Ayn Rand's Steady-State Universe

[Cave_Dweller]

Rand's Objectivism begins with the axiom "existence exists," with reality as an objective absolute. She applies this axiom to the whole universe, stating, "The universe, as a whole, cannot have a cause, because a cause implies a prior state, and there can be no state prior to existence itself" (Philosophy: Who Needs It). Regarding the universe as subject to her axioms, especially the law of identity ("A is A") and the principle of causality, Rand implicitly considers the universe a "thing" with an identity, as with objects within it (e.g., a tree, a rock).

Rand rejects creation ex nihilo, as something cannot come into being uncaused, as this would violate causality. She holds, "The law of causality does not allow for the production of something out of nothing" (The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made). She applied this principle to the universe, holding that it cannot have come into being (as there cannot exist a "nothing" before it) nor cease from being (as being cannot convert into non-being). It follows that she holds that the universe is eternally existent per the steady-state theory of the cosmos.

If the universe is a "thing," subject to causality and law of identity, then it cannot come into being or go out of being, because all "things" have a cause for every change and must have an identity. To claim otherwise is to claim that the universe doesn't have an identity.

Since the universe cannot exist or not exist (by her axioms), it must exist as a "thing" because only "things" are subject to these laws.

Rand argues that the universe is a "thing" (by extrapolating her axioms to it) for the sake of proving that it cannot come into or go out of existence, and subsequently uses this as a foundation for claiming that the universe is a "thing" (as it fits her definition of a "thing" as something that can change materially but cannot go out of existence). It is a classic circular argument, also known as begging the question. Rand assumed what she was trying to prove.

Rand's argument for the steady-state cosmos theory is circular: she presupposed that the universe is a "thing" (with causality and identity) in order to deduce that it can't have a beginning or end, and concluded that it's a "thing" because it has these characteristics. The circularity ruins her argument for knowledge about the universe as a whole, since it lacks an independent reason for treating the universe as a "thing" to begin with.

Kant would have fun with this one.

[Doug Morris]

52 minutes ago, Cave_Dweller said:

It follows that she holds that the universe is eternally existent per the steady-state theory of the cosmos.

You seem to be assuming that our spacetime is the entire universe.

Also, since time is "in" the universe, and the universe is not "in" time, there could be a starting time of the universe and of time itself without the universe or time "coming into" existence.

1 hour ago, Cave_Dweller said:

and subsequently uses this as a foundation for claiming that the universe is a "thing" (as it fits her definition of a "thing" as something that can change materially but cannot go out of existence). It is a classic circular argument,

Please make clearer where the circularity lies.

 

[Cave_Dweller]

11 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

You seem to be assuming that our spacetime is the entire universe.

Also, since time is "in" the universe, and the universe is not "in" time, there could be a starting time of the universe and of time itself without the universe or time "coming into" existence.

Please make clearer where the circularity lies.

 

Your first comment is making my case for me. I'm speaking from Rand's apparent viewpoint on cosmology based on statements she left behind. I'm quoting her to show that her viewpoint is circular.

If Rand treated the universe as a thing, not as physics does exactly, not as a space-time continuum, but as a collection of things governed by universal laws, then the universe itself is simply a thing. Because only from this premise can I make her steady-state view of the universe work. It is not exactly steady-state, because steady-state holds that there must be continual creation to account for the expansion of the universe. Rand would never allow that. "The law of causality does not allow for the production of something out of nothing" (The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made).

If the universe is the sum-total of all things, and "The universe, as a whole, cannot have a cause, because a cause implies a prior state, and there can be no state prior to existence itself" (Philosophy: Who Needs It), then this implies that the universe, as the sum-total of all things, is a static universe that never fundamentally changes. The universe is, has been, and always will be fundamentally the same. The law of causality that applies to things ("The law of causality does not allow for the production of something out of nothing"), also applies to the universe ("the universe, as a whole, cannot have a cause, because a cause implies a prior state, and there can be no state prior to existence itself"). The universe, therefore, is a thing.

Rand used observations about things to derive principles about the universe as a whole. But those observations are only valid if the universe is already assumed to be a thing of the same type. Her conclusion about the nature of the universe (that it's eternal and unchanging) then reinforces her premises about causality.

