The Sin against Objectivism (Peikoff as Pontifex)

Ted wrote,

There are so many things in life that one simply cannot intellectualize about. The value of friends is one of them.

All intellectualizing presupposes a certain amount of experience. Given the experience of friendship and its value, one can certainly intellectualize about it, by pointing out that friendship involves the pleasure of mutual visibility and of shared values.

There's no point arguing someone into understanding the pleasure they bring.

Well, sure; if the person hasn't experienced it (an unlikely possibility), then simply proclaiming the value of friendship isn't going to be enough to convince him.

Objectivism seems to suffer this flaw, the view argument and argument alone assure right conduct and happiness.

Where does Objectivism say or even imply that argument alone can assure right conduct and happiness? It doesn't. Objectivism is not rationalism.

But we must live according to our own dispositions as well. And sometimes these are not subject to change by reasoning alone. It is almost like the Lutheran belief in justification through faith alone. Ah well.

I think this appraisal mischaracterizes Objectivism. Reason, according to Objectivism, does not mean reason in the absence of experience.

As for Rand's alienating people, this may have been unavoidable, if for various reasons she didn't get along with them. The alienation presumably came from a lack of shared values, which meant that being friends with these people wouldn't have been a real possibility in any case. If you're true to your values and aren't afraid to express them, then you're going to alienate those who don't share them. What's the alternative? Act in such a way that you don't offend anyone? That way you'll have a lot more friends. Yeah right. You'll have a lot more people who aren't offended, because they don't know the real you. Are these the people you'd want to have as friends? I don't think so!

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/14, 8:16am)

Post 41

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 1:17am

With Our Names, & Our Insights, Should We Have Any.

Bill,

I do so hate candystriping, since it requires responses in piecemeal. By "intellectualizing" I meant the fallacy of thinking that making an argument establishes a fact. An example of this would be the arguments of the anarcho-capitalists who believe that their formulations will establish peace among men. In my specific example, I meant that one cannot argue someone into preferring chocolate ice-cream to vanilla, sex with men to women, or other such matters as being gregarious or a loner by nature.

As for Rand, I find repeating my arguments an embarassment, and her apparentloneliness as shame, not a crime. I prefer to remain silent on her. But there are many people who do make friends with people seemingly only in order to have people whom later to denounce and excommunicate. I have known many such people and been the butt of many such cliques. And the tendency of so many so called Objectivists to revel in this sort of behavior is disgusting and incontrovertible. Peikoff's quote which was the impetus for this essay is one example of it. I should have said that too many self described "Objectivists" seem to suffer this flaw, the view argument and argument alone assure right conduct and happiness. My reference to the Lutheran attitude of justification by faith alone was a criticism of those who embody this mistaken view of Objectivism.

And he, to what I more and more see as Rand's and ours and the world's misfortune, is, by her greatest mistake, seen as the embodiment of Objectivism today. I describe myself as an "objectivist," lower case, out of respect for her dislike of the term "Randian" and in respect for her wish that those who explicitly disagree with her on philosophical matters not call themselves Objectivists. My disagreements with her, such as they are, are on human nature. Given what I have heard so far from Leonard Peikoff's DIM lectures, and his rationalistic ejaculations therein about not only certain theories of modern physics but of the facts which they embody (such as, for example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is a correct description of our limited level of knowledge possible about quantum level phenomena, at this time, but which does not have the bizarre meanings which many nihilists wish to use to deny objective fact or reality, or his simply laughing at Big Bang theory because one of the early theorists who worked on it was a Catholic Priest) I believe that Peikoff has moved beyond Objectivism to a form of deductive rationalism based on memorization and scorn.

As it stands, I find that calling oneself an Objectivist is, not because of Rand, but because of the actions of so many of her idolators, becoming ever more so an embarrassment. I applaud those who fight the good fight under the name of Objectivism, and do not myself abandon it. Would that those little cards in Rand's books did not fall into such an unworthy man's pockets. I believe we should each be willing to speak for ourselves, and that if we find ourselves using her words and her name and her philosophy as a weapon to smite those who do not threaten us with force, we should have the decency to make our attacks in our words, and in our names, and with our own insights, should we have any.

