Bitcoin Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2VzdkXm5Ies#t=18s

Seeing this encounter, I can't help but see the similar value system especially in the regards of discussion and debate.

In this video, Rand mentions she was there to answer questions and to share information -- not to be judged.

Rand was wrong, plain and simple. She turns a blind eye on history (as many US-American conservatives).

See the Anarchism in Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_spain) (Documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8H017VCGDY)).

Wrong in what respect?

That the poor deserve to starve in the streets, and selfish and successful business men deserve our worship.

See the cooperative Mondragon Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation) that spawned from the time of the Spanish Anarchism and is still active and successful today.

Rand never endorsed hero worship.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man-worship.html

Man worship does not equal hero worship.

The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man’s highest potential and strive to actualize it. . . . [Man-worshipers are] those dedicated to the exaltation of man’s self-esteem and the sacredness of his happiness on earth.

You didn't even read that page.

I didn't bring up "hero" anyway, you did.  ???

I read that page. There's two sides to every story.  :)

Rand was a pretty smart cookie, and she accurately diagnosed the problem. She suggests the right solution, as well, but far too many people (perhaps yourself included, Atlas, and possibly even Rand herself) misunderstand the implications of that suggestion.

Most people read Atlas Shrugged, and come away with "and therefore, be an asshole."

 "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." does not mean that you should necessarily let the poor starve, or any of the other accusations - some entirely true - associated with Randian philosophy.

It means, quite simply: Be neither master, nor slave. Nothing more, nothing less.

Color me curious. Feel free to elaborate.

I already did. It's in the part of the post you didn't quote.

Just because you shouldn't expect or respect involuntary obligations doesn't mean you shouldn't accept and respect voluntary ones.

Ah. Yes, I haven't been able to put my finger on the only dispute I have had with Rand's outlook and that would be it: The disgust with helping human beings as a primary cause. For whatever reason she views this as laborious and sacrificial.

fine that we find some common ground at last.

she's also wrong about social issues. A society with too much inequality obviously cannot reach its full potential. There'd be many underpriviledged that would just need a little helping hand in order to contribute great value to society later.

She seems to have struck rather indiscriminately with her condemnation, marking as evil the concept that you should help people because it has been too often associated with the idea that you must.

That said, handouts aren't help. The old saying "If you would feed a man for a day, give him a fish, If you would feed him for a lifetime, teach him how to fish." holds a deeper truth than the obvious "A skill is a better gift than a meal." That deeper truth is that a handout keeps you dependent, while being able to work for your living makes you free.

Yes, yes. I am hoping she is just disparaging ineffective welfare. Since her first language is Russian, she may just have trouble conveying her true thoughts. Who knows. Miscommunication is a common trait with this woman.

There are some things that people just never say aloud. IMO, this is at the heart of the issue. Here's one of them.

Evolution will ensure that humans have (or reacquire) a tendency to multiply in numbers. The current slow-down is temporary at best. This leaves us with two main solutions for selection who gets to live and who doesn't:

• Some organization(s) exert birth control
• The poorest die

Claiming that current societies (with the exception of China) promote anything but the latter is wishful thinking. Prepare for mass deaths on the lower end if the upcoming debt crisis causes disruptions in food prices.



BTW, good to see you posting on this account, Atlas. The conspiracy theories and alt accusations were kinda getting out of hand. ;D

I never cared about Ayn Rand much. Seeing the interview though, it seems she was smart, and good at what she did. However, one of the statements was wrong, and I don't understand why people who otherwise have great analyses keep making that mistake. Monopolies can form without government. Simple example: the largest railway provider gives better terms the more you use their network, e.g. by day-passes. A better, smaller competitor will have unreasonably massive difficulty in establishing itself.

I wonder, is there a name for this type of libertarianism I believe in: very weak state with a massive exception to prevent natural monopolies (local optima)?

Humans are already naturally choosing not to reproduce. We are seeing behavior in humans that is very similar to overcrowded rat populations. I don't think a total fallout will occur unless some very forceful manipulation is done to reproduction, whether it be for reducing it or growing it. I'll link you to that experiment, if you're interested. I have to dig around for it.

Here's my argument about monopolies: If a choice of various rail companies is truly desirable and the public is willing to pay for it, large investment will eventually occur to allow small and newer companies to compete.

