Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Boydstun

Patron
  • Posts

    1463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    129

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from Jim Henderson in Ballet   
    HIS BITTER EARTH (6.5 minutes)
    dancers -Alessandra Ferri and Roberto Bolle
    choreography - Christopher Wheeldon
    music - Clyde Otis (song) / Max Richter
    singer - Dinah Washington
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWrMXvZFfu0 

  2. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from Jim Henderson in Ballet   
    RIMINISCIN (7.5 min.)
    dancers - Alicia Graf Mack and Jamar Roberts
    choreographer - Judith Jamison
    song - A Case of You by Joni Mitchel
    singer - Rufus Wainwright
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrp4lCPunFE

  3. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from Jim Henderson in Ballet   
    INFRA - finale (3.3 minutes)
    dancers - Edward Watson and Marinela Nunez
    choreographer - Wayne McGregor
    music - Max Richter
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjERnGQiJfg

  4. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from Jim Henderson in Ballet   
    CARAVAGGIO

    Music: Bruno Moretti after Claudio Monteverdi
    Choreography: Mauro Bigonzetti

    Dancers: Vladimir Malakhov and Mikhail Kaniskin
    https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2963852373853645&set=a.2562699263968960
     
  5. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from Jim Henderson in Ballet   
    SWAN LAKE -Tchaikovsky
    Nureyev and Fonteyn 1966
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG7JvpPGdEU
     

