tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post7408693966272243382..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Rick Warden's Critique of ObjectivismBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-39092050294327946422011-01-17T07:38:50.639-05:002011-01-17T07:38:50.639-05:00Part 3
You wrote I have not grown "one iota&...Part 3<br /><br />You wrote I have not grown "one iota" in debating with you. I'm not sure what there is here to grow into - a state of denial?<br /><br />When I first visited your blog, I mentioned my surprise that there was no summary of what Rand's objectivism proposes. But, like pulling teeth, after some weeks of asking questions and debating I was able to apprehend some essential information. Based on your answers, Rand held that there is no absolute truth but truth is merely a human convention used for the purpose of human happiness and logic does not consist of fixed laws but is considered mainly a subjective art. <br /><br />1) If truth is a mere human convention, as you apparently believe, why must science be "rejected" and not the law of identity? Are you implying that absolute truth exists in the law of identity? It seems so. <br /><br />2) If objectivism does not embrace tacit materialism, why is it not possible there is a spiritual dimension that cannot be seen but nevertheless allows for the law of identity to operate? The transcendent understanding of reality does not break the proven laws of quantum physics, but objectivism does, according to your own resources and quotes. There is a time-tested maxim in the scientific method: If your hypothesis doesn't match the proven results, recheck your hypothesis.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-86700975242156897372011-01-17T07:29:57.443-05:002011-01-17T07:29:57.443-05:00Part 1
"Where have I affirmed such a positio...Part 1<br /><br />"Where have I affirmed such a position?"<br /><br />(...That identity is based upon observable, materialistic assumptions.)<br /><br />Your selected quote by Sandin implies this:<br /><br />“Quantum Mechanics holds that a particle is nowhere and everywhere throughout some extended region, until magic happens and instantaneously it’s at one place. Of course, QM doesn’t say “magic”. But rationally speaking it means magic. I.e., non-identity in various guises, whether named non-locality, backwards-in-time causality, indeterminacy, the (literal and physical) primacy of consciousness, or whatever. <br /><br />“To reject QM as physically wrong is fine. It’s necessary. But it is not merely physically wrong. The deeper rot in QM is the admission of non-identity into physical reasoning..."<br /><br />Sandin (and objectivism) has a problem with proven scientific facts and has to "reject" these facts because of a materialistic presuppositionalism. <br /><br />Theism does not have a contradiction with non-locality and entanglemnt because the supernational understanding of the physical world is precisely based on the understanding that identity is not based on the 3D Cartesian coordinate system, as outlined in Hebrews 11. In terms of quantum physics, theism has a logical explanation but materialistic objectivism is bankrupt.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-25927295066641937122011-01-17T05:07:34.134-05:002011-01-17T05:07:34.134-05:00For some reason, parts one and three of my reply d...For some reason, parts one and three of my reply didn't remain posted... -Will have to add them again later.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-23362794932470259042011-01-17T04:56:28.810-05:002011-01-17T04:56:28.810-05:00Part 4
If you look at my recent blog article on s...Part 4<br /><br />If you look at my recent blog article on spirituality and happiness, you will find Gallup polls that show selfishness and materialism are not conducive to happiness, but spirituality is. Ayn Rand chose atheism at age 13, according to her personal notes. In her so-called “philosophy for life” she ended up addicted to meth as she wrote the Fountainhead. <br /><br />I've demonstrated how objectivism doesn't quite seem to work logically or pragmatically. And it doesn't take an earth-shaking revelation from God to realize that selfishness in not a true virtue. If you look at the Google trends graph, you can see that year by year less people are interested in objectivism and it's really not surprising at all. <br /><br />I want to thank you for the opportunity of debating with you because you apparently have a lot of courage to do so, considering what you are attempting to defend. Many other people at atheistic blogs simply prefer to wimp out of debates but you are different.<br /><br />I would offer some personal advice to you and anyone who reads this post to seriously consider the possibility you are living in a state of denial. If your premises force you to reject science, sound logic and a life of increased happiness, maybe these are signs that something is wrong.<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />RickRick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-88852364099712517302011-01-17T04:48:42.038-05:002011-01-17T04:48:42.038-05:00Part 3
