Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

nanite1018

Regulars
  • Content Count

    365
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by nanite1018

  1. I've heard it estimated, at the extreme edge (assuming no Alzheimer's and that) at maybe 1000 years. Then you'd have to start deleting things or expand your memory or something. As for Grames' arguments, I understand them, but I don't think they are particularly important. Living longer is a value only if I value my life - that is, if I am enjoying living it. I could be fitness crazy and eat only 1200 calories a day because that seems to prolong lifespan in animals by 30-50%, but I don't want to do that because it isn't worth it. But other than that, striving for prolonged life is clearly a
  2. I don't see why. Guy killed a bunch of innocent people because he was crazy/consistently religious (which are basically the same thing). He despised Western civilization as such, and everything that comes with it, and he killed thousands as one battle in his war on civilization. He was one of the most vile and evil human beings on the face of the Earth. He shouldn't have been killed and buried at sea, he should have gotten a lot worse (and publicly too, so everyone can see what happens to evil mass murderers). The destruction of evil is the defense of the good, the defense of the good is part
  3. I personally think its very sad that we "buried" him at sea. He should have been placed on display at the WTC. At least put his head on a pike or something, it's not like he doesn't deserve it (somewhat joking). His body should have been displayed, both to eliminate conspiracy rumors and to piss off his friends. If only it had been 9 years ago, it would have sent a stronger message. Now its more like "well you were going to get him eventually, I mean come on". Oh well, least he's dead, and he got shot in the face by Navy SEALs rather than of old age or a drone attack. You've gotta think tha
  4. same here, CapitalistSwine. I think Johnson is more electable, more appealing to your average person, etc. but that Ron Paul is more principled, consistent, and would be less willing to compromise when dismantling the welfare/warfare state. I think Johnson might really have a chance to win, if Paul wasn't in the race. I think Paul has at least as good a chance as Johnson in getting the nomination (due to his huge backing from the last election, and being the Father of the Tea Party). Both of them, running against each other? I think each will be the other's spoiler. Here's hoping one of them d
  5. I saw the movie last night, and again today. Last night, I thought it was just alright to goodish, and today I thought it was great. I think a lot of the difference in my interpretation was that yesterday the theater was packed full and hot, and today it seemed like the AC worked better and I had room to spread out a bit and really relax when watching it. Go figure. I think the acting was quite good all around, though the Rearden family deserves commendation for pretty much nailing it on every single point. Schilling's presentation of Dagny was really good I thought, though not quite as spo
  6. A war with a civilization from another star system is pretty absurd, at least so long as we are confined to our lil' ole planet. Major civilization stretching across hundreds or thousands of light-years? Yeah. One backwater planet? I think not. After all, there are better places to go for resources that Earth. The Main Asteroid Belt, for example. The various moons of the outer solar system. The atmospheres of the gas giants. Mercury is basically a giant iron ball with a little dust on top, so if you want metals that is where you would probably want to go. Heck, even Mars would be better for
  7. I'm going to have to second (or third?) "Chocolat". It obviously isn't Objectivist, but it definitely has the right sense of life. No speeches about how great being selfish is, but really shows the problems with duty-based morality vs. egoism. I think it has moved up to be one of my favorite's now (not sure how often I will want to re-watch it, but it is a really really good film). I just finished it, like ten minutes ago. Haha. Great movie. In fact, I'll go so far as to say it is probably the best movie displaying rational egoism (not politics) I've ever seen. Tony Stark does a pretty good
  8. This talk of the government being able to set up procedural rules for any but the most extreme cases (for example, if I were to want to build a nuke to detonate on my 100 million acres of property just for kicks, as that would be an extremely dangerous situation that would, at best, have to be monitored extremely closely) to be a very slippery slope indeed. If government can tell me what the traffic rules must be on my road, why can't it tell me how I have to keep my financial records? Why can't it tell me what sorts of ads I can and cannot display? Why can't it tell me what the rules must be
  9. I do not know that a parked car is in total rest in comparison with the lamppost and a nearby building. I only know that it is very very nearly at rest. It is constantly being bombarded with energy (light for example, air molecules hitting it, etc.), so I in fact do not expect it to be in absolute rest, but rather only in average rest. That is, I expect its average velocity, even over short times, to be zero.
