I’m new to the forums, and to Objectivism. I first heard of Ayn Rand about 16 years ago, reading the dedication to her in Rush’s album 2112. I don’t know much about Objectivism, although the philosophy intrigues me and I can certainly relate to it in many ways.
“We now understand that life is fundamentally one. At the base of all life diversity there is unity. At our bases you and I are one. And that unity at the basis of mind and matter is consciousness; universal consciousness.”
I wonder how Objectivists view these new theories in science, which are supposedly based on empirical evidence. It seems to me (but I might be wrong) that the above quote, for example, conflicts with Ayn Rand’s philosophy or even invalidates much of it. If we are all connected, if we are all one at our bases, then sacrificing yourself for others seems to be something legitimate, or even necessary, and not suicidal.
“We now understand that life is fundamentally one. At the base of all life diversity there is unity. At our bases you and I are one. And that unity at the basis of mind and matter is consciousness; universal consciousness.”
This is called metaphysical monism, the belief that everything which exists can be reduced down to a single substance. Monism is an example of what Ayn Rand called the fallacy of “rewriting reality”, ie. instead of looking outward and forming conclusions inductively, looking inward and forcing your conclusions on reality. To further say that the one element underlying everything which exists is consciousness is even worse. Consciousness is not a material. It is a process, and like any process, it can’t exist independent of matter, and it absolutely can’t compose matter.
This is called metaphysical monism, the belief that everything which exists can be reduced down to a single substance. Monism is an example of what Ayn Rand called the fallacy of “rewriting reality”, ie. instead of looking outward and forming conclusions inductively, looking inward and forcing your conclusions on reality. To further say that the one element underlying everything which exists is consciousness is even worse. Consciousness is not a material. It is a process, and like any process, it can’t exist independent of matter, and it absolutely can’t compose matter.
But here comes a prestigious scientist and tells you that these things that you believe in as absolute truths, are wrong according to new theories in science. Can you just ignore that?
But here comes a prestigious scientist and tells you that these things that you believe in as absolute truths, are wrong according to new theories in science. Can you just ignore that?
Assuming an evaluation of the theories and their interpretation for correctness has not yet been done, it cannot be ignored. If the evaluation has been done and the theory and/or interpretation is found to be incorrect, then yes, it can be ignored.
That’s the general answer to the question asked - I make no assertion concerning the accuracy of this particular topic until I read it for myself.
The video itself started with a context that was outside of my level of understanding. Since we’re on scientific ground, therefore, I chose to research not the theory itself, which would have taken me more time than I can spare to understand, but the reception of the scientific community to this theory.
Suffice it to say that the reception to his theory has not been universally positive. It has been called by some to be “wishful thinking” - and that’s the kinder of some of the criticisms I have found.
So - I pass only one judgment on this theory at this time: “Contested, probably arbitrary.”
Since it’s status is indeterminate, the only consideration that can philosophically be made about this theory is, “IF this theory is true, then ____”.
Until the status of the theory is resolved in the realm of physical sciences, it has no cognitive value in a philosophical sense except as a hypothetical.
The video itself started with a context that was outside of my level of understanding. Since we’re on scientific ground, therefore, I chose to research not the theory itself, which would have taken me more time than I can spare to understand, but the reception of the scientific community to this theory.
Suffice it to say that the reception to his theory has not been universally positive. It has been called by some to be “wishful thinking” - and that’s the kinder of some of the criticisms I have found.
So - I pass only one judgment on this theory at this time: “Contested, probably arbitrary.”
Since it’s status is indeterminate, the only consideration that can philosophically be made about this theory is, “IF this theory is true, then ____”.
Until the status of the theory is resolved in the realm of physical sciences, it has no cognitive value in a philosophical sense except as a hypothetical.
I fully agree… It is still a theory after all, and not a fact. I also noted that it is supposedly based on empirical evidence, as I cannot ascertain it myself.
Now I’m curious: if this theory is proven true beyond doubt, if it becomes a fact, how would it affect Objectivism?
I fully agree… It is still a theory after all, and not a fact. I also noted that it is supposedly based on empirical evidence, as I cannot ascertain it myself.