Ted Keer, 13 November, 2006, NYC

Post 42

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 11:35am

Ted, you wrote,

Given what I have heard so far from Leonard Peikoff's DIM lectures . . .
Well, at least you considered them important enough to buy and listen to. I have not.
. . . and his rationalistic ejaculations therein about not only certain theories of modern physics but of the facts which they embody (such as, for example, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is a correct description of our limited level of knowledge possible about quantum level phenomena, at this time, but which does not have the bizarre meanings which many nihilists wish to use to deny objective fact or reality . . .
I disagree with you here, and agree with Peikoff's assessment of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (See below.)
. . . or his simply laughing at Big Bang theory because one of the early theorists who worked on it was a Catholic Priest)
I hadn't heard this. But I would like to get the context. What I am getting from you is only your conclusion. If the priest was trying to provide scientific support for the First-Cause Argument -- for the idea that the universe came into existence out of nothing -- and if the Big Bang is understood to provide that support (as some people apparently think it does), then Peikoff may have a point. Of course, the Big Bang, understood simply as an observed phenomenon, is entirely legitimate; it is only its metaphysical interpretation as the origin of existence that is at issue here, which may be what Peikoff is referring to, because nihilo ex nihilo -- from nothing comes nothing. Obviously, there had to be something preceding the Big Bang (even if it was only a very small amount of concentrated energy). As I say, I'd like to see the full context of Peikoff's remarks before passing judgment.
I believe that Peikoff has moved beyond Objectivism to a form of deductive rationalism based on memorization and scorn.

I wouldn't be so quick to draw these conclusions, Ted. Let's look a little more carefully at what he is saying:

From Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

Many commentators on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle claim that, because we cannot at the same time specify fully the position and momentum of subatomic particles, their action is not entirely predictable, and that the law of causality therefore breaks down. This is a non sequitur, a switch from epistemology to metaphysics, or from knowledge to reality. Even if it were true that owing to a lack of information we could never exactly predict a subatomic event--and this is highly debatable--it would not show that, in reality, the event was causeless. The law of causality is an abstract principle; it does not by itself enable us to predict specific occurrences; it does not provide us with a knowledge of particular causes or measurements. Our ignorance of certain measurements, however, does not affect their reality or the consequent operation of nature. (pp. 16, 17)

Remember that, according to Objectivism, the law of causality is the law of identity applied to action, and that existence is identity. With this in mind, consider what Heisenberg had to say in his 1927 paper on the uncertainty principle: "I believe that the existence of the classical 'path' can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it. "

As one commentator put it, "Heisenberg realized that the uncertainty relations had profound implications. First, if we accept Heisenberg's argument that every concept has a meaning only in terms of the experiments used to measure it, we must agree that things that cannot be measured really have no meaning in physics. Thus, for instance, the path of a particle has no meaning beyond the precision with which it is observed. But a basic assumption of physics since Newton has been that a "real world" exists independently of us, regardless of whether or not we observe it. (This assumption did not go unchallenged, however, by some philosophers.) Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them."

In light of the above, it is obvious that Heisenberg's view is in flat contradiction with the Objectivist metaphysics and with the primacy of existence. His uncertainty principle, as he construed it, is as clear and unqualified a statement of the primacy of consciousness as one can get! However, quite apart from the corrupt philosophical construction that Heisenberg placed on his "uncertainty principle," that principle nevertheless does describe something real. As Physicist Glenn Fletcher put it:

Heisenberg states that you can only measure (in the usual meaning of measure; i.e. with instruments) the position and the momentum of a subatomic particle to accuracies that satisfy his uncertainty relation. The classical reason for this is found in most Modern Physics books.

In order to measure the position of something, you have to probe it with, for example, light with a wavelength smaller than the position accuracy desired. Now, the momentum of light is inversely proportional to its wavelength, so the smaller the wavelength (and so the more accurate a position measurement) the greater the momentum of the probe. This will affect the subatomic particle�s momentum, due to the collision of the light and the particle. So, if the particle�s momentum was known prior to the probe, it is now uncertain by an amount given by the momentum exchange during the collision. So, basically, the measurement disturbs that which is being measured. It can be shown that the product of the uncertainty of the momentum and the uncertainty of the position of the particle cannot be less than h/4pi.