To me the matter relies on the desires of the people and their will to achieve it. If it's something worth having, it will be done. If nobody is willing to work for it or invest in the cause, why bother? Do people not know what's best for themselves? If you think the answer is no, then a parental government is usually the go-to answer.

The rat comparison only works on short time-scales. If you feed them enough, eventually they adapt and start reproducing again. The same goes for any living creature. The argument is very simple: if there exists any path for genes or memes to forge a group that reproduces endlessly, the first such group will exponentially take over the population until something stops it. Evolution has created proper fingernails and an abstractly re-configuring brain. It is certainly able to make people reproduce, and thus, this will happen until something stops it.



On the monopolies, your argument is correct. However, it works only qualitatively, namely if you assume a financial market of arbitrary size. Reality is not so nice. If a monopoly is so large that the biggest time-scale financial markets can cover is less than the expected amortization time, the investment never happens.

The good news is: your argument means there's no need for state intervention on small scales. The bad: if someone monopolizes something like operating systems or transportation on an entire continent, stepping in should be preferred to waiting for a miracle that might take ages to happen.

Because she was a selfish, nasty bitch that only lived for herself. And she fucked Alan Greenspan, exhibiting the extremely poor taste and desperation that both of them were composed of and inflicted on the world.

I always liked this one:

I Used to Fuck the Shit Outta Ayn Rand (http://www.mrdestructo.com/2009/02/voices-in-spotlight-alan-greenspan.html) by Alan Greenspan

For all your talk about Israel, I'm not really sure why you admire an UberZionist such as Rand.

Very well. I haven't really considered the size difference like this before. I like how you look between the Black and White for the shades of Gray here.

When it comes to "government intervention" at such a scale, it seems to be more of a tool than anything else. Military force and justice can be seen as a service like any other. There is indeed a season for all things.

I look at things issue-by-issue. I am not going to hate the woman over a few of her preferences.

As for Mr. Greenspan, he really wasn't really tied to Objectivist morality when you compare it to the actions he committed, at least in his later years. I sincerely doubt Rand would approve of The Federal Reserve if she took a second look at it.

And, as expected, it's the real one. Welcome back, Atlas.

Strange account-wars or not, it's a delight to have people on Bitcointalk who know that "NO U" is not the only way of answering. :)

Reproduction rates have long stopped increasing in western countries. It's a different story in poorer countries of course where survival pressure is higher and certain gospels of christian missionaries still resound.


Much of this is fearmongering imho. There's no reason for anyone to starve anymore today or in the future, as we could already feed everyone on this planet multiple times over if it weren't for the military spending (http://www.teachpeace.com/just6percent.htm). Also, with hydroponics plus fish (http://www.maiateas.com/support-files/garden_an_integrated_fish_culture_and_vegetable_hydroponics_production_system.pdf) for example, many possibilities for self-sufficiency already exist.

True. She has many other qualities worthy of derision.

You're so hypocritical. Ayn Rand was a russian jew, a zionist.

Wait, Rand was a member of Mossad?

Maybe he's just capable of separating one of her opinions from another, unrelated one.

I apologize for not being the Stormfront proponent you want me to be.

Um um you mean that she wanted to wipe out all arabs because they were savages?

You can't make a coherent argument so far. So what was your solution about Palestinians? Oh wait, you just bitch.

LMAO... thanks, Atlas. This is why I'm glad you stuck around.

I suggested giving them more land on the Gaza Strip and discontinue the gradual seizing of said lands. However, it seems the end goal is to just move them out completely. We can't expect them not to be upset.

Says like a real zionist: kick the arabs out of west bank on premises of more lands in gaza, and then push them out to the sea.

Vampire, do you live in the area you're discussing?

Do I need to answer that? Seriously, you know where I live.

Well, yes, but "in my heart" doesn't really place you on a map. ;)

Oh, that's right. You're in New York. So, remind me? Dafuq you care about the West Bank and the Gaza strip?

New York is an interesting place. 50% of russian girls you meet here are probably jewish. 5% of them are Ayn Rand fanatics and 50% are pretty hardcore zionists.

They're the Lost Boroughs.

So? Date Asian chicks. I hear they're pretty hot (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=105136.0).

Rand did a lot of good work, but her ethical system runs afoul of David Hume's is-ought dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem). The "nature of man" can be used to derive description of how men do behave; it can not derive how men should behave.

