About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 12:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Interesting observation, Sarah.

One of the great things that modernity brought about was the separation of the value spheres of science, morals, and art. Or, as the Greeks identified them earlier, the True, the Good, and the Beautiful. Separating them allowed them to develop without being interfered with or having violence done to them by the other spheres.

Pure science identifies what is true, what "is". It does not provide meaning. Morals (philosophy, religion, all the wisdom traditions) have that task. So I think it is quite right that there is the possibility for something that lies in the sphere of morals to make errors when setting out to apply meaning to science. If the new science (assuming it is pure science, it is empirical),  the new or added truth,  somehow provides a lower comfort level than what the philosophy has enoyed, there could be some dissociating.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 12:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,

You seem like a good guy, so I have no interet in arguing with you. As Mike noted,

I'm certain that most of the people I have dealt with in my life "peacefully and productively" have thoughts very similar to your own, I have had no trouble working with and liking, sometimes a lot, people of religious persuasions of all kinds. I don't agree with them about their beliefs, I simply cannot believe in anything that cannot be demonstrated by facts and reason. But I do not get in arguments about.

If you want to claim that Objectivists blanket use of mysticism is meaningless, fine. I'm all for an understanding of the "enemies" beleifs as ammunition. However, with all your talk about Objectivism and how important it was to you, you must remember this: Objectivism is built on the foundation of reality. It all follows from that foundation. Now, I'd like to ask you if you are one of the Atheist members of UU? If you are not an atheist, and you accept on faith some belief system, you are at odd with Objectivism. You can be friends and have prodcutive relationships with Objectivists, but to say you are a "friend of Objectivism" is silly. You cannot reject the foundation and still accpet the house that stands on it.

Ethan

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 12/28, 1:36pm)


Post 22

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 12:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cal.,

I agree. What's also interesting is that if people would actually make an effort to understand these theories, such as quantum mechanics, they'd find that the attacks of subjectivism are often unwarranted. For example, only a very small minority of quantum theorists actually think that consciousness is the key factor in creating reality. The average positivists' "empirical reality" is effectively the same thing as the realists' "objective reality," they just disagree on how it "got there."

Sarah

Post 23

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 12:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From Mark Twain (quoted in State of Fear by Michael Crichton):
There is something fascinating about science.  One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
This is especially true of cosmology.
Glenn


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 1:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you want to claim that Objectivists blanket use of mysticism is meeningless, fine. I'm all for an understanding of the "enemies" beleifs as ammunition. However, with all your talk about Objectivism and how important it was to you, you must remember this: Objectivism is built on the foundation of reality. It all follows from that foundation. Now, I'd like to ask you if you are one of the Atheist members of UU? If you are not an atheist, and you accept on faith some belief system, you are at odd with Objectivism. You can be friends and have prodcutive relationships with Objectivists, but to say you are a "friend of Objectivism" is silly. You cannot reject the foundation and still accpet the house that stands on it.

I'm not sure I can accurately answer your question on atheism, but I will try. What do you mean by "God"? What is the first picture in your mind? For most people, it is almost always a separate Deity figure sporting anthropomorphized characteristics. No, I do not believe in that, but it's painfully obvious to see where it came from. So, working from that, you could call me an atheist.

Just as science grades reality in terms of sophistication, acorn to oak tree, so do most spiritual traditions grade ways of knowing. Each is built upon and includes the other. At the level furthest removed from matter in virtually all spiritual systems  is something that is generally called, well, spirit. This is the thing that you say does not exist, because it can't be apprehended by the eye of the flesh, and I say does, because I have apprehended through my interior self, through the contemplative self, which is the part of me that you cannot see- you can only see the organic bits of me, were you to slice in (please refrain if we were to meet). So, in that I believe in Spirit, I might be not called an atheist.

Briefly, my position is that there are higher modes of knowing, and that one of the vices which accompanied the many virtues of modernity was that these modes were run over, so that the only mode of knowing officially endorsed and approved is the monological one. While this works quite well for science, which spends most of its time looking at things that don't talk back, there are others for other purposes. Just as I am writing to you now, and you are reading it and thinking to yourself (a decidedly non-monological experience), my position is that there are additional modes of knowing beyond that. Yours is not, and it is best to agree to disagree. Logic will not serve either of us to convince the other.

