VcatoV Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 I will admit that I am not too well-versed in physics; really just a layman who has read with interest what other real physicist say. I know that a theory exists in quantum physics which states that a thing can be in two places at the same time. I was reading Isabel Paterson earlier, discussing the nature of a collectivist. What struck me was that they too must believe the same thing. Could this belief by collectivist explain why some physicist are trying to assert the irrational? Are they, in effect, trying to provide a "natural" explanation for collectivism? She stated: Two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. This is the reason why private property belongs to man as a creative being (a right both natural and divine). Individual ownership answers exactly to the conditions of physical phenomena. Public ownership is fictitious; its verbal terms do not correspond to reality, to the properties of physical objects and the conditions of time and space...Theoretically, public property belongs to everybody equally, indivisibly, and simultaneously, which is absurd...The collectivist is incapable of understanding this because his concept of the "collective" has no dimensions...The collectivist society is "planned" for a world of two dimensions, in which nothing is conceived as occupying space or causing displacement. Man is conceived to be everywhere at once and nowhere in particular, in the collective. The concept is that of a world and a society in which there is no energy, neither kinetic nor static. Italics original Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VcatoV Posted April 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 (edited) Sure, Ayn Rand eventually broke with her. But Ayn Rand also studied under her, was her intense pupil, loved her, and had a strong relationship of friendship with her for many years. Read "The Letters of Ayn Rand". edit for grammar fix Edited April 30, 2010 by VcatoV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 I will admit that I am not too well-versed in physics; really just a layman who has read with interest what other real physicist say. I know that a theory exists in quantum physics which states that a thing can be in two places at the same time. I was reading Isabel Paterson earlier, discussing the nature of a collectivist. What struck me was that they too must believe the same thing. Could this belief by collectivist explain why some physicist are trying to assert the irrational? Are they, in effect, trying to provide a "natural" explanation for collectivism? No, that is superficial. Any similarities in different examples of irrationality are due to similar methods and errors. And what is true at the quantum scale is not necessarily true at the human scale, so it would fail as a justification anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 No, that is superficial. Any similarities in different examples of irrationality are due to similar methods and errors. And what is true at the quantum scale is not necessarily true at the human scale, so it would fail as a justification anyway. Grames , could you justify this quantum scale thing a bit for me? How does one on the "human scale" make a statement about the "quantum scale" if this statement has any meaning at all? I've been wanting to address this but ,time..... What is a non-human truth? And how do you,a human come to know it?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 Grames , could you justify this quantum scale thing a bit for me? How does one on the "human scale" make a statement about the "quantum scale" if this statement has any meaning at all? I've been wanting to address this but ,time..... What is a non-human truth? And how do you,a human come to know it?? I assume Grames means on the classical physics scale, the macro-level. Quantum weirdness occurs at the sub-atomic level and has no visible effects on what we actually perceive. How one actually comes to proper inductions of the unobservable level of matter is a topic too complex for this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 I assume Grames means on the classical physics scale, the macro-level. Quantum weirdness occurs at the sub-atomic level and has no visible effects on what we actually perceive. How one actually comes to proper inductions of the unobservable level of matter is a topic too complex for this post. True it's beyond this thread. But yes your restatement is what I'm challenging/questioning.I hear it all the time and I question it's philosophical soundness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 True it's beyond this thread. But yes your restatement is what I'm challenging/questioning.I hear it all the time and I question it's philosophical soundness. What do you find wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 Grames , could you justify this quantum scale thing a bit for me? How does one on the "human scale" make a statement about the "quantum scale" if this statement has any meaning at all? I've been wanting to address this but ,time..... What is a non-human truth? And how do you,a human come to know it?? Non-human truth has no meaning, but you get from the human scale to the quantum scale with a long series of refinements in instrumentation, conceptual extensions of knowledge and powers of inference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VcatoV Posted April 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 No, that is superficial. Any similarities in different examples of irrationality are due to similar methods and errors. And what is true at the quantum scale is not necessarily true at the human scale, so it would fail as a justification anyway. Oh-but I think you hit on exactly what I wanted to talk about. Similar methods and errors. Is there some kind of deeper epistemological error at work here that causes different Collectivist to each draw the same incorrect conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 Oh-but I think you hit on exactly what I wanted to talk about. Similar methods and errors. Is there some kind of deeper epistemological error at work here that causes different Collectivist to each draw the same incorrect conclusion? I don't know what or who you are referring among quantum physicists, or whether what they say is actually a mistake or not. There is no reason two photons could not be in the same place at the same time, but two electrons would repel each other due to their electric charge. Small Bose-Einstein condensate's have been made in a lab, where groups of atoms are made to behave as a superposition of wavefunctions instead of particles. That has nothing to do with collectivism. But people that know nothing about physics are always eager to use it to rationalize their own pet theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted April 30, 2010 Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 refinements in instrumentation, conceptual extensions of knowledge and powers of inference. Those are all "human" processes. Ill table this for now but I think theres a false dichotomy and some equviocation going on here. But its quite common and seems to be imbedded in premises about the relationship of philosophical foundations to physics in regards to what it can and cant do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VcatoV Posted April 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2010 Ayn Rand was also close to one Nathaniel Branden, perhaps I should read "My Years with Ayn Rand"? A book written after the break? Probably not. But what about The Psychology of Self Esteem? Written while he was with her and endorsed by her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.