There exists no abstract, collective "mankind" that can be used to derive principles either, as in saying, "that which is good for mankind is good for individuals". Only individuals exist to derive principles from so violence might be what's good for my survival, and it would be impossible in that case for Objectivism to explain why I shouldn't use violence.

A=A.

Seems like a logical starting point to me.

Have you seen this?

http://www.atlasshruggedmovie.com/

:)

Wow, I thought they weren't even going to bother with that installment, seeing that the first one flopped like a flaccid, um, something.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/04/atlas-shrugged-producer-critics-you-won-hes-going-on-strike.html

She was correct in her choice of methodology, that ethics should be derived from logically consistent principles, but her derivation contained errors. Fortunately other people have improved on her work.

Most notably Stefan Molyneux (http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#upb). (If you haven't read this yet, Atlas, stop EVERYTHING and read it right now.) He corrects every error Rand made in her derivation.

Ayn Rand is a vile character and the fact her philosophical "teachings" (if you want to call them that) have found growing support, especially with the neo-cons only sheds light on what a bunch of cnuts they really are. ::)

They don't follow said "teachings" very well especially in their support of social conservatism. Ayn Rand hated modern American politics and politicians for a reason.

They may not follow them to the letter, just like some Christians/Jews/Muslim follow the teachings of 'god' to a varying level, that does not deter from the fact that their whole ideology is heavily influenced by said teachings.

Im not sure if your trying to imply that because Rand disliked American politics and politicians there for her work has had no bearing on whats happened politically in the last 30 to 40 years in good ole 'Merica? If so, thats nonsense im afraid, if America isnt the very personification of greed and self interest, sorry self rationalism, then I dont know what is.

What should we look up to then? It's not like the nations of Europe sacrificing their sovereignty to the Eurozone has helped or will help anybody in the long-term.

If America is the epiphany of self-interest, then Europe is the monument of self-sacrifice. 

I think you should look up to an ideologie that doesnt promote self interest and greed. If you cant see the fallacy in that then well, we're done here.

What does one look to outside of self-interest? Should I look up to a higher power? A god? The man next to me? Should I be a slave to the nearest available whim? I certainly do see a fallacy in slavery and suicide.

To put anything above your own life is against the nature of life itself: Self-preservation. From self-preservation comes the ability to experience pleasure from helping and befriending others, this supposed "selflessness". It is by choice and happiness that comes the sustainment of all life. Not force and slavery.

If one has no incentive to preserve oneself, if one has no happiness, then why should they attempt to preserve the other? Preserve something they have no stake in? For your happiness? Then who is the "selfish" one now? The ones who clamor for the servitude of others are just as selfish as the ones who wish to live their lives by their will. All else is spooks and religious thinking: Life is selfish.

There can be no higher cause than the will of the individual being itself, even when that will sustains others.

Destroy a man's will and you destroy the man.

Thoughtful piece on Rand in the 20th century:

http://thoughtmaybe.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/

Yes, Rand had some pretty idiotic opinions. Thankfully, her philosophy was not based on opinion.

Right, because there is such thing as a philosophical fact.

...You're not familiar with Objectivism, are you?

Quite. Just not a subscriber.

OK, do you understand the concept of "objective"?

Modern science has turned over the notion of an objective reality quite awhile ago (see the observer effect) or holographic theory (backed in both neuroscience and astrophysics). We create our own realities and certainly our own philosophies, to consider otherwise is hubris.

Quantum mechanics is not relevant to interpersonal relationships. Try as I might, no matter how hard I believe it, I cannot make you into anyone other than you. That is objective fact. Knowing that I cannot make you into anyone other than you, and you cannot make me into anyone other than me, we must work out a way to settle our differences based on those objective facts. There are several options. I could force you to accept my stance, but that doesn't help much since I've just browbeaten you into submission. You could do the same to me, but again that's not "working out our differences." So we debate. We attempt convince each other that our opinions are the right one.

Now, I'm not an adherent of Rand's philosophy, either. Rather, I prefer Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior. Click the link in the post above (Stefan's name) to go directly to that book. As I said, she started out with a good premise, but made some errors. He corrects them. If you're familiar with Objectivism, I suggest a perusal of that book may prove interesting.

I disagree. It affects everything, especially how we relate to others. You might not be able to make me into something else (to me), but you don't have to. If you believe that I am something else, then I am something else (to you).