Assuming that the universe as a whole is a thing, Rand used the causality of things around us to prove that the universe as a whole is also a thing as they are, and this thing (the universe) never comes into or goes out of existence.

[KyaryPamyu]

Welcome to the forum, Cave_Dweller

A change to my toenail also applies to myself, the owner of the toenail. So I don't see how something can apply to a thing, but not thereby to the Universe it belongs to.

And yet, that's what's being suggested here by Rand: a sum of existents that is not "born", despite being composed of existents that do undergo birth. This oddity, I think, is resolved by the idea of a "base ingredient". Think of something like snow; from snow, various existents can be born: snowmen, snowballs etc. whereas snow existed prior to them.

This idea, of a base ingredient, has existed since time immemorial and continues today in incarnations such as "mass-energy", which can only be indirectly observed through the forms it manifests in, be it wood or water or electromagnetic radiation. Why indirectly? Because this X is not a "thing" by itself, but rather what makes things exist and behave the way they do. This kind of X seems to be what Rand had in mind when she wrote: "Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist." implying a separation between "things" as such (which are created, destroyed, created anew, so on and so forth) and the indestructible underlying X. In short, Rand is not exactly reinventing the wheel here.

Unfortunately, Objectivists tend to have wildly different ideas about what the Universe even is (see this thread for example), so don't get your hopes up for a "universal" answer.

Edited March 23 by KyaryPamyu

[Cave_Dweller]

2 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Welcome to the forum, Cave_Dweller

A change to my toenail also applies to myself, the owner of the toenail. So I don't see how something can apply to a thing, but not thereby to the Universe it belongs to.

And yet, that's what's being suggested here by Rand: a sum of existents that is not "born", despite being composed of existents that do undergo birth. This oddity, I think, is resolved by the idea of a "base ingredient". Think of something like snow; from snow, various existents can be born: snowmen, snowballs etc. whereas snow existed prior to them.

This idea, of a base ingredient, has existed since time immemorial and continues today in incarnations such as "mass-energy", which can only be indirectly observed through the forms it manifests in, be it wood or water or electromagnetic radiation. Why indirectly? Because this X is not a "thing" by itself, but rather what makes things exist and behave the way they do. This kind of X seems to be what Rand had in mind when she wrote: "Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist." implying a separation between "things" as such (which are created, destroyed, created anew, so on and so forth) and the indestructible underlying X. In short, Rand is not exactly reinventing the wheel here.

Unfortunately, Objectivists tend to have wildly different ideas about what the Universe even is (see this thread for example), so don't get your hopes up for a "universal" answer.

Snowmen wouldn't exist without snow. And things in general wouldn't exist without a base ingredient which has in philosophy been called "substance," or "prime matter" (Aristotle). 

By the way, Rand was incorrect in saying that matter can't cease to exist. Matter can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into matter. So, as impermanent, neither matter nor energy can be considered substances. There has to some thing, yet not a thing per se, "deeper" than matter and energy to unite them at least conceptually. This is not a thing, but the permanent condition for thingness or objecthood.

Rand said, "The universe, as a whole, cannot have a cause, because a cause implies a prior state, and there can be no state prior to existence itself." However, every thing has a cause ("the law of causality does not allow for the production of something out of nothing"). So according to Objectivist standards, the universe is not a thing. 

Then how do we account for Rand's statement that "The law of causality does not allow for the production of something out of nothing"? If the universe is not a thing, then the law of causality does not apply to it. Is the universe a thing or is it not a thing?

This is an Objectivist paradox.

The OP of the article you linked me to tries to solve this problem by arguing that everything that exists is relationally (causally), systematically, or emergently structured. "The universe is all related. At minimum, by virtue of being physical, there is a spatial relation between all objects." However, this conflates external and internal relationships. Everything in the universe *externally* relates to one another, which is why he said they are spatially related. But this does not apply to the universe itself. All the relationships within the universe are internal to the universe, not external. The universe itself relates to nothing that we know of. And by virtue of being the universe, it cannot relate to anything outside itself. Therefore, the OP did not prove his point.