What I think Peikoff is saying, and what I think is true, is that this problem of measuring something extremely small is an epistemological problem. That is, it says nothing about whether the subatomic particle has a precise trajectory and obeys causality when not being measured. That would be a metaphysical statement and Heisenberg had no justification for saying that based on his uncertainty relation. Hence Peikoff�s statement... �Our ignorance of certain measurements, however, does not affect their reality or the consequent operation of nature.�

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/14, 11:39am)

Post 43

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 1:22pm

Bill,

The DIM lectures are currently available to listen to for free on aynrand.org. You have to register but that costs nothing. (Actually, if you're internet savvy enough, you can download the lectures so you can more easily listen at your leisure.)

Post 44

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 5:11pm

Rick,

I'm not savvy enough. I can listen to the lectures. However, if I download a lecture and then try to play it, I get this message:
Windows Media Player cannot play the file. The Player might not support the file type or might not support the codec that was used to compress the file.

I assumed ARI did something to guard against owning the files permanently for no cost.

Post 45

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 7:02pm

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle (that at the absolute smallest levels, we cannot know fully both the velocity and location of a particle simultaneously) is true, simply being a recognition of the fact that knowledge requires finite effort by man, and that it is not gained mystically.

In order to know the speed and velocity of the smallest particles, remember that we cannot already see them, since light bouncing off them would be changing their paths. So imagine a wall with a tennis ball sized whole through which you can throw the ball. If it hits a ball on the other side and bounces back, then we know that by its return that it did hit something. The speed of the return of that ball will be determined by the speed and angle of attack from the unseen ball, so the returning particle will tell us that some object was encountered, perhaps moving directly toward our probe but very slowly, or moving more quickly but at a different angle of attack. Since the force applied would be a result of the speed and angle of the approach of the unseen particle, we could gain this knowledge from the probe, that it me a slow moving body head-on or a fast moving body at a glance.

The above is simple, verified by experiment, and a bit counterintuitive since we can't but imagine the particles as "seen" which is how we sense tennis ball reacting. The problem is the physicists trying to apply this uncertainty to artificially isolated articles at the edge of our ability to detect to macroscopic entities that behave much more as "normally."

The absurdities of applying the effect like electron tunneling (where electron pass thru minute thicknesses of barrier which should be "impenetrably solid" but are not because of fluctuations at the quantum level. To say, people walking through walls or other such miraculous effects might occur is sloppy nonsense because the chances of these effects based on the scientists own calculations by the scientist themselves say that such a thing on our level might happen once in ten times the lifetime of the known universe.

The problem comes from the fact that difficult and esoteric math is needed to grasp these counterintuitive facts which occur only at the edge of our ability to probe, (and given that we are finite beings of finite nature who must have a means to gather information) we run up to a limit in the amount of data we can gather on the smallest particles with the bluntest probes. Its like trying to count sand wearing boxing gloves.

The absurd derivative claims made based on this simple fact are ridiculous and do not follow. Macroscopic particles are bound in their interaction with other particles in a way which makes them much more "determinate"

Peikoff's approach to this matter is not to understand the facts and find a better formulation of their meaning, but to laugh the facts away, in direct contradiction to his own statements on "metapuffs" in OPAR. He is making deductive rationalist attacks on accepted effect, the quantum effects, the big bang, and so on because one of the physicists who formulated the big bang hypothesis was a priest. This can be heard in lectures 6a & 6b.

The is plenty of nonsense based upon misapplications of these theories, and much nonsense being pursued. Objectivist theory of science could point out that some interpretations are absurd while showing other ways of pursuing the facts.

You have to download the files which are keys to access the streams to your documents, and them while on line open the files which will open the stream from ARI.

This matter of criticizing Peikoff is very difficult given that he has not committed this matter to print. Should he do so in the form he has presented in the lectures, simply dismissing the facts, however poorly understood, formulated and disseminated today from incredulity, the "cult status" of Objectivism will be a proven matter. I am on lecture 7 now, and comment later.

Ted

Post 46

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 3:51am

Since Ayn Rand�s death, Leonard Peikoff has devoted his entire existence to preserving her legacy in the purest possible form. I have no doubt that, if Baron von Frankenstein should knock on his door and propose that her brain be surgically removed from her corpse and transplanted into his skull, he would gladly do it. His life in the years since she died is vivid proof of the hazards of human cloning given the current limitations of scientific knowledge.