I used to be an "objectivist" (not because of rand explicitly, but because of my experience/ education), but a few years ago started down a research path which led me to question everything and has since shaped my life into something I couldn't have imagined at that time.

+1

Consider classical physics...

and then, an analogy:

When a radioactive isotope decays, it essentially - to put it very simply - splits apart with great energy. These pieces fly off and can hit other atoms.  When these pieces hit other atoms, they can knock pieces off those atoms (e.g. a proton from one atom knocks off the proton of another atom).  Such phenomena can result in an atomic reconfiguration of an atom.  In other words, when one atom 'explodes' (really it's more like nuclear emission) another atom can suffer damage...and both are radically changed after the incident.

When people become angry, they can release their anger either upon themselves or upon the environment/others.  When a person loses control of their anger and 'explodes,' they cause damage to themselves and their relationships.  This damage, too, can cause radical changes.

So people:atoms, the interaction between atoms:interaction between humans, anger:radioactivity, etc...seriously the analogies are endless.  Why wouldn't they be?  Laws of systems distribute to all content therein, so it should come as no surprise that the laws governing the system containing physics and interpersonal relationships (the existence of this system is obvious) would result in an endless series of similarities between the two.  That's the fun thing about the Universe, you can study one thing and learn about everything.

Then why do you keep disagreeing with me? You should be agreeing with me, because I would very much like you to agree with me. And you would very much like me to agree with you. Yet, here we are, disagreeing.

I'm not suggesting that we live in a fantasy land where we can make OTHER people do whatever YOU want them to do.You create your own reality only insofar as you have to deal with other conscious beings creating their own realities as well. This might be obtuse because its sort of like trying to explain water to a fish.

Check out the (book) holographic universe if you want to understand more about what I'm talking about. It's entertaining and extremely insightful.

But you just said that I can, at least as far as I'm concerned (which is all that matters to me).

So if I can create my own reality, Why do I keep reading you disagreeing with me, when I would much rather read you agreeing with me? Is it perhaps, then, exactly what I said, that Quantum Mechanics does not apply to interpersonal relationships?

I have a standard response to anyone proposing that reality is subjective:

Show me that you can jump out of a window (or other suitably-high point) and choose not to fall.

That's it. All someone has to do is show me they can use the power of their mind to interpret gravity as not existing and I'll believe reality is subjective.

Alternately they can choose to walk into a busy highway and choose to let the cars pass through their bodies harmlessly.

Either way I'd appeals to strange quantum effects is just handwaving unless you can actually prove it in a repeatable and verifiable way. You know, science.

Yeah, but how is he going to do any of that if he can't even change the words he sees on the screen?

Sigh. It's not black or white. My point is that the observer makes the "objective" reality bend literally to their perception, they don't create it outright. There are two planes in reality, that which is seen (by consciousness) and that which connects everything together. This connective reality has certain rules that are static and those which are not. The consciousness affects this subtle layer and it's sort of a dance to see what is actually created.

Bottom line is that I'm not qualified to explain this stuff. If you want to understand the plastic nature of reality, start with the holographic universe: http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/5957800/Michael_Talbot_-_The_Holographic_Universe_(Thinking_Allowed)

Cool story.

How do you falsify it?

It's a massive oversimplification on my part. This is a Rand thread. Like I said, I didn't want to push it so far off topic, so if you want to find out more, the link is there for you to torrent it for free.

I don't devote a lot of time to debunking "subjective reality" claims any more for the same reason that I don't investigate the precise technical details of every so-called free energy (perpetual motion) machine.

All the evidence available to me is consistent with reality being objective, and every claim to the contrary I'm aware of is either untestable or simply false. So at this point I consider the burden of proof to be on the subjectivists.

Empericism works reliably and consistently so I'm going to assume it to be a vaild approach until proven otherwise.

Says who?

Who said anything about not using science? Like I said in my original post, its a scientific theory backed in both leaders in neuroscience and astrophysics. These are not conspiracy theories which are untestable.

Then test it. Let us know how it goes.

...

https://i.imgur.com/NtGZh.jpg

I'm not an astrophysicist, nor a neuroscientist.

Appeal to authority

Ayn Rand was a sociopath and I've noticed that it's mainly sociopaths who like her.

Then could you link me to some studies which have tested it? 'Cause until it's tested, it's not science.

This is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out

The first one is a wikipedia article that "needs attention from an expert", and the second is a dead link.
I'll ask again. Could you link me to some studies which have tested it? (Note that "have" is past tense. I want to see results.)