  10. @ _wh_ I'll have to think about your spin example. It seems to run counter to everything I've encountered (every state I've ever seen for such systems collapses to where the system has a single well-defined classical-type state), but I'll look into it. As for the "particles moving in opposite directions but getting closer together, I haven't seen/heard that. Do you have a reference of some kind, a textbook say (my university's library is quite extensive). As for "zero-point energy" and "non-locality": Non-locality, as Grames has said, is simply a fact. It won't be overturned any time soo
  11. _wh_, first welcome to the forum. I am not sure what you mean by your statement that the eigenvectors are at times unphysical. I've never seen such a case in my classes. That isn't to say they can't exist, but I have never seen or heard of them. The only "non-physical" things I've ever seen are the types of paradoxes that occur with, say, Bell's inequalities, or Dr. Schroedinger's cat. Can you give me an example of what you are talking about?
  12. I would like to second Marc K.'s point here (maybe that's a first). Private roads do not imply anarchism in any way whatsoever. Having all property be private property does not threaten the continued existence of a civilized society with a prospering economy. There have been private roads before (for example England in the 1600s), or private waterways (New England in the early 1800s). Railroads are another example of a similar industry. All of them were, initially, privately owned. And from experience we know that they had two qualities that resulted: 1) Standardization- Railroads institute
  13. The point of free will is readily addressed via the search function, there are a bazillion threads on it in the Questions, Metaphysics/Epistemology, and Ethics sections (and probably a few dotted around other places too). So I won't be getting into that. You asked "Can the superiority of logic to a specific worldview be logically proven? In other words, it seems like you start with the assumption that logic is the best criterion for a good worldview. Why? You have no logical basis for doing this, it is essentially an act of faith, isn't it?" You are asking for a logical argument for why
  14. But then who checks the monopoly? I haven't made up my mind on this subject ("anarchy" a la anarcho-capitalist-types vs. a no taxes minarchist state a la Objectivism), as I find it quite complex. I think the biggest problem is that the government does not have a check on it as a whole (see America's growth in statism over the last two hundred years), and so it will tend to expand if at all possible. What is the remedy of minarchists and Objectivists for this? A vigilant populace with a good philosophy. Indeed, a society filled with people with a proper philosophy is the only real check on gove
  15. To the OP, I was (and in a way still am) in the same position. I too was a secular person ever since I was young. I love(d) science and reason, and hate(d) irrationality. I bought into the idea that reason and emotion are opposed, that I was a being split in two: a Man, and an Animal. The Man was the reasoner, the scientist, etc. The Animal was my emotions, sex, even physical activity like sports or exercise (or even being outside and enjoying it in any way). And so, ever since I was in elementary school, all the way up until my senior year of high school (I loosened up a bit my sophomore and
  16. We could definitely go back to the moon. I know several aerospace engineering students at Georgia Tech (best or second best AE department in the country), and that's what they've told me. Hell, you could probably do it using a dozen or so Falcon 9 launches. We have designs for super-heavy lift boosters, like the Sea Dragon, which could lift 550 tons to LEO, which could easily handle a massive mission to the Moon, or Mars, or many other places. There is no reason to think it impossible, or even exceedingly difficult. Honestly, if we dumped the space station and the shuttle, NASA would have more
  17. The Stanford Prison Experiment shows is that many people are cowards, that people often don't stand up for what they believe is right, etc. Not all people are susceptible to the influence of the behavior of the people around them, and these are the people of a more upstanding character than those who fall into depravity at the first excuse. The way to guard against such behavior is merely to develop a good character, and have your ethical principles understood fully and explicitly.