In his defense, I think we have to say that Peikoff�s heart was certainly in the right place. But, alas, Objectivism offers stern warnings to anyone tempted to let his heart rule over his brain, and Peikoff could be cited as a textbook example of where such a near-sighted policy can lead. At some point, he decided to snuff out the remnants of Leonard and become Rand�s selfless reincarnation. The emotional price he has paid for that decision is unquestionably enormous. The tragedy, of course, given his leadership position at the helm of the Objectivist philosophy, has been the sterile, lifeless reflection of his austere self-repression in the stultifying atmosphere pervading the entire Objectivist movement.

Given his evident weaknesses and limitations�of which Ayn Rand was well aware at the time of her decision to designate him as her new intellectual heir�it should not be surprising that things have turned out as they have. No one in his position could have made such a choice and paid less of a price in terms of his own independence and self-esteem. Rand chose him precisely because he lacked the qualities that had forced Nathaniel Branden to go his own way�the exuberant, defiant boldness and self-reverence that Branden could not repress and that ultimately exploded in both of their faces.

The unspeakable emotional torture which tore Rand apart in the aftermath of the break-up with Branden blinded her to the consequences of placing the future of Objectivism in the hands of a man who, unlike Branden, failed miserably at the task of embodying the virtues extolled by her philosophy. Selflessness ultimately translates to mindlessness. When Peikoff elected to abandon his independence, he abandoned whatever potential he may have once had for greatness and brilliance. And Objectivism scrapped its preliminary designs for flight into the upper reaches of the human stratosphere to set up shop in a used car lot full of hackneyed, broken down jalopies.

By drowning Rand�s glorious ingenuity in a morass of incipient moralizing and pedantry, he has managed to drape the Objectivist philosophy in the trappings of a cult that has prevented its radical ideas from penetrating the halls of academia and insulated her works from serious scholarship. How else to explain the virtual ignorance of Rand�s formidable epistemological and ethical theorizing among major independent secular thinkers of our day.

Her ideas on metaphysics, concept formation and the foundations of ethics could equip writers such as Richard Dawkins and Susan Jacoby (author of The Freethinkers) with invaluable intellectual ammunition, yet they probably dismiss her as the philosophical equivalent of adolescent science fiction. For that situation to remain unchanged in the half century since the publication of Atlas Shrugged is an intellectual disgrace. Objectivism�s spokesmen have cloaked themselves in the alienating robes of moral superiority and disdained all suggestion that they might have any responsibility to engage the opposition in genuine discussion or debate.

It was as if the heirs of Henry Ford had been condemned to live out their years studying the design of the Model T. The internal combustion engine is a closed system, you see. Take it or leave it. No tinkering allowed. And the idea of modifying it into something that might literally transform human existence as we know it is an act of immoral, ungracious effrontery.

Peikoff�s business policy has been made explicitly clear: We welcome interested buyers to visit the business office here at Peikoff�s Used Cars.(aka ARI) and worship at the little shrine we built to show our admiration for the designer�s genius. We just hope you�re not one of those corrupt charlatans who looks at her amazing invention and starts figuring new ways for how it might one day take us all to the moon.

Post 47

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 10:39am

Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain...

Dennis, I assume you don't mind me linking to you. May I quote you in full?

Listening to DIM has been making me feel sorry for Peikoff in the way that Roark felt sorry for Keating after he began to paint.

And I am reminded of "Anne Elk," John Cleese's character on MP'sFC who "had a theory, and it's my theory, and that it was it is! Eh hem!"

Listening to DIM has proven helpful in that I can say he's an "M1"! and Peikovians will understand what I am accusing.

My real unease is the way that such things as Big Bang theory and Quantum Mechanics and Wave Particle duality are simply laughed off as if there were not evidence that these things exist or behave in the manners ascribed to them, regardless of the absurd conclusions some draw unwarrantedly from them. Like the 2.7 degree Kelvin Black Body background radiation and the Hubble Constant which just about conclusively proves the big bang. The ARIans do not offer alternative formulations of these theories or plausible replacements, they just say, well Lemaitre was a Catholic Priest, you know... And in OPAR Peikoff himself disclaimed all cosmological claims, but now he is dismissing theories whose best arguments he can't articulate, based on mere "floating deduction" to coin a phrase. Postulated entities such as dark matter which physicists put in big flaming scare quotes are denounced but a mechanism for free will is simply postulated by saying that Rand differentiated between the metaphysical and the man-made, no further questions please!