I agree that a change to your toenail is a change to yourself. But that's an internal, systematic relationship. All things in the universe have internal and external relationships. Your toenail is externally related to the chair that it smashed into, but it is internally related to your being. 

We can only know things as they are related internally and externally, but not merely by their internal relationships. The latter, if it existed as an object for our examination, would have no meaning. The universe has nothing from which to differentiate it except nothing. The universe, even when considered as a single unit, can't be differentiated from anything else. The result is not a concept, but an epistemic boundary, a limitation on thought and not a definable thing. The universe is a regulative idea just like Kant's "world." As a limit on concepts, it exists in thought only to say, "This far and no farther." It means you've reached your conceptual limit, an epistemic boundary between existents and non-existents.

Yes, this doesn't stop people from naively treating the universe as a thing, as Rand has done. But her lack of philosophical reflection led her to a further error. Not only did she treat the universe as a thing, she also treated it as a non-thing, an entity that somehow cannot be affected by the law of causality.

For Ayn Rand, Existence functions as both an axiom (foundation) and a boundary. While she explicitly treated Existence as an axiom, she demonstrated in her writing that it served the practical purpose of a boundary (or regulative idea). For example:

From Philosophy: Who Needs It, ITOE, and elsewhere) -

“Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing is not anything. It is not an entity, it is not a condition, it is not a thing. It is the absence of everything—and therefore it cannot do anything or be a cause.”

By invoking the pre-conceptual notion of Existence, Rand is, in that quote, applying it as a boundary. She believed:

1. You cannot meaningfully speak of nothing as if it is something (an existent). ("Why is there something rather than nothing?")
2. You cannot meaningfully discuss something as being the result of nothing.
3. You can't step outside of existence to ask where it came from, because you have to presuppose existence simply by asking it.

Non-existence is not an existent; it is the logical result of attempting to step outside of reality in concept. But it is not the logical result of attempting to step outside of reality *as* a concept. Non-existence, in Rand's terms, is the result of logical failure. But you wouldn't reach non-existence. The latter is merely a theoretical construct showing that you've breached one of Rand's axioms, which serve as conceptual limits. It is a semantic placeholder which serves the same function in arguments that the zero serves in mathematics. So non-existence is not a negation, it is a break down.

To treat Existence as a concept leads to the same result as treating non-existence as a concept. Treating Existence (or even universe) as a concept leads to circularity and collapse. Because Existence is the epistemic condition (axiom) for grasping that which exists, but it is never that which is itself grasped (as an object is grasped in concept). The universe is not a concept, it is a limit.

 

 

Edited March 23 by Cave_Dweller

[Doug Morris]

3 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

Your first comment is making my case for me. I'm speaking from Rand's apparent viewpoint on cosmology based on statements she left behind. I'm quoting her to show that her viewpoint is circular.

If you are implying that Rand assumed that our spacetime is the entire universe, please explain how you concluded this about Rand.  If not, please clarify.

3 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

It is not exactly steady-state, because steady-state holds that there must be continual creation to account for the expansion of the universe. Rand would never allow that. "The law of causality does not allow for the production of something out of nothing"

The continual creation that is part of the traditional steady-state theory does not have to be "the production of something out of nothing".  It is the production of something out of the already existing universe.  The already existing universe includes the fields that modern physics says exist even in "empty" space.

3 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

The universe is, has been, and always will be fundamentally the same.

The universe can always be fundamentally the same and still do a lot of changing.

   

[Doug Morris]

11 minutes ago, Cave_Dweller said:

thing

Please clarify what you mean by "thing".

 

[Cave_Dweller]

5 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

If you are implying that Rand assumed that our spacetime is the entire universe, please explain how you concluded this about Rand.  If not, please clarify.

The continual creation that is part of the traditional steady-state theory does not have to be "the production of something out of nothing".  It is the production of something out of the already existing universe.  The already existing universe includes the fields that modern physics says exist even in "empty" space.

The universe can always be fundamentally the same and still do a lot of changing.