Even with that disagreement, I am a friend of Objectivism, and I do not believe you have the authority to say otherwise, for one thing. My day-to-day dealings with people are virtually 100% Objectivist-based, especially in business. What I do not do is take it to the level of judgment/dispensal that some do, often along with the accompanying behaviors, which can, in some, involve some pretty embarrassing things to watch- every bit as embarrassing as the crap you see coming out of fundamentalists.

There are bigger fish to fry than this disagreement. Here is an example for you, speaking of fundamentalists. Let's talk about the New Life Church
(www.newlifechurch.org) and their rather disturbing (to me) leader, pastor Ted Haggard. You might have seen him on one TV show or another recently.

This is an 11,000 member congregation (as in, just at that mega church, which could easily host a Pink Floyd concert). ROR, and many in Objectivism are now rightly talking about how activism might possibly be more important than lofty intellectual arguments with non-atheists, or whether or not Frank O'Connor was a drunk.

Well, these people are kicking your lofty asses, six ways to Sunday Service. They are recruiting at a frenzy pace. They have managed to help fuck up things in the Air Force Academy. When a piece of legislation comes up that they don't like (translation: one that you probably do like), they have virtually immediate, unquestioned thruput, and they can clobber things down. And they are growing. Get the picture?

They have out-organized and out-mobilized not only the folks like the ones who hang out here, but are doing a pretty fair number on the free church people (that would be folks like my UU church). Over here in reject-your-foundation land, there is a scramble of networking to get some hitting power together against these people. For instance, I am on a team which is opening a chapter of the Interfaith Alliance in my region, for the purpose of networking liberal and free churches together so we can get a big enough voice to compete with these nimrods and help stop the madness.

Now, I don't know about you, but from where I sit, our little disagreements between people like me and others in Objectivism don't mean shit in the face of this kind of thing. But, I don't see any olive branch here, because there is this preference of discussing the validity of how you interface with existence vs. the incredibly irrational way you say I do.

In short, I see Objectivism needing to do some work on how they deal with others on common causes. Work that doesn't start off by invalidating someone's belief system.

Issues like this, activist issues, require partnering. The way things go around here, I doubt even the LP party and a large contingent of mobilized Objectivists could get the shit between them together decently enough, much less having to combine with the people I work with.

So, answer that, please, Ethan. What is more important in the face of global crap like this- being secure in your position, or developing enough respect, civility and tolerance in order to partner more effectively?

EDIT: P.S. And yes, according to the preferred rules of engagement around here, I certainly did move out of the direct topic to some extent. However, please note that I attempted to answer your question, and further, I gave one example of what I consider to be a problem with Objectivism as it currently sits.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/28, 1:35pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 2:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now, I don't know about you, but from where I sit, our little disagreements between people like me and others in Objectivism don't mean shit in the face of this kind of thing.
Agreed. Mike noted and I agree and have often argued that allies must be found. Now, that doesn't mean I'm going to deny the validity of Objectivist ideas and listen to you criticize those ideas from a n "spiritual" position. The biggest problems in Objectivism is often the so-called Objectivists. There are plenty of people claiming to be Objectivists who aren't.

But, I don't see any olive branch here, because there is this preference of discussing the validity of how you interface with existence vs. the incredibly irrational way you say I do.
Look, I've never said you're irrational. You, however, have pretty much said it: 
higher modes of knowing
Objectivism hold that reason is the one means of knowing. You couldn't prove another means without relying on reason. Interface with reality is through reason.

 
In short, I see Objectivism needing to do some work on how they deal with others on common causes.
Agreed.

Work that doesn't start off by invalidating someone's belief system.
What's invalid is invalid. It's generally not a point of discussion except for those who insist on claiming that they have unprovable beliefs. Reality invalidates the arbitrary and the non-existant. It's not me. You bring it up here, guess what's going to happen? Want to make common cause? Sure, but don't try to then involve yourself in discussions that are going to go down roads you don't like.