The most logical metaphysical understandin...Part 3<br /><br />The most logical metaphysical understanding of the law of non-contradiction and the laws of quantum physics is the theistic explanation. The concept of identity in theism is not based on the visible/physical world but, rather, identity has a deeper, spiritual basis, as outlined in Hebrews 11. Unlike objectivism, there is no philosophical contradiction between quantum non-locality, entanglement and the law of non-contradiction (law of identity) in theism.<br /><br />On the one hand you (and other objectivists) claim there is no absolute truth but then you and your ethos experts claim the law of identity cannot be broken. This leads to two questions:<br /><br />1) If truth is a mere human convention, as you apparently believe, why can't the law of identity be broken -or excused on some occasions? Are you implying that absolute truth exists in the law of identity? It seems so. <br /><br />2) If objectivism does not embrace tacit materialism, why is it not possible there is a spiritual dimension that cannot be seen but nevertheless allows for the law of identity to operate? The transcendent understanding of reality does not break the proven laws of quantum physics, but objectivism does according to your own resources and quotes. <br /><br />There is a time-tested maxim in the scientific method: If your hypothesis doesn't match the proven results, recheck your hypothesis.<br /><br />But, here is the main problem it seems. As you had written, objectivism is quite different from the scientific method in that objectivists don't seek truth for its own sake, but, rather, for the sake of human happiness, and a false understanding of human happiness at that. There is a subjective materialist presupposition that truth, and life in general, is based on humanistic self aggrandizement, which, research shows, does not lead to true happiness at all.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-70804880984518865682011-01-17T04:46:28.772-05:002011-01-17T04:46:28.772-05:00Part 2
Contrary to what you wrote, Objectivism do...Part 2<br /><br />Contrary to what you wrote, Objectivism does tacitly propose materialism in a few ways. I can demonstrate this quite easily. Objectivism proposes a so-called dichotomy between what is referred to as the “primacy of existence” or the “primacy of consciousness.” Contrary to what your blog articles state, theism does not fall into any such dichotomy because scriptures describe the God who is both eternally conscious and eternally existent. It's really a simple idea, but for some reason your articles have a lot of misinformation attempting to propose otherwise.<br /><br />In terms of quantum physics, objectivism is stuck in a rut with no escape. You quoted an expert who offers that the laws of quantum non-locality and entanglement do not support the law of identity and therefore the laws of physics must be somehow be rejected. You personally implied the findings of quantum physics must somehow be a minority report. I have to disagree here on both accounts, Dawson, and offer a third option. The quantum laws of non-locality and entanglement are neither in error nor are they a minority report. It is objectivism's materialistic concept of the law of identity, not the laws of physics, which is off.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-14006274518921314692011-01-17T04:44:21.808-05:002011-01-17T04:44:21.808-05:00Part 1
Hello again, Dawson,
"Rick, what exa...Part 1<br /><br />Hello again, Dawson,<br /><br />"Rick, what exactly does this have to do with whether or not the primacy of existence is valid metaphysics?"<br /><br />It is a rather important point, rejecting science as your selected quote advises:<br /><br />"To reject QM as physically wrong is fine. It’s necessary. But it is not merely physically wrong. The deeper rot in QM is the admission of non-identity into physical reasoning."<br /><br />You state I have not "grown one iota" in debating with you, but you are incorrect. I have more knowledge of the deep errors in objectivism.<br /><br />When I first visited your blog, I mentioned my surprise that there was no summary of what Rand's objectivism proposes. But, like pulling teeth, after some weeks of asking questions and debating I was able to apprehend some essential information. Based on your answers, Rand held that there is no absolute truth but truth is merely a human convention used for the purpose of human happiness and logic does not consist of fixed laws but is considered mainly a subjective art. <br /><br />The fact that it's very difficult to find a straightforward outline of objectivist tenets underscores the reality that objectivism logically weak. I've found that the maxims and underlying concepts seem to be used intermittently like a game of Three Card Monte.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-20330555995030761952010-12-26T10:43:28.406-05:002010-12-26T10:43:28.406-05:00Rick: “This, the so-called explanation: ‘QM, or at...Rick: “This, the so-called explanation: ‘QM, or at least some interpretations of QM, cannot be true because they violate the law of identity’.”<br /><br />No, that was not the explanation I was referring to. The explanation I was referring to can be found earlier in our discussion. I see no need to repeat it.<br /><br />Rick: “the fact is, ‘actions at a distance’ and non-locality have been developing since the mid 20th century and are mathematically and scientifically proven. Quantum computers and a quantum Internet are on the way based precisely on this phenomena.”<br /><br />Rick, what exactly does this have to do with whether or not the primacy of existence is valid metaphysics?<br /><br />Rick: “Dawson, you and other atheists have a preconceived notion that identity must be tied to the observable anthropomorphic perspective of everyday life.”<br /><br />Where have I affirmed such a position?<br /><br />Rick: “But your view doesn't match the facts.”<br /><br />Where specifically does my view fail to “match the facts”?<br /><br />Rick: “You conclude QM must be wrong because of your anthropocentric bias.”<br /><br />If this is what you’ve taken from the preceding discussion we’ve had, you’ve misunderstood quite a bit. Please show me specifically where I drew the conclusion that “QM must be wrong because of [my] anthropocentric bias.” All I’ve pointed out is that a violation of the law of identity is a contradiction, and that contradictions cannot be true. This is what you’re bucking against. Why? Apparently because you want to reserve for yourself some privilege to call a contradiction true.