And DIM actually does apply to contemporary linguistics (which I decided not to major in after my cousin, who is a Ph.D. warned me that my historical interests would get me pegged as a Neo-Nazi) which has gone from a fully integrated science (I) to a fully disintegrated science (D2) under the influence of Chomsky and a few others since the end of the war. This is not mentioned, by Peikoff, so far as I am aware, but would bear analysis. I wonder if he even addresses biology or Darwin. I get the feeling Objectivists are supposed to find biology too tree-huggily subhuman to care about except for medicine. This is an absurd claim, of course, but one for which I see no counter-evidence. Blame the cough syrup.

As for Objectivism itself, I think the truth is more important than the label, and I am losing brand name loyalty fast, although I fully endorse Rand's four one-legged formulations and am closer to her than anything else by far, and see that her epistemology is the key. I'd like to give her credit, but don't see the point of falling in with so many hangers on whose only wish is to have a framework from which to pronounce their denunciations. I wish regime change were as easy as waiting out an 8 year presidency. Thank God for TAS/TOC/TNI etc... I just wish Rand had put her royalties toward purchasing her books for libraries and in translation and that she had given 20 years for Peikoff to publish what he wanted of her private material until it had been turned over to the Library of Congress or some such.

Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain indeed.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 11/15, 4:35pm)

Post 48

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 3:08pm

of which Ayn Rand was well aware at the time of her decision to designate him as her new intellectual heir

Except, of course, Rand did NOT so designate - she only designated him as executor to the estate... period.

Post 49

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 4:26pm

Dennis, I wanted to sanction you twice. Can I quote you in full or at length?

Post 50

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 - 4:57pm

Bill,

He has moved beyond OPAR in his spoken DIM lectures, which are guarded but dismissive, and not only against the interpretations which I also find faulty, but toward the evidence or even the possibility of evidence. He has an "expert" speak for him who only quotes worst case scenarios. This is justified by Peikoff because "only the extremists" [P's words] "matter." He seems to have forgotten that "extremism" is an anti-concept. He also denounces such postulated entities as "dark matter" which physicists always put in flaming scarlet scare quotes, but he himself accepts Ayn Rand's postulated mental entities [volition as a special type of causation, but not radioactive decay] which I also accept as tentative explanations without saying anything more than that "Rand distinguished between the metaphysical and the man-made," and the implied "no more questions please." I want to get through the entire series, before drawing more conclusions, but sections 5a & 5b address physics. If he commits himself to writing, it will be interesting to see. Until then, he will remain safe from the criticisms of more cautious men than I.

Robert,

You keep forgetting he has her brain in a jar by the door. You know who it's for.

Ted

Post 51

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 7:32am

Ted writes:

Dennis, I wanted to sanction you twice.

Back of the line, pal!

Post 52

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 2:18pm

Ted: The Heisenberg uncertainty principle (that at the absolute smallest levels, we cannot know fully both the velocity and location of a particle simultaneously) is true, simply being a recognition of the fact that knowledge requires finite effort by man, and that it is not gained mystically.

Me: Only under specific provisos that a given particle's level of energy can be 'interrupted' by the measuring device's inputted energy. This also very well understood in physics, btw, so it's not mystical, but it doesn't imply we can't known the position and momenta of a particle. It just implies that the given approximate macroscopic scales of our measuring devices, that the inputted energy for measurement exceeds the initial energy state of the particle, which is easily computed, but I forgot the exact equation. X_x

So, the way old Heisenberg formulated his idea about the principle is wrong in that it assumes all paths are not determined by the total energy state of a particle [before and after measurement]. It's also the same error that Bohr made in the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, in that both assumed that consciousness is necessary for measurement and wave function 'collapse.' This is untrue in light of the fact that particles, even when not measured directly, act according to specifically known principles of quantum mechanics [wave interference and the like], thus supposing an external source for 'quantum weirdness.'