   

Rand never spoke about spacetime. And if she did, I'm 100% certain she would've spoken about it in the negative, as a nonsensical package-deal of two otherwise valid concepts, made up by physicists to account for alleged errors in their theories. She would've considered its application by physicists as a reification and a self-confirmation theory about reality. And she would've objected to its use as an unobservable alleged fact that can never be proven empirically, that is, in reality or directly in perception. 

All that exists for Rand is measurable. She may have considered scientists' measurements to be in error, or she may have stated that they need to calibrate their instruments better. The result, to her, would've been a theory that presupposes the existence of a substance that cannot be directly measured, thus violating her rules of concept-formation.

Spacetime as a substance for physicists is a theoretical construct. It helps them understand the motions of objects. But it doesn't necessarily exist, no matter how useful it is or how many times they seem to have validated its existence via evidence.

I agree with your second paragraph. I'd used a kind of "popular mechanics" way of explaining steady-state theory.

What do you mean by "the universe"?

 

[Cave_Dweller]

11 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

Please clarify what you mean by "thing".

 

Existent. That which exists, be it a thing, an attribute, or an action. An object.

Or better yet, just "object." Because an existent for Rand includes those other two.

Edited March 23 by Cave_Dweller

[Cave_Dweller]

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Please clarify what you mean by "thing".

 

Even better, I mean whatever Rand meant by "thing" when she said, "An existent is a thing, an attribute, or an action."

Edited March 23 by Cave_Dweller

[Boydstun]

CD, welcome to OO. You are doing pretty well for a cave dweller, what with the written electronic representations and all.

Spacetime in physics (the discipline and the world) is real. The combo is as tight as the electric and the magnetic, which team we call electromagnetic. The whole range—relations to substances—concerning ontological standing of spacetime is held among physicists. E-M fields are held uniformly as in the latter ("substances"). The physics goes on fine either way, rolling back the darkness and empowering mankind, just as geometry went on fine without taken a stand on Descartes's insistence that to know geometry fully one must know its relation to God. I don't mean to pooh-pooh the question of whether spacetime is a substance. Astute reasoning about that goes on to this day in philosophy of physics, and it is wonderful for those of us for whom ontology run everywhere is in our desire for understanding.

Rand was wary of taking pervasive features within existence as a whole (the universe) and applying them to the whole. Throughout existence things have causes of their being and being so, but Rand would not accept (nor I) that that principle is proper for application to existence as a whole. The background that is existence as a whole bears no obvious mark that it is an occurrence or obtaining; it merely is. Overwhelmingly, what features within the universe are applicable to the  universe as a whole are questions for modern scientific cosmology, not philosophy. The exception Rand made was time. On that she joined the ancient debate on whether the universe has no beginning and no end. I agree in making this one exception and with the side she takes. As best we can, I think we should try to integrate thought on this question with the concepts of contemporary physics. That is, time-like slices of spacetime; the Initial Singularity; Penrose's cycles of time; and so forth.

PS – Rand did not include within the concept of an existent (entity, action, attribute, or relationship) that it was everlasting. She included that only in the concept of the widest background of all locals, that is, only in widest existence, that is, existence as a whole. As an argument for that conception, she can only raise some problems for the alternative positions.

Edited March 23 by Boydstun

[EC]

I will make one statement about the misintegration that caused this question since I am not here to teach the most advanced physics and philosophy in details to those that make such incorrect misintegrations of knowledge in their own minds. An eternal, unbound, and finite Universe does *not* imply a "static" Universe. The Universe is always changing and even the fact that their was a "Big Bang event" in our local part of the Universe (that was a "local" phase transition caused by the formation of our localverse's containing black hole ((our localverse "expands" into the wider containing Universe as that black hole grows))) does not contradict the fact that the Universe is in a sense eternal and finite and not "static" which was what Miss Rand meant but lacked the correct scientific knowledge to explicitly state. Due to a "duality" the entire actual Universe of each "local Universe" contained as a 10 + phi dimensional quantum entangled holographic projection "within" each event horizon (and we live in one of the those in one half of a "broken" Supersymetrical state) the entire actual Universe of each local Universe "inside" each black hole event horizon all summed together in an unbound manner exist at one "eternal" Plank time and space after the full integration of all are done. There is no contradiction whatsoever to Objectivist metaphysics and the limited-scientific knowledge statements Miss Rand made at the time when this knowledge is fully known and integrated.