Now I’m curious: if this theory is proven true beyond doubt, if it becomes a fact, how would it affect Objectivism?
If it were proven true beyond doubt, then from my understanding, it would prove primacy of consciousness.
I am not an epistemology expert - but if I recall correctly from OPAR, this would effectively disprove the law of identity.
Without the law of identity, we would have no basis for reason and logic. Proof would be impossible.
If proof is impossible, nothing can be proven true beyond doubt.
I admit that I’m not 100% certain about my conclusions in #1 and #2, however.
Yes, it’s primacy of consciousness and it’s awful.
It seems to stem ultimately from the sort of thought process that led to the “Copenhagen Model” where nothing happened until it was observed–by a consciousness–to happen. (Hmmm… wonder how we came about in the first place, then?)
Or in other words I think someone is abusing quantum mechanics to indulge in philosophy. Again. *sigh*
If the fundamental material of reality was consciousness, SOMEHOW (and trust me, I’m going “PFFFFFFFTTT” at this too), then yes, it would prove the primacy of consciousness, because that would mean that reality is consciousness and flexible to what we want to think. So your first premise is correct.
Commenting on #2 of Greebo’s post:
Indeed, it would disprove the law of identity, because if we could decide what we want something to be using our consciousness, that would mean that every “thing” was essentially no “thing” unless we wished it to be some “thing.” Something cannot be nothing, and nothing cannot be something. Also, what happens if two people want the same thing to be different things? Big problem there, and another contradiction of the law of identity. So your second premise is correct.
If you weren’t 100% certain about those premises, I am. And 3 and 4, of course, necessarily follow.
#5) If nothing can be proven beyond a doubt, then this theory cannot be proven beyond a doubt.
Thus an alternative reality is created where nothing is real, and instantly vaporizes itself out of our existence and into its own. Our existence proceeds unchanged and even completely unaware of the alternate existences existence.
I wonder how Objectivists view these new theories in science, which are supposedly based on empirical evidence. It seems to me (but I might be wrong) that the above quote, for example, conflicts with Ayn Rand’s philosophy or even invalidates much of it. If we are all connected, if we are all one at our bases, then sacrificing yourself for others seems to be something legitimate, or even necessary, and not suicidal.
Let me let you in on a little secret. Any damn fool can get a PhD., and John Hagelin is a damn fool. He is a mystic continuing to peddle a version of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics decades after physics has abandoned it, and invalidly drawing conclusions about our non-quantum scale lives based on irrelevant quantum scale physics. An exactly parallel phenomena happened in philosophy as a result of Isaac Newton’s successes, and suddenly all philosophers were determinists and people and societies were understood as machines. Don’t be a sucker.
Peter Woit devotes a couple of pages to Hagelin in “Not Even Wrong”. Some excerpts:
“[As a graduate student], his interest in quantum field theory seemed to have a bizarre side to it, since he wanted to use it to explain how TM adepts were able to levitate…”
“By 1995, Hagelin had written 73 scientific articles, most them published in very prestigious particle theory journals, many of them cited by more than a hundred later articles.”
“In recent years, Hagelin has stopped writing physics papers and has achieved notoriety…, most recently promoting the idea of fighting terrorism with a ‘new Invincible Defense Technology based on the discovery of the unified field’.”
“Virtually every theoretical physicist in the world rejects all of this as utter nonsense and work of a crackpot, but Hagelin’s case shows that crackpots can have PhDs from the Harvard Physics Department and a large number of frequently cited papers published in the pest peer-reviewed journals in theoretical physics.”
Let me let you in on a little secret. Any damn fool can get a PhD., and John Hagelin is a damn fool. He is a mystic continuing to peddle a version of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics decades after physics has abandoned it, and invalidly drawing conclusions about our non-quantum scale lives based on irrelevant quantum scale physics. An exactly parallel phenomena happened in philosophy as a result of Isaac Newton’s successes, and suddenly all philosophers were determinists and people and societies were understood as machines. Don’t be a sucker.
THANK you. That says better, what I was trying to say.
The following post by Alfred Centauri about Hagelin trying to justify TM is even more damning. (BTW Alfred, I have this mental image of you with this really bizarre hairstyle off Babylon 5…)