If you want to know the alternative, it's called the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which btw was validated this year in an experiment. So, no more spooky science. No more consciousness controls the particle. And no more boring arguments against or for traditional views of QM. :)

-- Bridget

Post 53

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 6:16pm

Horizon Phenomena & the Limits of Knowledge

The point that needs to be accepted about quantum mechanics, black holes, and the big bang is that they are all "horizon" phenomena. We cannot imagine "what happened before the big bang" because there was no "before" - yet our minds cannot grasp the non-temporal on an intuitive level, so we balk. We cannot go beyond the Chandrasekhar limit of a black hole and report back, and we cannot (most of us) visualize a fourth spatial dimension, so we balk. We cannot specify simultaneously both the exact location and the exact trajectory of the smallest particles because to measure those variables would mean having to interact with them, hence changing the very variables we are measuring, yet we are used to imagining just "looking" at things which the mere act of our "looking" does not perturb, so we balk. These are limit cases where we either do not have the imaginative capacity, or the mathematical formulae or subtle enough instruments or the almost infinite energies that would be needed to get beyond the "horizon" of what is now knowable to us.

This idea that our knowledge has a horizon (because it has a real cost and we are finite entities) is perfectly acceptable to physicists, and was also accepted by Rand. We are not omniscient. But Peikoff's incredulity in DIM wavers between dismissing the misformulations of such facts, and dismissing the facts themselves.

I am not an expert in physics, I don't enjoy mathematics enough, and never studied beyond Fourier and series and limits in advanced calculus. I understand that their are things called matrices and differential equations. I do not know how to use them. So I cannot do the math implied at the link Bridget has provided. But evidently the authority she cites is providing an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics from the Copenhagen interpretation that does not have the absurd requirement of an "observer" to "collapse the wave function." I know enough to understand that her authority is asserting an alternative formulation, but cannot myself do the math. Also, I believe Bridget will concede that among physicists, this matter is still not fully resolved? I mention this because of having read within the year that Roger Penrose is saying that it is gravity that "collapses the wave function." And the late Ilya Prigogine argued that the question of collapsing the wave function only arose in artificially isolated circumstances in any case, which may be in line with some of what Bridget's authority is saying.

In any case, the mere fact that some things are too small or too far away or too weird for us yet to have the tools to understand them is an affirmation of Rand's epistemology, not an attack on it. Peikoff's latter day hostility to these cosmological matters may be motivated by his hostility to the interpretations of those who champion their supposed paradoxical implications. Merely saying that the interpretations or, much worse, the cosmological matters themselves "contradict" the Objectivist theory of causality or the law of non-contradiction is not an explanation or a refutation of any observed data.

By keeping these lectures in house and out of print, Peikoff has a privileged immunity that will disappear once he commits himself to the written word. I would hope that those in contact with him who understand the scientific matters put the better arguments regarding the Big Bang and Quantum Theory before him. From what I can see, he is attacking cherry-picked straw-men that are decades old and which have many stronger and harder to dismiss alternatives just waiting in the wings. In so far as DIM may provide any value, it will not do so by tilting at will-o'-wisps. If "Objectivism" is tarred with hostility towards some observable but disputed fact, it will end up like Aristotelianism did when the Ptolemaic system was overthrown. This is a matter the gravity of which should be easily understood.

The NASA image, (above right,) shows the "background radiation" of the universe, which (to oversimplify) is at the furthest limit of detectability and hence time and distance from us. It is essentially the afterimage of the big-bang once the universe was old enough to have become transparent to electro-magnetic radiation.

The image is from:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/spacecraft/cobe_data.jpg

Ted Keer, 17 November, 2006, NYC

Post 54

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 8:31pm

Ted: The point that needs to be accepted about quantum mechanics, black holes, and the big bang is that they are all "horizon" phenomena.

Me: Horizon implies Nature has a limit, which there is no evidence for, even in Einsteinean geometry of spacetime.

Ted: We cannot imagine "what happened before the big bang" because there was no "before" - yet our minds cannot grasp the non-temporal on an intuitive level, so we balk.

Me: Actually, we can know what happened before the Big Bang if you understand how. In this case, M Theory allows for that. Then there's Loop Quantum Gravity, which could give us a means to detect prior to the so-called Big Bang.