[Cave_Dweller]

7 hours ago, Boydstun said:

CD, welcome to OO. You are doing pretty well for a cave dweller, what with the written electronic representations and all.

Spacetime in physics (the discipline and the world) is real. The combo is as tight as the electric and the magnetic, which team we call electromagnetic. The whole range—relations to substances—concerning ontological standing of spacetime is held among physicists. E-M fields are held uniformly as in the latter ("substances"). The physics goes on fine either way, rolling back the darkness and empowering mankind, just as geometry went on fine without taken a stand on Descartes's insistence that to know geometry fully one must know its relation to God. I don't mean to pooh-pooh the question of whether spacetime is a substance. Astute reasoning about that goes on to this day in philosophy of physics, and it is wonderful for those of us for whom ontology run everywhere is in our desire for understanding.

Rand was wary of taking pervasive features within existence as a whole (the universe) and applying them to the whole. Throughout existence things have causes of their being and being so, but Rand would not accept (nor I) that that principle is proper for application to existence as a whole. The background that is existence as a whole bears no obvious mark that it is an occurrence or obtaining; it merely is. Overwhelmingly, what features within the universe are applicable to the  universe as a whole are questions for modern scientific cosmology, not philosophy. The exception Rand made was time. On that she joined the ancient debate on whether the universe has no beginning and no end. I agree in making this one exception and with the side she takes. As best we can, I think we should try to integrate thought on this question with the concepts of contemporary physics. That is, time-like slices of spacetime; the Initial Singularity; Penrose's cycles of time; and so forth.

PS – Rand did not include within the concept of an existent (entity, action, attribute, or relationship) that it was everlasting. She included that only in the concept of the widest background of all locals, that is, only in widest existence, that is, existence as a whole. As an argument for that conception, she can only raise some problems for the alternative positions.

Hello Boydstun. Thank you for your well-spoken and thoughtful comment.

Here is Rand's statements along with their inevitable logical conclusion:

Rand began with Existence exists. Then she applied her statement "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause” and "the universe, as a whole, cannot have a cause, because a cause implies a prior state, and there can be no state prior to existence itself" to deny that the universe had a beginning. Something cannot be generated from nothing. (This treats the universe as a thing, as I said above.)

This requires treating the universe as:

a causeless thing that has always existed, as if the universe exists on the same level as the things, the intra-universal existents, within it.

For Rand's argument from causality and identity to be valid, she needed to provide independent, empirical justification for treating the universe as a "thing" subject to those laws. Without this, her argument remains circular and logically unconvincing.

 

 

 

Edited March 23 by Cave_Dweller

[Cave_Dweller]

4 hours ago, EC said:

I will make one statement about the misintegration that caused this question since I am not here to teach the most advanced physics and philosophy in details to those that make such incorrect misintegrations of knowledge in their own minds. An eternal, unbound, and finite Universe does *not* imply a "static" Universe. The Universe is always changing and even the fact that their was a "Big Bang event" in our local part of the Universe (that was a "local" phase transition caused by the formation of our localverse's containing black hole ((our localverse "expands" into the wider containing Universe as that black hole grows))) does not contradict the fact that the Universe is in a sense eternal and finite and not "static" which was what Miss Rand meant but lacked the correct scientific knowledge to explicitly state. Due to a "duality" the entire actual Universe of each "local Universe" contained as a 10 + phi dimensional quantum entangled holographic projection "within" each event horizon (and we live in one of the those in one half of a "broken" Supersymetrical state) the entire actual Universe of each local Universe "inside" each black hole event horizon all summed together in an unbound manner exist at one "eternal" Plank time and space after the full integration of all are done. There is no contradiction whatsoever to Objectivist metaphysics and the limited-scientific knowledge statements Miss Rand made at the time when this knowledge is fully known and integrated.