  18. Why can't it be the case that there is a 3N-dimensional wavefunction, which pushes all the particles around? I don't see a conceptual problem there, at least not necessarily. No one is saying it is a physical wave in space, but rather that it is a representation of a real interaction among all the particles (like a path through a 3N+1 dimensional phase space in Hamiltonian mechanics - something I'm learning about in my Classical Mechanics II course right now). As for Lorentz Aether Theory- don't knock it. It does NOT say that space or time actually contracts. What it says is that we measure
  19. Grames, I'm interested in your thoughts on Binswanger's position, which according Dr. Diana Hsieh's paper "Mind in Objectivism", is apparently a dualist one in which the mind is not physical nor extended, nor simply a different way of looking at the actions of the brain, but a fundamentally different type of stuff/thing which somehow can interact with the brain. That, to me, sounds like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, but also a lot like the position it seems that Jacob86 was trying to get across. In Binswanger's view, volition lies in this "mind" that is different than the body and which interacts
  20. The "God" of Spinoza, for example, so far as I can understand, is simply the universe, nothing more, nothing less. Some have called him a "pantheist". The only place where it is helpful, in any way, to describe the Universe or the Laws of Nature, or what-have-you as "God" is for a sort of poetical sense. This is what Einstein met in all his references to God, including his famous quip "God does not play dice with the Universe." What he meant was simply that the Universe isn't, at bottom, random in its workings, that physics cannot be fundamentally statistical in character, and he referenced
  21. Yeah, the line at the beginning is a little clunky, would have been better to say "I am the man who loves his life" or something like that. I thought the trailer looked pretty good, better then expected. I didn't notice the portrayal of Dagny as bad at all (I'm neutral), but I thought Rearden was quite well done (if perhaps a bit too happy, but I liked it nevertheless). As for Wyatt- he's a little old, but I always got the sense he was an intense sort of man in the book (so while perhaps he didn't yell in the book, I thought it sort of suited him- he did blow up his oil field after all). An
  22. I'm not against it in principle, but I would need to be able to know that it actually works: that I would have the same memories, that I would have volition, etc. That sort of thing could only come from interacting with such artificial intelligences (or uploaded natural intelligences) and seeing if they appear the same- as well as, of course, looking at the science involved. The truth is, we simply don't know if it is possible or not (I think that it probably is, but is going to tremendously difficult and we won't be able to do it for at minimum another hundred years, possibly a thousand). I h
  23. Well, no one said you would turn yourself into a machine/rock. So long as you still have a characteristically human consciousness with volition, memories, the ability to reason, etc. then you are alive still, even if all your organs have been replaced with artificial ones, or if you have somehow (don't know if its possible, but it might be one day) changed the substrate for your consciousness to something other than a biological brain. By the way, is there something ineffable about life, in your view? Like, some extra stuff that gets thrown in there somehow to distinguish living things from
  24. Well, my star-making comment was an example of the sort of thing wihch is theoretically possible (there is no reason one could not manipulate a gas cloud using a number of means from nuclear detonations to large mirror-type structures or miniature black holes generated in ultra-high energy particle accelerators, in order to cause it to collapse under gravity. For instance, one might be able to artificially ignite Jupiter using a set of infrared mirrors that could be built out of asteroidal material. It wouldn't be self-sustaining (the mirror system would have to be maintained), but one could d
  25. Well most extropians (a subset of transhumanists) are laissez-faire capitalists. I do not know much about "extropists" and I will have to look into it further. I am on the "extropy chat" mailing list, which caters to extropians, and I never heard of this extropism thing. The desire to get rid of property isn't a part of transhumanism as such. As for utopianism, except for "extropism", no yranshumanist I have ever heard of thinks that there won't be any problems in the future. Rather, like Objectivists, they think that any problem can in principle be solved by the application of reason. I t
×
×
  • Create New...