that TEW is based on “arbitrary claims”? If so, could you name a couple please? I’d like to evaluate how you determine such things. And I'd like to check how your standard of evaluation would work on non-TEW theories. DavidOdden The correct principle is "Study everything for which there is evidence of truth". Well ... I get your gist ... but your formulation doesn't quite work for me. I'll have to think further on this. DavidOdden The burden then is on a proponent of TEW to re-establish factual credibility. To RE-establish? That wording seems to suggest that it once had “factual credibility” but lost it. Or perhaps you personally once felt the theory may have had promise but are now convinced that it doesn’t. Would one of the conditions for achieving the “factual credibility” you refer to be that TEW abandon locality? I hope not. I’m rather fond of the Law of Identity, Cause-and-Effect, and all that stuff. I’d kinda miss them if they left. And would you mind too much if TEW preserved locality yet were still able to derive all the basic equations AND account for the results of known experiments and measured phenomena (Double Slit, EPR, speed of light, etc.)? That wouldn’t put you off too much now, would it? Oh and one more thing. Please pass this around: Anyone who disagrees with me is an evading, dishonest, you-know-what who should be shunned (yes, shunned!) if not drummed out of town. Oh, and if you do disagree with me (i.e. you are wrong) either now or in the future could you please not let people know you are an Objectivist? (Oh, oh ... I think I hear softwareNerd creeping up behind me with one of those devasting(ly funny) false dichotomy thingies he does!!) Oh god! It's 1 am! I can't sit here chatting with you guys all night! Bye bye.
  6. Good afternoon. Interesting analogy. Without in any way suggesting that Travis would necessarily agree with softwareNerd’s analogy, let me think this through a bit . . . I’m an Objectivist. I believe the earth is flat. But actually the earth is not flat, is it? Nevertheless, I really, really believe it is. I talk to you – a fellow Objectivist - about my theory, and convince you that it has some merit. Perhaps you are enthused about my theory, perhaps you are intrigued or curious, perhaps you are not quite convinced but you like my approach for some reason. Perhaps the appeal of my theory is that it claims to demolish views widely held by “Modern Geologists”, many of whom advocate The Profound Pickled Onion Theory of the Earth. That the earth is in fact a friggin pickled onion. But actually the earth is not a pickled onion, is it? Nevertheless “they” really believe it is. Or maybe they believe it might as well be a pickled onion, since so much can be delineated, mapped out, calculated accurately using this theory. “Hey! It ‘works’ man! So get off our case!” (By the way, don’t get me wrong now, because I really like pickled onions. Furthermore let’s keep in mind there may be many different versions of the Profound Pickled Onion Theory which develop over time. Such a theory would surely be rich with possibilities! The flavors, the sizes, the colors, and what have you. I can even imagine an extra weird development evolving over time which becomes knows as ... the Boisterous Baked Bean Theory of the Earth which seeks to rectify some of the deficiencies which are gradually becoming apparent in Standard Pickled Onion Theories. “You have chosen the wrong vegetable, you fools!” ... but beans aren’t vegetables, are they? Not sure. Anyway ...) Perhaps my Fabulous Flat Earth Theory (that’s what I’ve decided to call it) mounts a strong offense against the patent absurdities of the prevailing PickledHead Orthodoxy. I set up the PRODOS Fabulous Flat Earth forum (FabFlat – not to be confused with FlabFat). You join. We talk. Other Objectivists also join, talk, and have a merry ol’ time. Meanwhile, non-Objectivists, potential Objectivists, and those HOSTILE to Objectivism see us engaging with great gusto, treating this patently absurd idea seriously. We FabFlatters – although misguided and astoundingly silly in the realm of Geology – understand that there is no such thing as an Objectivist Theory of Geology. Some of us do happen to be Geologists, but that really doesn’t help much. Let’s face it, only stupid and/or dishonest Geologists would ever support a Flat Earth Theory, right? Haha, right! Anyway, we make it clear that we are in no way presenting this as an Objectivist Theory of Geology. (Aside: Oddly, a prominent Objectivist who becomes utterly appalled at our rampant silliness resigns one day, taking us all quite by surprise when he declares “We must all fight for Objectivism as the basis of Geology, but this is not the way to go about it you silly, silly people!!”) Despite our disclaimers, it is an inescapable fact that many of us over here at FabFlat are indeed, yes, Objectivists. What proportion? Who knows? The point is, there are enough of us there to make this issue statistically significant! It is a bad day for Objectivism! How will anyone ever take the greatest philosophy ever created seriously while the likes of those FabFlatters are making a mockery of Geological Truth! What Objectivism needs – if humanity is to have any hope of surviving – is lots of non-silly people. Fewer sillies and more non-sillies. There’s nothing too difficult about grasping that, surely! (I need to stop talking about Pickled Onions and Baked Beans very soon, because it’s making me hungry and dinner is two hours away.) So what have we ended up with? We have a large number of Establishment Geologists who believe in some version of the Profound Pickled Onion Theory. We have a smaller but significant number who support a Boisterous Baked Bean Theory. We have some Objectivists who advocate or are interested in exploring the Fabulous Flat Earth Theory. Has anyone been left out? Well, what about those Objectivists who are Geologists AND who support the CORRECT theory? The correct theory being what? That the earth is sort of spherical? Right? Wrong. When we step away from the above fanciful excursion we find that there is no such theory. The shape of the earth as an overall mass is no longer in the realm of speculation or theorizing. It is no longer an unknown phenomenon seeking description. Once upon a time it was. But now we can reliably map out, measure, photograph, and traverse this splendid planet. We can check its shape moment by moment. I will also add that by way of poetic license I’ve referred to Flat Earth and Pickled Onion, etc. as “theories”. I don't believe this is a correct use of the scientific term, "theory". On a historical note, I’d like to mention that the belief that people believed in the myth of a flat earth is itself a myth. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html … with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters … the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans … Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. For those concerned about the reputation of Objectivism, I have over the last few years been studying the writings of those who are hostile to Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Objectivists and have also spoken with many of these hostiles. One of the most common complaints they have – and it does have some merit – concerns excessive resort to what I call “The Shun”. Just the other day a good and valued friend of mine, an Objectivist, informed me he was going to Shun someone for some reason which made sense to him. It’s not a good way to go my friends. A few months ago, prior to the American 2008 election, I came across a most tragic and extreme example of The Shun. Perhaps you did too. It was when Dr Peikoff, from whom I have learned so much - as I’m sure all serious students of Objectivism have – referred in one of his podcasts to the four candidates as “sub-huimans”. But getting back to Flat/Pickled/Baked earth "theories". It's okay to study and discuss a variety of theories in Physics. You don't have to be a Physicist to do that. As Objectivists we are especially well equipped to enter new frontiers, new areas of knowledge. When I prepare for interviews for my podcast shows I ALWAYS talk with people who are SMARTER than me. People who know mountains more than I do in some particular field. I'm curious, I contact them, I learn what I can about their work and their ideas, then I plunge in and try to learn a lot more. It's a wonderful experience. I have a great advantage as an Objectivist because my philosophy constantly reminds me to never take on beliefs that I can't verify. And to never act as if I know more than I do. To never proceed on a course of action with greater enthusiasm than is warranted. (That's a particularly difficult one for me however.) It's not that unusual for highly knowledgeable individuals to be very cautious and skeptical about amateurs and dilettante. There is no doubt that Travis, for instance, is extremely knowledgeable in his field, and passionate about it too! I see that he often mentions Bohm's work and ideas. Great! We non-physicists should definitely get acquainted with Bohm. I was reading some of his writings this morning in fact, and was most impressed by much of what I read. Should you also study Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves? It doesn't matter. There is a more important issue here. Study everything. Plunge in. Learn, ask, listen, look, reflect, challenge, invent. You're an Objectivist! Give us a big smile now luv.
  7. Greetings. The following questions are based only on Travis Norsen’s post @ http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=208158 Could Travis clarify: In what sense does he mean and/or not mean that Physics Essays is a “fringe journal”? For instance does he mean that: It is not taken seriously by reputable, knowledgeable, trained physicists? Or ... It is a serious and reputable journal but highly specialized or esoteric? Or ... That it specializes – perhaps as a matter of policy - in highly non-mainstream, even controversial physics theories and/or research? Or ... Something else? I understand Travis’s reference to “the behavior of Little and his supporters” to mean that he felt the conduct of Lewis Little and his supporters (those who were to some extent sympathetic or favorable towards the value or validity of TEW) was problematic in some way. Is that the meaning intended? If so, am I included in this criticism? i.e. Does Travis believe that my behavior was, in his view, problematic or unacceptable in some way? Does he feel, for instance, that I was unfair or disrespectful towards him or biased or prejudicial against him? If so, could he please elaborate? Could Travis indicate which public debates he is referring to? Is he referring entirely to online debates, discussions, forums, lists? Is he referring entirely to public debates at online forums to which he was registered (and could therefore submit posts and replies)? Of the online forums which have discussed and debated TEW, the one I know well is the YahooGroups TEWLIP forum/list which I set up in March 2000 and for which I was moderator between March 2000 and February 2004 Is that forum included in Travis's statement? Did he feel that he was treated badly or unfairly in some way when he was on that forum? For instance, that he was misrepresented or subjected to ad hominem attacks or publicly accused of behavior and/or motivations for which there was no evidence? Was his character, credibility, or reputation impugned publicly? Did he feel that the tone of discussion was "anti-intellectual"? Or intellectually sloppy? Emotionalistic? The other online “venues” of which I am aware and which discussed or debated TEW to some degree were the Harry Binswanger List (HBL) and a forum or list connected with the (now defunct) ObjectiveScience.com site. Could Travis elaborate further on this please? In particular, is he saying that Lewis Little has mentioned or described himself as an Objectivist on those occasions when presenting his theory or discussing physics or science? Has he at any time, to Travis’s knowledge, suggested that his theory is an “Objectivist theory of physics” of some sort? If so, was this done on an online forum or list? If so, could Travis indicate to the best of his knowledge on which? I know that Lewis Little did not ever mentioned whether or not he is an Objectivist on my YahooGroups TEWLIP list. Indeed my policy as moderator of that list was that, unless there was some very clear reason to do so, the terms “Ayn Rand”, “Objectivism”, and “Objectivist” could not be mentioned. Furthermore I stated on TEWLIP: “TEWLIP is not an Objectivist list and does not present TEW as an ‘Objectivist Physics’ “. I am happy to provide further details on any of this. The only occasion when a post was allowed through which did mention and seek to promote Ayn Rand and Objectivism was a post submitted by David Harriman on the occasion of his resignation from TEWLIP. In that post David Harriman stated that “we must fight for Objectivism as the foundation of physics” – which I subsequently criticized as being an improper goal. Thanks. Best Wishes, PRODOS
×
×
  • Create New...