I gave one example of what I consider to be a problem with Objectivism as it currently sits.
As noted, the "problem" you brought up is with Objectivists not Objectivism.


What is more important in the face of global crap like this- being secure in your position, or developing enough respect, civility and tolerance in order to partner more effectively?
That is a false dichotomy you offer. I choose to be secure in my position and not lie to win friends and influence people. I can make common-cause with people who support freedom and hold beleifs I disagree with. I can't do so with people who insist that I respect their ideas most especially when they choose not to respect mine. In other words, the beliefs of those I interact, no matter how irrational, are of no concern to me, as long as those ideas are personal to them and are not inflicted upon others.

Ethan


Post 26

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan,

Then, we are largely in agreement. Do take note that I have not criticized your philosophy. I only criticize certain behaviors, which I can't see as anything other than counterproductive. If I gave another impression, I apologize. That particular issue of tolerance and respect for individual belief is sacred to me.

Generally, the only time I bring up my belief system is when asked, or when engaging in a straight discussion on metaphysics. The criticism is then levelled back at me, which I fully expect and do not mind. Occasionally, I will ask as provocateur, or challenge something.

My primary interest in dialoging with Objectivists involves the "we" part of existence. The social, intercultural aspects. Because of my background, I am in a unique position to build bridges, and usually that's what I'm up to. There are common purposes out there, and some of them are looming.

What I'm wondering is if there are Objectivists who, recognizing those common purposes, can use their unique and developed intellects in a partnering manner. It would very much involve sticking to the issues, I'd imagine. I think it is possible, and it does not involve lying.

Also, regarding the false dichotomy, I should've phrased more clearly (I rushed). You should be secure in your position. So secure, in fact, that drilling into another position (such as we have here) is not necessary. That is what I am trying to honor, as best I can.

best,
r

(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/28, 2:57pm)


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 3:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"That particular issue of tolerance and respect for individual belief is sacred to me."

Why is this?  There are many "beliefs" that are pure nonsense and should be treated as such.  Nothing is sacred about nonsense.  There is nothing wrong with claiming intellectual superiority.   I don't have respect for individual "belief" at all.  I only have respect for good individual thinking.  The author of this old article did a good job of this and asserted his intellectual superiority over those who believe in nonsense.  Good for him. 

"Occasionally, I will ask as provocateur, or challenge something"

No, I don't think this is what you are doing at all.  If it is you aren't very effective at it because you never pose any real challenges.  Come forward and come forward in an organized and clear way with what it is you think and WHY.  Objectivists aren't very interested in building bridges with people who can't even effectively explain their own positions beyond vauge assertions and annoyingly frivolous critiques.   Your current methods do far more to burn bridges then build them. 

 - Jason


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 6:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,

I said:
"At some point in your life based on your perceived self interest you decided adopt a philosophy of life based on what you WANTED to believe rather than what could be demonstrated by fact and reason. Somehow this belief continues to serve some function in your life that is in your self interest. Fine. Millions of people will love you for it."
 
You said: 
"Um, no, Mike, that is not remotely how it went. Not even close. You are making an assumption without knowing anything about me. What you have based it on is your blanket definition of religion, and that simply does not fly. "Perceived self-interest"? You are somewhere between psychologizing and attempted mind-reading. The blanket definition of mysticism in Objectivism is so huge that it barely serves any focused purpose. "

 
Let's break this down:

First what I said:
""At some point in your life" I'm sure it happened sometime in your lifetime [when you "switched" to a religionist] "based on your perceived self interest" you will never convince me that people don't do what they perceive is in their self interest "you decided adopt a philosophy of life based on what you WANTED to believe rather than what could be demonstrated by fact and reason."  I suppose we could quibble about whether you "wanted" to believe in superstition but I will just go back to my axiom that people want to do what they perceive is in their best interest.  "Somehow this belief continues to serve some function in your life that is in your self interest."  Of course this is true, you defend your viewpoint vociferously, obviously it continues to serve you.  Maybe you sell cars to a 95% religious community, I don't know.