Thank you for that highly fascinating scientific jaunt into an inversion of what Objectivism is supposed to be about. Much of what you wrote is questionable, speculative, unsettled physics. Your statement, 'The entire actual Universe of each "local Universe" contained as a 10 + φ dimensional quantum entangled holographic projection "within" each event horizon (and we live in one of the those in one half of a "broken" Supersymetrical state)...' requires that Objectivism accept this as the spoken Word of the physics gods. Furthermore, the inversion I referred to, means that Objectivism is to accept a mathematical model of the cosmos that is then projected onto the cosmos and treated as an ontological fact. Objectivism, on the other hand, begins with existence, not with mental models of any kind. It is the primacy of consciousness promoted as existence per se simply on the basis of some physicists saying it is so.

Your model, as with many others, may still be useful. Its heuristic properties can't, however, replace Objectivist epistemology, or at least concept-formation, which is what ITOE was really about.

 

Edited March 23 by Cave_Dweller

[Doug Morris]

23 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

Your first comment is making my case for me

Please clarify.

 

[Doug Morris]

23 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

. It is not exactly steady-state, because steady-state holds that there must be continual creation to account for the expansion of the universe. Rand would never allow that. "The law of causality does not allow for the production of something out of nothing" (The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made).

 

19 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

I agree with your second paragraph.

How do you reconcile these two?

19 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

What do you mean by "the universe"?

What Ayn Rand called "existence".  The totality of everything that exists, ever has existed, ever will exist, or is hard to refer to using English tenses.  The totality of everything, including anything we don't know about as well as what we do know about.

 

[Doug Morris]

20 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

Rand never spoke about spacetime. And if she did, I'm 100% certain she would've spoken about it in the negative,

How do you know she wouldn't say she was not a student of spacetime and/or not a student of relativity, and therefore wouldn't comment?  (She once said something similar about evolution.)

20 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

made up by physicists to account for alleged errors in their theories.

Are you saying she would have rejected Einstein's theory of relativity?

 

[Cave_Dweller]

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

On 3/22/2025 at 4:34 PM, Cave_Dweller said:

On 3/22/2025 at 4:08 PM, Doug Morris said:

You seem to be assuming that our spacetime is the entire universe.

Also, since time is "in" the universe, and the universe is not "in" time, there could be a starting time of the universe and of time itself without the universe or time "coming into" existence.

Please make clearer where the circularity lies.

 

Your first comment is making my case for me. I'm speaking from Rand's apparent viewpoint on cosmology based on statements she left behind. I'm quoting her to show that her viewpoint is circular.

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Please clarify.

Ayn Rand didn't have, or didn't show, any interest in or knowledge of physics after Newton. So when you say I'm assuming something about spacetime, I wasn't referring to my viewpoint but to Rand's viewpoint which was highly limited. And in that respect, my point is that Rand was wrong because she didn't show any knowledge of spacetime.

And even if she did, she would've considered it an example of primacy of consciousness, in which physicists such as Einstein invented a mental model and then applied it ontologically to the cosmos.

  18 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If you are implying that Rand assumed that our spacetime is the entire universe, please explain how you concluded this about Rand.  If not, please clarify.

The continual creation that is part of the traditional steady-state theory does not have to be "the production of something out of nothing".  It is the production of something out of the already existing universe.  The already existing universe includes the fields that modern physics says exist even in "empty" space.

21 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

I agree with your second paragraph.

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

 

How do you reconcile these two?

I don't reconcile them. As I said, I was only talking "popular mechanics" and didn't realize you were a physicist who treats every layperson's physics comment with utmost precision. I don't speak the language of φ.

21 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

What do you mean by "the universe"?

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

 

How do you reconcile these two?

What Ayn Rand called "existence".  The totality of everything that exists, ever has existed, ever will exist, or is hard to refer to using English tenses.  The totality of everything, including anything we don't know about as well as what we do know about.

 

Are you assuming that spacetime exists?

21 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

Rand never spoke about spacetime. And if she did, I'm 100% certain she would've spoken about it in the negative,

How do you know she wouldn't say she was not a student of spacetime and/or not a student of relativity, and therefore wouldn't comment?  (She once said something similar about evolution.)

In Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand wrote:

"The concept of causality is not applicable to human action if you accept the theory that nothing is certain, that there are no absolutes, and that knowledge is a matter of probability. This is the view derived from modern physics—which I do not accept."