<br /><br />Rick: “I believe you need to differentiate between Rand's ‘Objectivism’ and philosophical ‘objectivity’,”<br /><br />Rick, you need to do your own homework here. If you are proposing a difference between Rand’s understanding of objectivity and what you here call “philosophical ‘objectivity’,” you need to explain that difference as you have it in mind here.<br /><br />Rick: “Rand's Objectivism subtly presupposes materialism”<br /><br />How so? Please, if nothing else, explain this. Make sure to cite your sources.<br /><br />Rick: “and is ultimately not objective in the broader sense of the word.”<br /><br />What is “the broader sense of the word” that you have in mind here? And how does this cohere with your earlier claim that QP “has shown it's impossible to …develop a truly objective philosophy”?<br /><br />Rick: “It fails to account for certain known facts.”<br /><br />Which specific “known facts” do you have in mind, and how do you know that Objectivism (or, at any rate, Rand’s meaning of objectivity) “fails to account for” them?<br /><br />Rick: “Debating with you has helped me to gain a greater appreciation of the philosophical strength of my beliefs.”<br /><br />Rick, your beliefs depend on blurring the distinction between reality and imagination. Such a belief set cannot be true. This is your problem, not mine.<br /><br />Rick: “Rand's objectivism does not embrace the reality of absolute truth and therefore is simply a highly developed, convoluted form of relativism.”<br /><br />This is apparently the view you had before you engaged me, and by affirming it now it shows that you have not grown one iota from the experience. You are unteachable on the matter.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-2067565731115513322010-12-25T14:36:06.896-05:002010-12-25T14:36:06.896-05:00Dawson, you wrote: “You have proposed QM as a defe...Dawson, you wrote: “You have proposed QM as a defeater of the primacy of existence. But it’s been explained why this is not the case.”<br /><br />This, the so-called explanation: “QM, or at least some interpretations of QM, cannot be true because they violate the law of identity.”<br /><br />Dawson, you may call QM non-location the minority report of “some interpretations” but, the fact is, “actions at a distance” and non-locality have been developing since the mid 20th century and are mathematically and scientifically proven. Quantum computers and a quantum Internet are on the way based precisely on this phenomena.<br /><br />Dawson, you and other atheists have a preconceived notion that identity must be tied to the observable anthropomorphic perspective of everyday life. But your view doesn't match the facts. You conclude QM must be wrong because of your anthropocentric bias. Wasn't that the same type of logic the Catholic church used to defend the man-centered, Earth-centered solar system?<br /><br />“And if it’s true that it is impossible “to develop a truly objective philosophy,” then, accordingly, no philosophy – including yours (and QP) – can rightly claim to be objective.”<br /><br />I believe you need to differentiate between Rand's “Objectivism” and philosophical “objectivity,” referring to the actual existence of something, without reference to people's impressions or ideas. Rand's Objectivism subtly presupposes materialism and is ultimately not objective in the broader sense of the word. It fails to account for certain known facts. <br /><br />Debating with you has helped me to gain a greater appreciation of the philosophical strength of my beliefs. Rand's objectivism does not embrace the reality of absolute truth and therefore is simply a highly developed, convoluted form of relativism.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-8045971659519321062010-12-22T09:03:10.292-05:002010-12-22T09:03:10.292-05:00Rick Warden said:
"...recent Gallup polls ha...Rick Warden said:<br /><br />"<i>...recent Gallup polls have shown that atheists tend towards a state of depression, as compared to spiritually minded souls</i>"<br /><br /><br />What a load of nonsense. Rick seems to be trolling atheist sites with this garbage.<br /><br />In reality, 15.6% of very religious people reported to have been diagnosed with depression <i>at some point in their life</i>, while 18.7 % of non-religious people did.<br /><br />A massive difference of 3.1%! Only a deliberately dishonest person would miscontrue this to mean that atheists tend towards a state of depression, while religious people do not.<br /><br />And Rick has a terrible habit of leaving out the result for moderately religious people. They came in at 20.4%. The result is clearly non-linear.<br /><br />Anyway, just because something makes you on average 3.1% less likely to suffer from depression has no bearing on whether it is actually true.rhiggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16246371823456833408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-58593284543737595032010-12-19T13:16:15.540-05:002010-12-19T13:16:15.540-05:00Re: Gallup Poll