Now what you said:
"Um, no, Mike, that is not remotely how it went. Not even close. "  Sorry, I don't see anything even remotely a stretch in anything I said.  Not even close.  "You are making an assumption without knowing anything about me."  I have spent months reading your long winded essays about you and what you believe.  You haven't been misleading me have you?  "What you have based it on is your blanket definition of religion, and that simply does not fly."  My blanket definition of religious belief:  A belief system not grounded in reality, a belief system that cannot be demonstrated by fact and reason.  I know you call what you believe a "different reality".  You have to call it that because you cannot demonstrate it is true.  And you will assert it is "my" reality too, I'm just not "advanced" enough to perceive it. That's what you mean by "that simply does not fly".  Tiresome.    "Perceived self-interest"? "You are somewhere between psychologizing and attempted mind-reading. The blanket definition of mysticism in Objectivism is so huge that it barely serves any focused purpose. "  I have simply provided you with my observations, based on 57 years of thinking and reasoning.  I have done you this favor far less than you have in return I hope you've noticed.  This "blanket definition of mysticism" is simply the basic epistemological principle of objectivism "fact and reason".  Of course it is huge.  Principles with universal application tend to be like the Ever-Ready bunny, they keep going and going....damned annoying aren't they?

Rich,  I can barely make any sense of your assertions.  You attach overwhelming importance to your "spiritual" sensibilities, you continue to assert the "mean spiritedness" of "objectivists" who refuse to take you seriously.  What damned good is your "spiritual" sense anyway.  I just got a new monitor from Dell for a christmas present.  It costs about one quarter what my previous monitor cost about 5 or 6 years ago.  It is better in EVERY respect.  What good is your spirituality compared to the engineering skill that can make a product ten times as good at one fourth the cost?  Who do you think actually does more good for his fellow man?  You and your "spiritual" sense or a damned good engineer only interested in "fact and reason" and making better products for his own self interest?  Oh I see, you'll "save" the engineer from his "mean spiritedness".  The nicest people I've known have been engineers and scientists.  Give me a person connected to reality and I give you a person who doesn't have much reason to be mean to anyone.  Oh, you're mad because he doesn't "respect" you?  Too bad.


Post 29

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 7:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


I respect the fundamental right of individual religious (or non-religious freedom). It is none of my business to criticize someone's interior. All we can do is choose to dialog with each other. And if we do, is it not better to do so respectfully, with good will? At the action level is what counts, it doesn't matter where it came from at that point. It's fundamental Objectivism, no? The fundamental right of the individual to exist, on their own terms, so long as it does not interfere with another's ability to do the same.

I don't care to discuss interior matters unless we are agreeing to discuss interior matters. What I am attemnpting to point out here is that I believe there could be more efficacy and better activism in the Objectivist community by being sure the focus stays tight when working on core issues (which are shared by many, many people outside of the microcosm of Objectivism), and thinking about what it takes to work in cooperative mode.  By concentrating on common causes. Objectivists are not going to be able to right the big wrongs in the world all by themselves, they simply don't represent enough critical mass. What needs done when going into cooperative mode?

What is the purpose of writing an article talking about, in essence, that people who are not atheists are fucked up? What makes that different from the evangelical writing about you, saying that you are evil because you are godless? You both say you are right. Your response is that you can empirically prove you are right. It's a fruitless argument.

What alternative is there to respect and tolerance for individual beliefs, if people are to peacefully coexist? Actions are one thing, the interior is another. We must respect the inalienable right to individual beliefs. How we interoperate with those who hold beliefs outside of our own is measurable by how effective the partnering is, when working on shared causes.


Post 30

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 8:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,

"I don't care to discuss interior matters unless we are agreeing to discuss interior matters."

When you assert the importance of "spirituality" isn't that entirely an "internal" matter? And haven't you opened it up for discussion?

"What is the purpose of writing an article talking about, in essence, that people who are not atheists are fucked up?"