Ted: We cannot go beyond the Chandrasekhar limit of a black hole and report back, and we cannot (most of us) visualize a fourth spatial dimension, so we balk.

Me: Nope, wrong again for the simple fact that Hawking's Radiation is now considered to carry information away from blackholes as well. :)

Ted: We cannot specify simultaneously both the exact location and the exact trajectory of the smallest particles because to measure those variables would mean having to interact with them, hence changing the very variables we are measuring, yet we are used to imagining just "looking" at things which the mere act of our "looking" does not perturb, so we balk.

Me: No, that's not exactly true. What it suggests is that every interaction alters the average [aka total] energy of a system. That does not imply under any logical proviso a limit to knowledge. It implies a dynamic structure within a system [or systems].

Ted: These are limit cases where we either do not have the imaginative capacity, or the mathematical formulae or subtle enough instruments or the almost infinite energies that would be needed to get beyond the "horizon" of what is now knowable to us.

Me: Nope, because there's no explicit horizon in any given physical system. M-Theory, again, suggests an infinite bulk 'space' (volume). LQP suggests a fine grain atomic spacetime, but in itself suggests no true horizon. A horizon limit must have an explicit declaration in which there is no other possible cases to be added to a given set of knowledge and/or phenomena. This fact of incompleteness is known in many cases as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in that every set [of knowledge, logic, and etc] requires atleast one referent outside of its self to operate correctly [with the exception of Euclidean geometry, which solely depends on self-reference].

For example, a QM situation of wave interference suggests a sub-quantum level in which there are interactions that exceed the so-called limits of QM either in 'informational' capacity (e.g. faster than c per media) in which allows the wave interference to occur even when the photons are being moved one at a time toward a double slit screen. Another example would be the issue of singularities in blackholes, since there's no real reason for there to be such singularities since other theorems have produced the same model of a blackhole without the singularity, suggesting blackholes are not just infinitely dense points of spacetime.

And of course of my favorite, cosmic strings. Tiny, very long and dense strings of matter that seemingly shouldn't exist, but clearly do by the fact of how galactic super clusters seem to group together. And that these cosmic strings may in fact be 'cracks' within spacetime, 'cracks' to somewhere.

Ultimately, the claim to a horizon is the same claim that another person made, Lord Kelvin in his day said there were just two 'little' clouds on the horizon of scientific knowledge. One was the issue of light and electrical forces, and the other was Brownian motion. Today, we know that both have opened vast fields of inquiry that still keep going deeper, to paraphrase Galileo. That alone stops any argument for a horizon.

-- Bridget

Post 55

Friday, November 17, 2006 - 10:27pm

Bridget,

I have made it a point before with others that I don't play point-for-point catch-up. But as for just your first three points, the horizons are due to our finite nature, not due to some mystical end of the universe. I am talking about nothing more than the fact that there has to be some highest energy we can explore, some farthest distance we've traveled, etc, some smallest particle and probe of that particle, etc.

As for Chandrasekhar limit I said the we ourselves could not go past this point and come back. If you are claiming that we can come back as Hawking radiation, then I'll concede that very minor point to you. That you contest this point makes me think that your objections may have more to do with emotion than misunderstanding. In so far as you respect Peikoff for what he has accomplished, you should feel no need to defend him from me.

As for what happened before the big bang? No solution, M theory, or whatever can let us know what the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the preconditions of the....

My point with saying that there is no time before time is the same as saying that there is no space outside of space. Space-time can be finite and unbounded in the same way that the surface of the Earth is finite and unbounded. You can take a plane and fly any direction you like across the surface of the earth, for as long as you like, and you will never come to the "edge" and hit a wall or fall off. The same thing with space, perhaps, space need not be infinite in any direction, it may just curve back on itself.

Now, the purpose of this thread is to address the fact that Peikoff, by making the election statement, qualified as the arbiter of "those who understand Objectivism," was stepping out of bounds and needs to be called on the issue. This claim is not unique to me. It has been all the Rage at SOLO for weeks, and has caused upsets all over the place.