  6. Like
    Boydstun reacted to StrictlyLogical in Anthem   
    Boydstun, I think in the spirit of your personally being “not purely egoist”, you might consider it important to sketch, if only in broad strokes, the bones or main structure of your ethics (which you deem are on a solid footing) in a sort of “introduction” which you might be able to expand upon if the finitude of life’s span permits, but which nonetheless represents the unwavering unshakeable base you have already formed, and upon which any remaining  more detailed formulations and expositions are to be made.  I propose a sort of ITBE (Introduction to Boystun’s Ethics) even if only in essay form, but possibly of any length or of any title, again in the spirit of how crucial the philosophy of ethics is and your being “not purely egoist”.  
  7. Like
    Boydstun reacted to MisterSwig in Existence and Similarity   
    Thank you, Stephen. That clears up a confusion I had. I need to study and think about this more before responding.
    I make a distinction now between space and location. So the space itself wouldn't be a characteristic of a particle, as the particle is always traveling through different space, never remaining in the same space. But the particle's location is relative to other objects and thus can remain a constant characteristic qua relationship to these objects by which location is measured.
    My picture of the atom is of a nucleus carrying most of the mass, and electrons rapidly zipping around the nucleus. So most of the empty space is between the nucleus and the orbits of the electrons. I've read that the electrons form a "cloud" around the nucleus, thus the space isn't mostly empty. But if this idea is based on observation, couldn't it be an optical illusion? Consider how rapidly spinning propellers on a plane appear as blurs, when in reality the propellers are not blurs. The electrons could be moving around so quickly that they merely appear as a cloud that fills the space.
  8. Thanks
    Boydstun got a reaction from dream_weaver in Existence and Similarity   
    William and Doug,
    Electromagnetic waves are not composed of electrons, but of photons. The former are fermions (which cannot be in the same state as another fermion, including particle location), whereas the latter are bosons (which can be in the same state with another boson, including particle location). E-M waves, including radio waves, are quantum waves. They can interfere which each other, as waves, and thereby degrade the ability of the carrier wave of radio broadcast to carry information. (Also, if I remember correctly, in cases of waves in matter, such as ripples on the surface of otherwise still water, interference of waves with each other [cancellation or other alteration of each other] is not essentially due to the impenetrability of molecules [fermions].)
    Of related interest: Energy Wave Theory
  9. Thanks
    Boydstun got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Existence and Similarity   
    William and Doug,
    Electromagnetic waves are not composed of electrons, but of photons. The former are fermions (which cannot be in the same state as another fermion, including particle location), whereas the latter are bosons (which can be in the same state with another boson, including particle location). E-M waves, including radio waves, are quantum waves. They can interfere which each other, as waves, and thereby degrade the ability of the carrier wave of radio broadcast to carry information. (Also, if I remember correctly, in cases of waves in matter, such as ripples on the surface of otherwise still water, interference of waves with each other [cancellation or other alteration of each other] is not essentially due to the impenetrability of molecules [fermions].)
    Of related interest: Energy Wave Theory
  10. Thanks
    Boydstun reacted to Harrison Danneskjold in The Value of Colonizing Mars   
    When discussing such radical and long-range possibilities as this I (like Elon Musk) find it much more useful to reason from known principles than what does or does not sound plausible.
    Will we ever have truly faster-than-light travel? No; according to our current understanding of physics that is impossible and not worth mentioning outside of fiction. Will Mars ever have its own proper magnetosphere? If a magnetosphere is caused by the motion of internal molten metals (which Mars appears to lack) then probably not; certainly not in the next thousand years or so. Maybe in a thousand years we will have ways of injecting such moving lava into Mars (PERHAPS) but as for our own moon that is out of the question. Can human beings survive on Mars? Certainly, if we send them with adequate food, water and oxygen (and especially if they have the means to produce these in situ, as we already know how to do) then they can live there.
    Granted, whether or not one could ever enjoy an autumn sunset on Mars as we do on Earth is debatable (not on any time frame; whether or not such atmospheric conditions could ever be created is debatable). However, if it isn't then Mars would have its own sort of seasons and its own sort of Autumn, which I would like to experience.
    Especially in power technology? The track record of artificial intelligence is much worse. We thought we'd have basically-sentient-machines many decades ago and we're currently still trying to teach them how to drive. However, even in cases where real technology has utterly failed to live up to the dreams of sci-fi authors, this does not equate to the stagnation of such technologies. We may not hit  the targets we've set and yet this doesn't mean we're hitting nothing at all.
    I assume you're familiar with AlphaGo; the AI which beat the best human Go player on Earth several years ago? Well since then there's been AlphaStar (a StarCraft-playing-AI) which also went on to beat the best human players on Earth in an incredibly hectic and fast-paced real time strategy game.
    Just because our actual progress doesn't live up to our expectations for it (and sometimes embarrassingly so) does not mean that no progress at all is being made.
    Oh, yes, there will never be a society without money; not even a communist one. That certainly is true. There will never be any truly faster-than-light travel or travel through black holes, either.
    It's interesting you mention Star Trek, though, because there are other aspects of that show (besides the Communist sympathies) which actually do stand up to proper scientific scrutiny.
    Have you heard of the Alcubierre Drive?
  11. Like
    Boydstun reacted to Eiuol in Cosmology (The Heavens, Generation and Corruption, Meteorology)   
    Even though cosmology isn't a title used normally for these works, I'm using it to convey that these works are scientific theories (by Aristotle's definition of science) about how the cosmos works.
    The Heavens translated by J. L. Stocks
    Book I
    1 - Anything divisible in 3 dimensions is divisible in all dimensions. 3 things are also what makes 'all' a relevant idea, because otherwise 2 things is simply 'both'. 
    2 - Up and down are contraries of each other, but there is no movement contrary to circular movement. Since the elements move either up or down, their contrary movements would not be circular. So, circular movement would be the natural movement of some other kind of body.
    4 - There are an infinite number of paths along a circle that pass through the same 2 points.
    5 - The body that moves in a circle is not infinite but has a limit.
    7 - The infinite cannot be acted upon or act on other things. If the lesser takes longer to act on the greater, then the lesser would need infinite time to act on the greatest. The infinite cannot interact with anything either.
    9 - Aristotle explains how there can only be one heaven, that is, there is only one world that contains everything. It's explained in the sense that the world of forms doesn't exist. The universe is a particular and material thing because it is perceivable.
    Every body within the world is perceivable. There is no body outside the world. Because of all this, there is only one world. The world already contains all that there is.
    12 - If a thing that exists for infinite time is, it at once exists and does not. If time were not definite, there would be neither a shortest nor longest time. Since it exists for infinite time, we can assume it to be actualized the entire span as destroyed. But also existing. Therefore, it is impossible for something that exists forever to be destructible.
    Book II
    1 - Heaven is unaffected by mortal discomfort and it is effortless. There is nothing to prevent it from moving according to its own nature. Because of the impossibility of a soul existing painlessly in this condition, it is not a soul that makes the heavens eternal; it is why it must be devoid of all rational satisfaction.
    2 - Aristotle says that the heaven is animate, but he just said that it has no soul? Either there is something funny with the translation or it is supposed to be about internally directed movements but not a soul per se, like those of a robot.
  12. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from MisterSwig in The Value of Colonizing Mars   
    Dealing with radiation:
    Optimal Radiation Shielding of Astronauts on a Mission to Mars
  13. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from MisterSwig in Ayn Rand Fan Club podcast   
    Gentlemen, be sure to acknowledge to yourself explicitly what you do know: you each one, just like me (much your senior), are going to die. No ifs, buts, or maybes. Totally end. Be sure to invest your life with that background as absolute and with projects consonant with your rationally expected range of end date. Indefinitely long is not what is going to happen to your duration, and at some level, hopefully explicitly, you know that. 
    You will die (and eventually even the species will die). And it can have been worthwhile, indeed entirely complete, to have lived your few or several decades of existence.
    Related, from another, recent thread:
    Life, finite life, is an end in itself.
  14. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from tadmjones in The Value of Colonizing Mars   
    SL,
    Fifty or a hundred or two hundred years from now, supposing higher animal life not wiped out by nuclear exchanges, I do not think it likely at all that the earth would not be still divided into nation states, some at war with other countries or other earthly agencies of violence or in a civil war, and some of the nations still putting up walls to keep people locked in who would otherwise migrate to countries relatively more free for them.
    During the first few years of the new century, the 21st Century, you’d hear people say things like “Can you believe this or that horrible thing is still going on in the 21st Century?” Well, yes, a lot of us are not surprised at all. It is true that scientific and technological advances in agriculture and in disease treatment and prevention are gradually making better life possible. And it looks like those advances will continue. But human nature remains basically the same, including criminal acts and wars, lust for power, and desire to be left free of aggressions. It is highly likely that wars will continue, and the world will not be united under one government in the manner of Levin’s This Perfect Day, in which all birthrates, lifespans, education and travel are centrally controlled, all lines and quantities of production and consumption are centrally dictated, and sectarianism does not exist (supposedly).
    The world is not going to become so unified in state power to command no one travel to outer space were such migration to become feasible. Leaving aside such a world-wide prohibition, I anyway don’t think at all likely that outer space locations can be colonized such that a colony can become viable independently of earth, parallel the independence Paine urged as viable for the colonies here. Moreover, the population of a space colony would bring with it the human nature, including ideological diversity, it has on earth today.
    What knowledge space exploration, manned or unmanned, brings back or arises from the R&D is power for humans on earth, and that’s potential for good here. By space exploration and otherwise, there are tremendous discoveries and inventions that are possible between our time and the great-great grandchildren. But just as computers and robots are servants of human interests, good or bad, space explorations will be servants of human interests on earth. Steps on earth are the spring and end of human “steps that travel unlimited roads.” Those unlimited roads and the freedom necessary to their actualization require ongoing wins of freedom here and there on earth, whose life forms (here) are the center of all known life and its struggles.
  15. Like
    Boydstun reacted to tadmjones in The Value of Colonizing Mars   
    I think every century is crucial in determining an 'aggregate' level of freedom on Earth.
    Post industrial revolution and with the emerging digital revolution and the technologies that come from them are what allows for more freedom to be gained and defended.
    If off planet colonization ever happens it will most likely have to come from, be seeded by , collective action. The North American colonization was precipitated by wealthy stable regimes working to exploit fertile frontiers. The societies of individuals that recognized their advantage and relative power to break away from their former regimes created the opportunity for freedom to expand.
    The amount of consumable capital that will need to be expended in developing frontiers in highly 'in'-fertile frontiers boogles the mind , no ?
  16. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from dream_weaver in Age of Electricity   
    The interviewer in the preceding is Eiuol.
  17. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from dream_weaver in Age of Electricity   
    Philosophy, Engineering - a life, a mind
    Interview of me: 
     