Many suffer from depression, incl...Re: Gallup Poll<br /><br />Many suffer from depression, including theists. I highly doubt that atheists are depressed because they don’t believe in an invisible magic being. If that were the case, their depression is probably traceable back to their discovery that Santa Claus is not real and did not, like Christian adults, take the path of replacing Santa with a religious stand-in to suspend belief. More likely, it’s due to their failure to adopt a rational worldview, namely Objectivism. Most atheists are not Objectivists, and it would be interesting to review the findings of a Gallup poll that specifically targeted Objectivists. <br /><br />I can certainly agree that the presence of self-contradictory premises in one’s worldview can, as you put it in <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/12/gallup-polls-highlight-happiness-health.html" rel="nofollow">your blog</a>, “subconsciously lead to mental instability and depression.” In fact, this is a major reason why my sojourn into Christianity almost two decades ago was, hands down, the most depressing experience in my life. I simply could not, as you apparently can, sustain the myriad contradictions which the Christian worldview required me to swallow. Needless to say, my life improved immeasurably once I ridded my life of mysticism and adopted a rational perspective. <br /><br />What’s curious is that our previous dialogue has apparently been gnawing at you over the past couple months. And you’re insinuating that I’m depressed? Because of a Gallup poll? Amazing.<br /><br />Re: QM<br /><br />Rick, in regard to our previous discussion on QM, which you abandoned, there are numerous outstanding points which you have yet to address. You have proposed QM as a defeater of the primacy of existence. But it’s been explained why this is not the case. You have also insisted (for no good reason) that the primacy of existence vs. the primacy of consciousness is a “false dichotomy,” and it’s been pointed out (with explanation) that this very statement assumes the primacy of existence. You’ve not successfully tackled any of these and other points, yet you come back with rather feeble taunts for who knows what purpose. Your actions are very puzzling. <br /><br />Rick: “Because quantum mechanics doesn't support the objectivist law of identity, it is QM that must be wrong...”<br /><br />I don’t think anyone argued this. Rather, the argument is that QM, or at least some interpretations of QM, cannot be true because they violate the law of identity. Notice the difference?<br /><br />Rick: “QM shows objectivism is not a convincing explanation.”<br /><br />How, Rick? What specifically does Objectivism set out to explain while failing to do so?<br /><br />Rick: “Quantum physics has shown it's impossible to “objectify” any physical object and to develop a truly objective philosophy.”<br /><br />What do you mean by “’objectify’ any physical object”? And if it’s true that it is impossible “to develop a truly objective philosophy,” then, accordingly, no philosophy – including yours (and QP) – can rightly claim to be objective. Of course, the truth of this statement hinges not only on the premises which are supposed to support it, but on your terms’ definitions. It’s still unclear to me what you might mean by “objective.” You don’t explain it.<br /><br />Rick: “The universe is interconnected at a sub-atomic level by energy.”<br /><br />Statements like this seem rather vague and over-reaching to me. What specifically is it intended to mean? There is a yellow highlighter on my desk. How is it “interconnected” with a shoelace to a pair of shoes you had back in grade school?<br /><br />Rick: “The Bible states the universe consists by God, that God holds all things together.”<br /><br />The bible presents a fantastic, imaginative view of reality which departs from reality from its very foundations, beginning with its acceptance of the primacy of consciousness. One can easily *imagine* that there is a god, and that it created everything and “holds all things together,” but a rational adult acknowledges that the imaginary is not real. Rick, I suggest you give it some deeper thought. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-19491096997231407752010-12-18T01:24:10.974-05:002010-12-18T01:24:10.974-05:00Hello Dawson,
Just wanted to stop by and wish you...Hello Dawson,<br /><br />Just wanted to stop by and wish you a metaphysical Christmas. I would wish you a merry Christmas but recent Gallup polls have shown that atheists tend towards a state of depression, as compared to spiritually minded souls. Suit yourself.<br /><br />After a brief review, the above referenced quote by guru Dean Sandin seems to be the epitome of Ethos rhetoric:<br /><br />"To reject QM as physically wrong is fine. It’s necessary. But it is not merely physically wrong. The deeper rot in QM is the admission of non-identity into physical reasoning."<br /><br />Because quantum mechanics doesn't support the objectivist law of identity, it is QM that must be wrong...<br /><br />You wrote "Rick, let’s face it: you’ve been wanting to find a way to convince yourself that Objectivism is full of holes for weeks now."<br /><br />I don't believe it's full of holes, but really without a solid foundation in reality.<br /><br />QM shows objectivism is not a convincing explanation.<br /><br />Quantum physics has shown it's impossible to “objectify” any physical object and to develop a truly objective philosophy. The universe is interconnected at a sub-atomic level by energy. The Bible states the universe consists by God, that God holds all things together. <br /><br />Christianity is one of the few religions which describes a God who is both imminent and transcendent.<br /><br />"Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality"<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/12/gallup-polls-highlight-happiness-health.htmlRick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-86764878396737519552010-10-28T00:38:39.972-04:002010-10-28T00:38:39.972-04:00A further questions, If reality does not exist unt...A further questions, If reality does not exist until someone observes it, well has anyone actually observed god? I mean with sight, hearing, touch, smell or taste, not some sort of subjective emoting? Because if so then by that logic god does not exist. Also if we create reality by observation why is that we can be surprised by things no one else has observed either? <br /><br />Subjectivism always reducing to absurdity... always...Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-81664863257518251642010-10-27T18:16:45.566-04:002010-10-27T18:16:45.566-04:00The real issue here on QM is on one hand individua...The real issue here on QM is on one hand individuals that conflate QM with the Copenhagen interpretation and those that don't. I accept QM, I reject the Copenhagen interpretation. Remember it is just that, an interpretation of whats going on, not a formal proof of anything. In fact if one were to accept it at face value, I fail to see how that person could go forth and prove anything while at the same time avoiding hypocrisy. The axiom of identity is unavoidable, even for those that wish to do so. Furthermore for those that would propose that reality does not exist unless observed, I have some questions.<br /><br />1. Did anyone observe the rock that created meteor crater in Arizona?<br /><br />2. Did anyone actually see the bullet in flight that killed JFK?<br /><br />3. Does a cat qualify as an observer, if so how about an amoeba? <br /><br />QM is truly some strange stuff, strange stuff that happens at a scale so small we can barely conceptualize it. We however are entities of what Richard Dwakens calls the middle world. Our world is not a quantum mechanical one, tho it seems to emerge form it. Thus we need a philosophy suited to our world and our nature, not one for ghostly elections and wave functions. Objectivism fits this bill. Whats the alternative, some world view based on QM that tells people to simply wish for or observe their success? Yeah try that one out for a day or two and see where it gets you.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-68327588942463367822010-10-27T02:39:59.468-04:002010-10-27T02:39:59.468-04:00Rick: “I have to agree with Justin and respectfull...Rick: “I have to agree with Justin and respectfully disagree with you as well.”<br /><br />It’s not clear that you’re agreeing with Justin here, Rick. So far as I can tell, Justin has not surmised that the primacy of existence is false, nor has he said anything like “objectivism is out of a job.” Justin did say that “QM is not the basis for a sound philosophy,” and yet your purpose in introducing QM to the discussion seems expressly geared toward drawing philosophical conclusions.<br /><br />At any rate, Sandin himself might be happy to discuss the matter with you if you think he’s so mistaken.<br /><br />Rick: “In an article at physicsworld.com ‘Quantum physics says goodbye to reality’ dated Apr 20, 2007, Austrian physicists offer that the quantum observer effect is proven in another even more radical way, that the sub-atomic world can only exist when it is being observed.”<br /><br />Is this another way of saying that things like electrons and protons only exist when they’re being observed? I don’t know how else to interpret what you’re saying here, and if that is what you (or the Austrian physicists) really mean to say, you’re telling me that Sandin is out of touch with reality? Even the double slit experiment does not suggest that “the sub-atomic world can only exist when it is being observed.” Depending on what is meant by “observed,” the double slit experiment shows that things at the quantum level happen one way when they’re not observed (and thus the sub-atomic particles must exist, for they’re doing the acting), and that things happen another way when they are observed. It does not suggest that nothing exists at the quantum level until it’s observed.<br /><br />Again, as I pointed out earlier, the documentary on the double slit experiment said that “a measuring device” was used to monitor the activity at the sub-atomic level. What specifically was this “measuring device”? If it wasn’t a human eye, then it seems that “observe” is a loaded term.<br /><br />Regardless, we do not perceive reality at the sub-atomic level, a level of inquiry which physicists seem unanimous in only one assessment: that it’s mysterious (they seem to disagree on so much else). As I mentioned, my observing my cell phone does not change its nature; it remains what it is independent of my conscious activity. This wouldn’t be the case if the primacy of existence principle were not true. I can see why you prefer to take the debate into the field of physics, since there is, as you yourself admit, a lot of quackery going on there, plenty to try to seek refuge in.<br /><br />Rick: “It is not surprising that objectivist-minded scientists would oppose quantum physics because non-location dismantles the possibility of truly observing any one thing or system objectively.”<br /><br />And yet, “the sub-atomic world can only exist when it is being observed.” <br /><br />Rick: “If the physical world as we know it is interconnected at a subatomic level, which appears to be the case, then it seems objectivism is out of a job.”<br /><br />Rick, let’s face it: you’ve been wanting to find a way to convince yourself that Objectivism is full of holes for weeks now. It’s clear that you’re going to believe what you want to believe. You don’t need my permission. But I do not see where you’ve disproven any tenet of Objectivism. And it’s not because I haven’t been paying attention to you.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-72516532242643359902010-10-27T00:50:14.982-04:002010-10-27T00:50:14.982-04:00Dear Dawson,