I will just say reality is interpreted and defined far beyond life and death; cliffs and gravity.

In reference to no post in particular...

Baudrillard has some comments that pertain to Rand's "objective" metaphysics, notably that to analyze something one must first be able to step outside of it, and so that therefore questioning the existence of reality is impossible. But that's really the extent of Rand's "objectivism", where her big "O" Objectivism incorporated views from metaphysics thru ethics and politics. Her epistemology, in particular, advocates a contextualism that I think may satisfy some of the objective/subjective bickering on this thread.

In any case, she and her ideals are far from any proper ideal. Nietzsche once said he would "only worship a god that could dance". And while Nietzsche's Dionysus is at a Eurorave tripping on ecstasy, dancing with beautiful girls, and generally having the time of his life, little Miss Rand is fantasizing about this vague ideal of "productivity" and 60 hour work weeks and steady wealth accumulation that can only result in a consumerist, personality-less, prematurely aged tycoon of a wholly stoic and vapid demeanor (Atlas Shrugged the movie anyone...?)

I saw firsthand from my experiences in the Objectivist crowd how Rand's adamant literalism amid vague idealism resulted in a movement that loves to chant her mantras but rarely if ever practice as they preach, that is, DOING something productive if that is the so exalted ideal (..donate to ARI! Exchange dollars for rational virtue!). But then again, I don't see how someone could follow through on such an artificial ideology, in the same way true productivity was impossible in a Soviet bureaucratic, in its systemic rigidity.

Ultimately, I think Rand failed in providing a coherent philosophy because she was too left-brained to realize that neither coherence nor philosophy is the ideal. Living holistically demands paradigmatically more than a step by a step decision-making "guide" read detached from the real world. I don't believe her formulaic criticisms are necessary to dissuade an impressionable person from the "unethical dangers" she warns of: joining a nunnery, statist politics, living a life of mindless hedonism --- but merely an intuitive appreciation for interesting experiences and self-understanding.

Just DL this an watch it. http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7425675/The_Holographic_Universe_-_Part_One

But you said:

So is it testable, or not? And if it's testable, why has it not been tested?

You're making Ayn Rand look bad if that's the best you can do in terms of epistemology.

She would consider me an irrational mystic. She would hate me. However, I still enjoy parts of her thoughts.

Why you didn't do the complete research? GEO600 noise was gone.....

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2009/09/update-on-geo-600-mystery-noise.html
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2012/02/hoganmeter.html

Ok, so explain how memory works without holograms and I'll concede.

Feels a little weird to have you on my side. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory

It's self-evident that reality is both subjective and objective simultaneously.  There is no explanation necessary, it's completely obvious (as in "duh").

If you don't believe me, ask yourself a few questions.  How about this one to start:  Are you (subject) and the environment (object) real?  Yes?  You don't say...

Subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually exclusive (unless you evoke a limited scope).

You're clearly done a lot of studying and thinking about this topic and have a lot of knowledge to share with the rest of us.

Can you begin by explaining what you mean by "subjective" and "objective"?

I've been defining objective as anything which is true relative to a standard which is independent of any particular perception and subjective as the opposite of objective (i.e. an opinion).

Using theses definitions your statement is not at all self-evident but perhaps this is because I lack your wisdom. or because you mean something else by "subjective" and "objective". Would you please enlighten us?

Show from Nova (PBS) on the holographic universe: http://video.pbs.org/video/2163057527/

...studies?
...tests?
...results?

No. Shows. ::)

You wouldnt understand it anyway If you so want to find the studies yourself, then pay for them (yes you have to pay for access to journals) and get them yourself. The info is there. Do with it as you please.

I think you mean: "You wouldn't understand it anyway." When attempting to insult someone's intelligence, spelling, grammar, and yes, punctuation, count. So far you've directed me to watch a movie, and now a PBS show. The only studies presented (thanks, Vampire) have found no evidence to support your silly theory.

So, rather than pointing at the internet and saying "it's there, find it yourself," How about you direct me to the journal it's in? All I've ever asked for is a link to the study.

I'm not trying to insult anyone, its a fact that this shit is extremely difficult for our monkey brains to comprehend.

Here is a link to a lecture on the double slit study, which specifically says that there is no such thing as an objective reality:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html
"This is an extreme break from the idea of an objective reality or one where the laws of Nature have a special, Platonic existence."