I brought up cosmology in the context of Peikoff's pontifications because while listening to DIM I heard that same dismissive laughter used about cosmological facts (not just interpretation, but also evidence) which he himself said he did not understand (which in OPAR he had relegated to science and exiled from philosophy) such as the evidence for an explosive expansion of the universe from a hot point-like origin based on nothing more than the rationalist deductivism he himself criticizes.

The issue is not the proper cosmological interpretation. You can post at me til you're blue in the face on that, and I will admit that while I understand enough not to be troubled by the big bang or quantum interference and not to fall for the nonsense from the nihilists and creationists, I don't have the math or even the desire to get beyond plausibility. I do this sort of thing all the time, like when I get on a subway train or get a flu-shot and expect there not to be too large a likelihood that either fact will kill me.

When I start arguing that radioactive decay and quantum interference "contradict" the law of causality or saying that those who don't vote Lyndon LaRouche do "not understand the philosophy of Objectivism" and I have the livelihood of a large number of "students of Objectivism" and the royalties of Ayn Rand in my pocket, then my ungrounded pronunciations on matters of cosmology will be at issue. Right now, I'm busy explaining why Leonard Peikoff's recent remarks are signs of rationalism on his behalf, and evidence that people should perhaps reconsider other pronunciations - and excommunications - that he has made in the past in this light.

Ted Keer, 17 November, 2006

Post 56

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 12:20am

The funny thing here, Ted, is that you're saying because we start 'small' therefore we cannot get 'bigger.' And I believe Rand made a great point in that despite not being able to perceive the whole of one literal mile, the fact that we can conceive it balks at the assertion that humans, on the whole and individual, are limited. Limitation in this regard is simply the wish not to look past the next step. Limitation is a chain worn by those who are not willing to look past the next step. That is my point. You assert that spacetime is finite, yet it does not logically follow due to the currently known [read as visible] universe. And the fact that the visible universe just keeps getting bigger with regard to how far our telescopes seek also balks at this assertion. Your two points are basically not even addressing the issue of Peikoff's dismissive attitude. And the fact that your points are easily shot down by me, of all people, really ought to signal to you that you need to look for a simpler answer for Peikoff's arrogance. In this case, it's simply his lack of looking past the next step [of Objectivism]. So you don't need to Pontificate like Peikoff to refute Peikoff.

-- Bridget
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 11/18, 12:21am)

Post 57

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 1:18am

Bridget,

We are obviously not understanding each other. You said:

"The funny thing here, Ted, is that you're saying because we start 'small' therefore we cannot get 'bigger.' And I believe Rand made a great point in that despite not being able to perceive the whole of one literal mile, the fact that we can conceive it balks at the assertion that humans, on the whole and individual, are limited. Limitation in this regard is simply the wish not to look past the next step. Limitation is a chain worn by those who are not willing to look past the next step. That is my point. You assert that spacetime is finite, yet it does not logically follow due to the currently known [read as visible] universe. And the fact that the visible universe just keeps getting bigger with regard to how far our telescopes seek also balks at this assertion. Your two points are basically not even addressing the issue of Peikoff's dismissive attitude. And the fact that your points are easily shot down by me, of all people, really ought to signal to you that you need to look for a simpler answer for Peikoff's arrogance. In this case, it's simply his lack of looking past the next step [of Objectivism]. So you don't need to Pontificate like Peikoff to refute Peikoff."

In your first sentence you use words that I never used, small, bigger and I do not even understand what you believe I am saying.

Then you say:
"You assert that spacetime is finite, yet it does not logically follow due to the currently known [read as visible] universe"
which I do not understand as a sentence.

Rather than address you, I will quote Stephen Speicher, whom I believe represents Peikoff's current view:

"I have never said that I do not accept the physical data that has been accumulating these many years, but rather I do not accept many of the interpretations of that data. But, regardless, to the extent that the big bang represents ideas, it is precisely its most fundamental ideas that one should reject." [emphasis mine]

This is rationalism, this is a priori deductivism. This is a return to Dogma over evidence.

Ted Keer

Post 58

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 4:47am

Then, of course, there's the alternative view of cosmology - Plasma cosmology - which better explains the workings of the universe, including a different explanation of cosmic clusterings instead of the imagined 'string' one...

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

It also holds to a non-mystical understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...

(Edited by robert malcom on 11/18, 4:49am)

Post 59

Saturday, November 18, 2006 - 11:55am