I have to agree with Justin and resp...Dear Dawson,<br /><br />I have to agree with Justin and respectfully disagree with you as well. <br /><br />Your quote by Dean Sandin is an iconic example of someone adamantly out of touch with reality:<br /><br />“To reject QM as physically wrong is fine. It’s necessary." <br /><br />I'll grant you that the double slit experiment "observer effect" is still inconclusively proven mathematically. But the question remains open.<br /><br />In an article at physicsworld.com “Quantum physics says goodbye to reality” dated Apr 20, 2007, Austrian physicists offer that the quantum observer effect is proven in another even more radical way, that the sub-atomic world can only exist when it is being observed. <br /><br />While the observer effect is one aspect of quantum mechanics, non-locality is another, and has been conclusively proven many times. <br /><br />Like Sandin, Einstein didn't believe in non-locality, calling it "spooky actions from a distance"(Good subject for Halloween.)<br /><br />However, Alain Aspect in 1982 was the first to conclusive proof non-locality experimentally. It has been proven experimentally many times since.<br /><br />This article shows one such example:<br /><br />'We have broken speed of light'<br /><br />http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3303699/We-have-broken-speed-of-light.html<br /><br />"The scientists were investigating a phenomenon called quantum tunneling."<br /><br />It is not surprising that objectivist-minded scientists would oppose quantum physics because non-location dismantles the possibility of truly observing any one thing or system objectively. If the physical world as we know it is interconnected at a subatomic level, which appears to be the case, then it seems objectivism is out of a job.<br /><br />There is a lot of quantum quackery, such as promoted in "The Secret" but there is also undeniable evidence supporting subatomic interconnectedness as supported by valid science. <br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />RickRick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-75838052439232900142010-10-24T14:53:11.027-04:002010-10-24T14:53:11.027-04:00Hi Justin,
Glad things are going well for you, an...Hi Justin,<br /><br />Glad things are going well for you, and that you’re back in business. That’s great news!<br /><br />In response to the Dean Sandin quote, you wrote: “actually Dawson I think I am going to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I don't see how a particle smeared out as some sort of wave until interacted with (i.e. observation) contradicts the law of identity…”<br /><br />I understand your comments. I don’t think Sandin had specifically the double slit experiment in mind when he stated that “the deeper rot in QM is the admission of non-identity into physical reasoning.” Maybe he does, but he seems to be speaking more broadly about QM generally, or at least some of the methods which researchers have used. Prior to stating this in his post, Sandin disentangles a three-part package-deal that he detected and notes that only one of its elements is philosophical in nature. Sandin says the following about the third disentangled element: <br /><br />“Action at a distance (superfluously also called instantaneous action at a distance, and often termed non-locality) would by definition be non-physical (tantamount to magic). It can’t ever rationally be an element of physics. That is a philosophical issue. In recognition of this, Einstein called non-locality ‘spooky’, Newton called it absurd.”<br /><br />I think this is what Sandin has in mind when he speaks of “non-identity” of the particle.<br /><br />I did note in the double slit video that the professor says that the particle “interferes with itself” and “it goes through both slits, and it goes through neither [slit].” At first blush, this all sounds contradictory, but I’m not familiar enough with all the issues to know all the ins and outs here. That being said, many Objectivists have pointed out contradictions in quantum physics research (e.g., Harriman, Binswanger, etc.), and a contradiction is a contradiction regardless of which field of study it occurs in. <br /><br />Also, in the double slit experiment, the identity of the “measuring device” seems to be denied, or at least ignored. As I pointed out, what specifically this “measuring device” is, is not stated in the video, and it quickly becomes “observation,” even though the human eye cannot perceive particles the size of an electron. So how is it determined with certainty that the “measuring device” used in the experiment is not responsible for interfering with the experiment?<br /><br />As for your interaction with the self-identified communist, I’d be happy to examine the points in contention. Feel free to e-mail me. Specifically, I’d like to examine his argument in his own words.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-88305250877316776392010-10-24T03:15:58.816-04:002010-10-24T03:15:58.816-04:00Oh a question for you, I am knee deep in an on goi...Oh a question for you, I am knee deep in an on going debate out here in real space over the merits of Rand's theory of ethics and how that relates to politics. My opponent is an self described communist. I realize that this is outside the scope of this blog, concerned as it is with presuppositionalism. However as this is of interest to objectivism as a whole, I was wondering If I could relay his argument to you for discussion here. I would like to present his argument for critical review and you are the only one I know that could effectively take it on from the objectivist point of view. The essence of his argument appears to be that Rand misidentified man's nature as an autonomous moral agent. That a proper identification of man would take into account his nature as a social animal. That there really is no choice but to be part of society, i.e. the tribe. And so some due consideration must therefore be made to a collectivist ethic. Anyway your thoughts?Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-67401636079292071722010-10-24T03:06:03.746-04:002010-10-24T03:06:03.746-04:00Oh by the way I am doing fine. I have a new employ...Oh by the way I am doing fine. I have a new employer and am back in the software trade. Hopefully this one will not send my job overseas, but like I said back then, no one owes me a job, thats my job:)Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-49944248353374026012010-10-24T03:02:15.437-04:002010-10-24T03:02:15.437-04:00"To reject QM as physically wrong is fine. It..."To reject QM as physically wrong is fine. It’s necessary. But it is not merely physically wrong. The deeper rot in QM is the admission of non-identity into physical reasoning. Doing physics right doesn’t merely mean getting the right answers from a mathematical formalism – not while the underlying entities can’t be non-contradictorily grasped. It also means eliminating the contradictions that prevent the clear grasp of the physical entities. And that means rediscovering identity, and admitting back into the basis of physics the real entities that QM gives up on.”<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />actually Dawson I think I am going to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I don't see how a particle smeared out as some sort of wave until interacted with (i.e. observation) contradicts the law of identity. The way I see it, that is a quanta's identity under certain conditions, namely that it does not have a certain position. There are many things in the classical physical sense that have not hard edges as it were, such as an actual wave on a beach, or a cloud. That is how I conceptualize a quantum wave, like a defuse entity until it is interacted with in the right way, then it collapses to a point like object. This is it's identity and it acts in accordance with it, not the whims of the observer, although the act of observing can fulfill the required conditions to collapse the wave function. I am however in full agreement that QM is not the basis for a sound philosophy or does it invalidate the law of identity. Like directed to Rick, it is either QM or it is not, there is no escaping identification.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-71614533703575576252010-10-24T00:28:57.901-04:002010-10-24T00:28:57.901-04:00Justin: “No sorry, quantum physics is not going to...Justin: “No sorry, quantum physics is not going to over turn the law of identity.”<br /><br />Hi Justin,<br /><br />Good to see you again. I hope things are well for you. <br /><br />Welcome to my handholding session with Rick Warden. You can check out the comments section of <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/08/critique-of-sye-ten-bruggencates.html" rel="nofollow">this blog</a> to see where it all started, and how it’s progressed since then. <br /><br />And you’re right – neither quantum physics nor any other mental contraption is going to overturn the law of identity. The following <a href="http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=9759&pid=89722&mode=threaded&start=#" rel="nofollow">quote by Dean Sandin</a> seems quite apropos to Rick’s latest attempt to discredit Objectivism:<br /><br />“Quantum Mechanics holds that a particle is nowhere and everywhere throughout some extended region, until magic happens and instantaneously it’s at one place. Of course, QM doesn’t say “magic”. But rationally speaking it means magic. I.e., non-identity in various guises, whether named non-locality, backwards-in-time causality, indeterminacy, the (literal and physical) primacy of consciousness, or whatever. <br /><br />“To reject QM as physically wrong is fine. It’s necessary. But it is not merely physically wrong. The deeper rot in QM is the admission of non-identity into physical reasoning. Doing physics right doesn’t merely mean getting the right answers from a mathematical formalism – not while the underlying entities can’t be non-contradictorily grasped. It also means eliminating the contradictions that prevent the clear grasp of the physical entities. And that means rediscovering identity, and admitting back into the basis of physics the real entities that QM gives up on.”<br /><br />Now what new objection is Rick going to raise next?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-10844066338109515922010-10-24T00:16:09.415-04:002010-10-24T00:16:09.415-04:00Part II
Rick: “You can continue to repeat your pr...Part II<br /><br />Rick: “You can continue to repeat your primacy of existence mantra, but it is in conflict with many proven scientific facts and experiments.”<br /><br />Again, I suspect you really haven’t given the matter much genuine consideration, Rick. The alternative to the primacy of existence is the primacy of consciousness. My observation of something does not change its nature. Take for instance my cell phone. By observing it, it does not change into something other than a cell phone. But why not? I thought that that the double slit experiment proves that “observance changes reality” (your words, Rick). What’s going on? Either observation does change reality, or it doesn’t. Or, is existence fickle in your view?<br /><br />Rick: “Aristotle coined the concept of logic. But was everyone illogical before Aristotle? Of course not. What does this mean? Logic is an inherent property. How deep does logic go into reality?”<br /><br />What do you mean by the statement “logic is an inherent property”? An inherent property <i>of what</i>? Is logic an inherent property of thinking? If so, it seems there’d be no such thing as illogical thinking. But there is such a thing as illogical thinking. <br /><br />Rick: “The nature of logic is reality itself.”<br /><br />I have no idea what you intend to mean by this. The concepts ‘logic’ and ‘reality’ do not denote one and the same thing.<br /><br />Rick: “Anything that exists does so in relation to non-existence.”