  18. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from Eiuol in Age of Electricity   
    The interviewer in the preceding is Eiuol.
  19. Like
    Boydstun reacted to StrictlyLogical in The Value of Colonizing Mars   
    To save mass, instead of cladding the entire ship with the idea humans should be able to run around essentially naked  everywhere inside... designate only a small percentage of ship for "relaxation" areas (where people can wear jammies and slippers) and the rest of the ship requires full protection of specially designed radiation (but not pressurized) suits.
    Of course sensitive electrical and other equipment will need proper shielding... and the greenhouse/chicken coup as well.
  20. Like
    Boydstun reacted to tadmjones in The Value of Colonizing Mars   
    I wonder if given the parameters of solar activity and its interplay with galactic radiation and the varying benefits of differences of thickness of the theoretic cladding , if there won’t be engineering in mind of interchangeable ‘cladding’ systems.
    ’Tow’ some extra cladding and apply when needed and then shed when it is more beneficial for thinner cladding. As obviously necessary as radiation protection is needed, isn’t still the largest hurdle to over come a means of food production or hauling capacity ? I think I’ve seen mentioned that radiation protection will be presumably ‘figured out and engineered’ well before the food issue.
  21. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from tadmjones in The Value of Colonizing Mars   
    Dealing with radiation:
    Optimal Radiation Shielding of Astronauts on a Mission to Mars
  22. Like
    Boydstun reacted to dream_weaver in What are you listening at the moment?   
    Vasks, Peteris:The Fruit of Silence
    Astor Piazzolla - Buenos Aires Hora Cero
  23. Like
    Boydstun reacted to Jim Henderson in What are you listening at the moment?   
    Richter
  24. Like
    Boydstun reacted to dream_weaver in Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step   
    Self-replicating with an evolutionary hint!
    Self-replicating protocells created in lab may be life's "missing link"
    “By constructing peptide droplets that proliferate with feeding on novel amino acid derivatives, we have experimentally elucidated the long-standing mystery of how prebiotic ancestors were able to proliferate and survive by selectively concentrating prebiotic chemicals,” says Matsuo. “Our results suggest that droplets became evolvable molecular aggregates – one of which became our common ancestor.”
     
  25. Like
    Boydstun got a reaction from Jonathan Weissberg in The Philosophical Origins of Existential "Death Anxiety"   
    I had said: "But as ever, one can become fully aware not only of one’s coming nonexistence, but to its place in life." I had meant it is good to become fully aware of one's coming nonexistence square on, with no ifs, buts, or maybes, no fogginess and no denials. And its place in life is only terminal point of life. Conducting one's life never shunting awareness of the coming end is a rationality in life (and tuning one's priorities in projects and relationships with one's present expectation of the termination time of one's life---some decades from now versus two months from now---is part of that rationality).
    Have you by chance read the book The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker? It's been a while since I read that, but as I recall, it's quite good.
×
×
  • Create New...