All the double-slit experiment proves is that light behaves weirdly, and that one can never be truly certain where a particular sub-atomic particle is at any one moment. It still doesn't have fuck-all to do with how you and I interact.

Let me put it this way: If reality were truly subjective, the experimenter could choose which slit the particle went through. Or the experimenter could pick whether the cat has died or not when he opens the box. But he can't. The particle detectors discover which slit the photon went through. The experimenter discovers whether or not the radioactive material has decayed when he opens the box. In other words, yes, the tree does indeed make a sound. A falling tree will displace air whether or not there is someone there to register that against their eardrums.

Just because reality is subjective, does not mean that you have control over that reality... This experiment proves that whatever we perceive turns to "matter"... everything else is simply waves of possibility.

No, it proves that Light travels in a probabilistic wave, or that there is a second dimension of time (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/ns-h-w101007.php). I say again: quantum mechanics is not relevant to this discussion.

It's not just light, its matter (they were firing electrons). Why isnt quantum mechanics relavent? Because it doesnt fit the newtonian worldview?

What the hell does time have to do with anything?

Because the uncertainty ceases once you get above the subatomic level. My salt shaker (and all the salt, for that matter) is always in the same place, unless someone moves it. I can say with utmost certainty exactly where it is. When I open the cabinet door, the salt does not spring into existence exactly where I left it.

If time is 2 dimensional, then the subatomic particle can be in a specific point (not a probabilistic wave) but because it is moving in that other dimension of time as well, and we only perceive one, what we see is an uncertain universe. In other words, if something seems random, it's probably just following rules more complex than you understand.

So by this logic, everything below the subatomic level is not real?


This is the part where I ask you to provide a study proving what you are referring to.

The double slit experiment is the single most widely reproduced experiment in physics (maybe in all of science) and the outcome is therefore established. Not once have I heard of the outcome you are referring to.

Not knowing where something is does not make it unreal. You're the one claiming things are not real unless we observe them. I'm simply saying that quantum mechanics is not relevant to the notion of an objective reality, especially when we are speaking of dealing with people as they really are.

Well, it's not a study, but it is an alternate explanation for the double-slit experiment:

http://phys.org/news98468776.html
http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/videos/does-time-exist.htm (the third clip is the one where it discusses this) A you may note, proving this theory will be difficult if not impossible. The same, of course, applies to your "reality is subjective" theory... which is why you've been unable to produce a study proving it.

Note also that the outcome is always the same...objective. The theories explaining that outcome, however, vary.
This should be a good jumping-off point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

A better phrasing would have been irrelavent (not real) - and you confirmed it. How do you reconcile a split in the type of reality based on it's size?


I dont see where objective comes in anywhere - actually I believe I just posted a link to a study which proved that reality is not objective.

(also just for the record, you are now posting a link to a video, not a study... I will however indulge and watch it  :P )

Sorry, just like you don't get to define reality however you feel like, you don't get to define words however you like, either. Irrelevant doesn't mean "not real," it means "not relevant; not applicable or pertinent." Also, I do not have to reconcile a split in the type of reality based on the size of the object in question. Subatomic particles don't behave subjectively. They behave in ways we don't understand... but which 2-dimensional time explains, especially if the second dimension is tightly curled so that subatomic particles can travel in it, but larger ones don't move appreciably even if they do travel along that dimension.

The double split experiment does not prove that reality is not objective. It proves subatomic particles behave in ways we don't fully understand.

I guess we are just going to go around in circles on this because I just don't think you understand what this experiment confirms. The observer effect is very clear, that a subjective consciousness alters the results of the experiment. We understand this perfectly well.

That interpretation was shown not to be true by experiments specifically designed to test this hypothesis. The "observer" is any part of the environment which interacts with the system in a thermodynamically-irreverable way.

http://www.danko-nikolic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Yu-and-Nikolic-Qm-and-consciousness-Annalen-Physik.pdf (http://www.danko-nikolic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Yu-and-Nikolic-Qm-and-consciousness-Annalen-Physik.pdf)

Ok. I'm going to roll over on this as I'm not nearly qualified to wade through that study in detail.

I am curious however as they mention human consciousness being the variable - is that correct? It would be interesting to see where the line is between self aware human/ non self aware animal/ inanimate object/ measuring device.

In any case, I doubt this will be the end of the story.