<br /><br />So, non-existence is a thing which things that exist, exist in relation to? What is a "relation to non-existence" anyway? How does something exist "in relation to non-existence"? What does "non-existence" have to do with things that exist?<br /><br />Rick: “If existence exists, logic exists.” <br /><br />How exactly does this follow? Unhide your premises, Rick. <br /><br />Rick: “’Gravity’ describes a force acting upon objects. ‘Logic’ describes the nature of reality itself, whether or not forces are considered.”<br /><br />So, in your view, logic is merely descriptive? Typically theists tell us that logic is <i>normative</i>. But that’s not what you’re saying here.<br /><br />As I stated in a previous message, you appear to be a deeply confused man. You need to lay off the mysticism habit – it’s destroying your mind.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-5953782902532902892010-10-24T00:12:02.812-04:002010-10-24T00:12:02.812-04:00Part I
I wrote: "Just by saying that this is...Part I<br /><br />I wrote: "Just by saying that this is the case (primacy of existence is false), you’re assuming the primacy of existence."<br /><br />Rick: “No,take a step back for a minute, stop repeating your knee jerk mantras and consider the possibility that quantum physics has proven this theory to be false.”<br /><br />Rick, the very notion of “proof” necessarily presupposes the primacy of existence. No legitimate science or scientific experiment can disprove the primacy of existence. There’s a lot of junk science out there, and scientists are not all monolithically working from a rational philosophy. Many scientists bring unchecked premises into their work, and these unchecked premises can easily influence the conclusions they draw from their work. In short, don’t believe every YouTube video you watch.<br /><br />I wrote: "Consider what the primacy of existence says: it says that the objects of awareness are what they are *independent* of the conscious activity by which the subject is aware of those objects."<br /><br />Rick: “Your philosophy can say whatever it wants to, but each new discovery in quantum physics drives another nail into the coffin of Rand's ‘Objectivism’."<br /><br />“…<i>each</i> new discovery in quantum physics” does this? You say this, even though it’s been painfully clear from our conversation hitherto that your understanding of what it is you say “each new discovery in quantum physics” refutes, is worse than poor.<br /><br />Rick: “Experiments in quantum physics show that simply looking at something as tiny as an electron--just focusing our awareness upon what it's doing for even an instant of time--changes its properties while we're watching it. This is a 100% proven and truly objective fact.”<br /><br />Even the video you linked to about the double slit experiment does not unequivocally establish that “simply <i>looking</i> at something… changes its properties.” Indeed, the conclusion that “observation” alone alters outcomes in the experiment trades on an equivocation. Did you catch it? Watch the video again, and pay close attention. First it says that the experimenters installed “a measuring device” next to one of the slits. The video does not tell us what specifically this “measuring device” is; graphically the cartoon uses a big eyeball atop a tripod to represent this. But I doubt very much it was simply a naked eye as this implies. It is at this point that this “measuring device” is then characterized as “observation,” as if it were a conscious person simply “peeking” (their word) at what’s happening. Even the grandfatherly professor on the video says “the quantum world is far more mysterious than [physicists] could have imagined.” <br /><br />But notice that even then, the conclusion is not that the wave patterns conform to someone’s dictates, wishing, emotions, preferences, fantasies, temper tantrums, etc. The primacy of existence could only be compromised if the scientists conducting the experiment could direct the patterns by a sheer act of will. But just the fact that they observe one thing under one set of conditions (e.g., without the “measuring device” monitoring the electron) and something else under a different set of conditions (e.g., with the “measuring device” monitoring the electron) suggests, in full compliance with the primacy of existence, that the particle’s behavior and the resulting pattern do <i>not</i> conform to someone’s will, but in fact follow a causal sequence which the scientists probably do not fully understand at this time. (Again, they admit that it’s “far more mysterious” than they imagine it to be.)<br /><br />Physicist <a href="http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/products.asp?dept=88" rel="nofollow">David Harriman</a> (himself an Objectivist) has exposed a lot of the bunk notions that pass as “science” in the field of physics today. If you’re interested in a truly rational understanding of the science of physics, I recommend you consult his work. <br /><br />[Continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-23285473522644620972010-10-23T23:49:33.865-04:002010-10-23T23:49:33.865-04:00ugh, sorry for the grammar fail, should have said ...ugh, sorry for the grammar fail, should have said <br /><br />And just how might I ask did he prove his conclusion without invalidating his argument, or did he not use logic?Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-75246193607668863092010-10-23T23:48:04.708-04:002010-10-23T23:48:04.708-04:00l love the physicist validate absolute log as equa...l love the physicist validate absolute log as equator self contradiction. First I know of no such thing as absolute logic, there is only logic. And just might I ask did he prove his conclusion without invalidating his argument, or did you not use logic?Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.com