And because I read everything Rand wrote. I read her biographies. And then I read Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman's application of Rand's philosophy back to science. https://estore.aynrand.org/products/unreason-in-modern-physics-david-harriman-interview-mp3-download

Objectivism and modern physics directly conflict over the "validity of the senses" premise. Peikoff and Harriman say that physicists should bow down to Objectivism; the physicists, naturally, disagree. Except for Harriman.

 

Edited March 24 by Cave_Dweller

[Cave_Dweller]

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

How do you know she wouldn't say she was not a student of spacetime and/or not a student of relativity, and therefore wouldn't comment?  (She once said something similar about evolution.)

Are you saying she would have rejected Einstein's theory of relativity?

 

Wholeheartedly. Ayn Rand would've rejected a frame-oriented theory that holds every observer's experience will be different. Reality, as she would've put it, is not relative to the observer.

What I know about Ayn Rand and evolution is that she called it an "ungulfable bridge." You can't get from here to there using evolution theory.

Edited March 24 by Cave_Dweller

[Doug Morris]

1 hour ago, Cave_Dweller said:

, my point is that Rand was wrong because she didn't show any knowledge of spacetime.

How is her lack of knowledge of spacetime relevant to her philosophy?

1 hour ago, Cave_Dweller said:

Are you assuming that spacetime exists?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Cave_Dweller said:

In Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand wrote:

"The concept of causality is not applicable to human action if you accept the theory that nothing is certain, that there are no absolutes, and that knowledge is a matter of probability. This is the view derived from modern physics—which I do not accept."

I think she was talking about certain interpretations of quantum physics, not about relativity.  Even physicists argue with each other about how to interpret quantum physics.

1 hour ago, Cave_Dweller said:

https://estore.aynrand.org/products/unreason-in-modern-physics-david-harriman-interview-mp3-download

 

53 minutes ago, Cave_Dweller said:

Ayn Rand would've rejected a frame-oriented theory that holds every observer's experience will be different. Reality, as she would've put it, is not relative to the observer.

Why isn't the following consistent with both Objectivism and relativity:

Any observer can observe that the specific measurements observers get depend on their motion.  Note that it depends on their physical motion, not on anything subjective.  This is a more complete statement of relativity.  The dependence of the results of measurement on the measurer's motion is itself independent of what anyone believes or wishes about the matter.

52 minutes ago, Cave_Dweller said:

What I know about Ayn Rand and evolution is that she called it an "ungulfable bridge."

Please give a more complete quotation and a reference.

 

[Cave_Dweller]

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Quote

How is her lack of knowledge of spacetime relevant to her philosophy?

I'll have to ask why you brought it up in the first place if spacetime isn't relevant to her philosophy. Your original question was directed at me for some reason. My speculation is that spacetime doesn't have to underlie only one universe. Physicists assume there is only one universe in spacetime. But there could be several, or there might be an infinite number of universes within the same spacetime. Imagine going back in time to a few seconds after the Big Bang, and then seeing, beyond that, countless points of light that are other universes. This just isn't a philosophical question. It's a question for freshman physics students, and I'm not even that. I have always enjoyed speculations such as that. I just don't see what any of it has to do with my original post.

But besides that, her apparent lack of knowledge of spacetime and such means that she lacked sufficient evidence to support her steady-state cosmology. It's not just that she made a simple and obvious logic error of circularity, she didn't have empirical or even theoretical evidence to back up her steady-state assumption. She apparently didn't even look into the evidence that went against steady-state back in the 1950s, and which led cosmologists to support Big Bang theory.

Quote

 

Yes.

I think she was talking about certain interpretations of quantum physics, not about relativity.  Even physicists argue with each other about how to interpret quantum physics.

 

Whether she even knew about relativity is a question. Nevertheless, it flies directly in the face of her axioms from her viewpoint of things.

Quote

 

Why isn't the following consistent with both Objectivism and relativity:

Any observer can observe that the specific measurements observers get depend on their motion.  Note that it depends on their physical motion, not on anything subjective.  This is a more complete statement of relativity.  The dependence of the results of measurement on the measurer's motion is itself independent of what anyone believes or wishes about the matter.

It may in fact be consistent with Objectivism. But Ayn Rand wouldn't look into it any farther than to see the points of disagreement, for example, the very name "relativity" which is opposed to the word "absolutism." She might see your point, as before, a support of primacy of consciousness, because SR was originally based on imaginative thought-experiments and mathematics, not on real experiments and real measurements. I do believe, however, there's a way to support SR without danger of being subject to the charge of favoring primacy of consciousness. I can't prove SR has primacy of existence right now, because I'd have to take some time to look into all that SR theory again.

Ayn Rand is well known to have preferred the old over the new, and was quite biased against the new. It's not just her statement about wishing she had used an older dictionary. This is seen in her reverence for Aristotle and hatred of later philosophies, her preference for Renaissance art over modern art, classical architecture over modern architecture, 19th-century literature over 20th-century literature. And she is known to be quite principled (i.e., stubborn) about those preferences. Any attempt to convince Rand that SR represents an advance in man's knowledge would be met with great resistance.

Rand said in one of her late-night discussions with NB and BB that the gap between man and apes is an ungulfable bridge. That's all. You can believe it or not. Print it out, crumple it up and throw it out if you want. I just chalk it up to English being a second language for her.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

[deleted duplicate text.]

 

 

Edited March 24 by Cave_Dweller

[Doug Morris]

18 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

I'll have to ask why you brought it up in the first place if spacetime isn't relevant to her philosophy.

I was trying to say that you seemed to be assuming that what we know about so far is the entire universe.  You later indicated that you were quoting what you understood to be Ayn Rand's view.

19 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

It may in fact be consistent with Objectivism.

I take it that you are not arguing against Objectivism, just against some things Ayn Rand said about physics.

19 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

Ayn Rand is well known to have preferred the old over the new, and was quite biased against the new. It's not just her statement about wishing she had used an older dictionary. This is seen in her reverence for Aristotle and hatred of later philosophies, her preference for Renaissance art over modern art, classical architecture over modern architecture, 19th-century literature over 20th-century literature.

The part about architecture is not true.  There are very good reasons for the rest.

19 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

Rand said in one of her late-night discussions with NB and BB that the gap between man and apes is an ungulfable bridge. ... I just chalk it up to English being a second language for her.

Her statement that she is not a student of the theory of evolution, and therefore neither supports nor opposes it, is in print.

 

[Doug Morris]

22 hours ago, Cave_Dweller said:

I was only talking "popular mechanics" and didn't realize you were a physicist

Actually, I'm a mathematician, not a physicist.  But I know something about physics.

 

[Cave_Dweller]

8 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

I was trying to say that you seemed to be assuming that what we know about so far is the entire universe.  You later indicated that you were quoting what you understood to be Ayn Rand's view.

I take it that you are not arguing against Objectivism, just against some things Ayn Rand said about physics.

The part about architecture is not true.  There are very good reasons for the rest.

Her statement that she is not a student of the theory of evolution, and therefore neither supports nor opposes it, is in print.

 

Objectivism assumes that everything that exists is either a thing, an attribute or an action. I believe Rand would say that whatever humans find in the universe will be categorizable as one of those three. That's her assumption, not mine. I'm far more open-minded than Rand was. I've read and watched gobs of sci-fi that Ayn Rand hated (although Star Trek: TOS could be part of the Romantic Realism genre). NB reported in Judgment Day that he convinced Rand hypnosis was real, but that within two months she changed her mind. Every friend that she disagreed with she dumped.

So, perhaps it's true that there are other types of existents, on the QM level let's say. That, however, goes beyond my proof of Rand's error. If the universe is neither a thing, an attribute, nor an action, then what is it? As far as I'm concerned, Rand treated as both a thing and a non-thing according to what I showed above, and that's all I needed to prove.

Rand has a statement in print and verbal statements she made about evolution. They don't necessarily have to match.

 

[Reidy]

Did Rand actually say that thing, attribute and action are the only possibilities. She called herself an Aristotelian, and his lists of categories typically include, as well as these, relation, quantity, state, place, time and being-affected.