I think the difference between atheists and theists has something to do with how much trust a person has in his own mind to be able to "figure out" or "choose" the important things he needs to know to promote his own life. Nathaniel Branden once said something like that the sign of mental maturity of a person is if they have the confidence to know that they can learn what they need to learn to solve the problems in their own lives. [Probably not a totally accurate paraphrase]. My personal feeling about theists is that they "give up" trying to figure things out. They wrap up a lot of hard problems and dump them onto a deity as the ultimate solution to their problems. Mostly this is not a problem, most of us don't solve a lot of the "hard problems" by ourselves anyway. And life is easy enough for most people that a few mental sidesteps aren't going to result in death. And if it makes you a few friends along the way, then well.... I don't think religious people are "fucked up". Just a little mentally lazy and immature. Modern life MOST OF THE TIME is not demanding enough at the personal survival level to force anyone to give up their pet ideas. It is simply a personal choice.

"You both say you are right."

I choose objectivism, fact and reason. I have no problem peacefully coexisting with you Rich. This is simply a discussion, appropriately on a philosophical discussion website.

Post 31

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 "What is the purpose of writing an article talking about, in essence, that people who are not atheists are fucked up? What makes that different from the evangelical writing about you, saying that you are evil because you are godless?"

No it isn't a fruitless argument.  It is one of the most important arguments.  When you break it down it is ultimately a discussion about the rational vs. the irrational.  No one here from what I can see is saying that non atheists are fucked up.  Stating that I have an intellectually superior position is not the same as telling someone that they are "fucked up".  That is absurd.

"What alternative is there to respect and tolerance for individual beliefs, if people are to peacefully coexist? Actions are one thing, the interior is another. We must respect the inalienable right to individual beliefs. How we interoperate with those who hold beliefs outside of our own is measurable by how effective the partnering is, when working on shared causes. "

Yes, but this doesn't have anything to do with what the author of this article is doing.  He isn't arguing that religous people should have their rights taken away!  What a diversion!  I can confidently say that no one on this website has ever advocated such a thing. 

Would you be making this same defense if there were an article discussing the intellectually inferior position of Marxism?  Should we only follow this rule when it deals with "sacred" spiritual matters?  

 - Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 12/29, 9:11am)


Post 32

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 9:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I choose objectivism, fact and reason. I have no problem peacefully coexisting with you Rich. This is simply a discussion, appropriately on a philosophical discussion website.
 
That is all good and true, Mike. Thank you. That speaks to the actual purpose. However, even though this is a philosophical website, and worst-case scenario is that religion is often viewed as an early form of philosophy, management informs me that religion is not allowed to be discussed here (except on the dissent forum), because it is incompatible with Objectivism.  I interpret that as an absolute. I consider religion and philosophy to lie under the umbrella of "morals," however, that does not make any matter in this case.

"Incompatible." So, the best we can hope for in such a case is detente, and detente without open dialog, given the restriction that has just been implied. I do not think that negative writing about religion will be disallowed, but that is not my concern, it is that of management; if they choose to live with that contradiction.

So, to be clear before I pull stakes, this is the communication, subject header "no more religion"

Rich,
 
This is an Objectivist site, not a religious one.  Religion is incompatible with Objectivism, and your comments are annoying.  If you feel the need to defend your religious views, do it on the dissent board.  I don't have any problem banning non-Objectivists, so consider this a warning.
 
--Joe
 
The main philosophical forums where my writing will continue to be found: www.objectivistliving.com , www.wethethinking.com

EDIT: Oh, and also I should also include Nathaniel Branden's Yahoo site, http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/nathaniel_branden/ and Atlantis II,
           http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Atlantis_II/ 

email: rdengle@sbcglobal.net

Respectfully,

rde

(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/29, 9:20am)


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 3:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, the best we can hope for in such a case is detente, and detente without open dialog
Actually, the open dialog is possible, on the dissent board.  What's not is the constant thread hijacking for your own religious purposes.  Nor do I consider any of your hijacks to approach the level of "dialog".


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 5:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Nor do I consider any of your hijacks to approach the level of "dialog"."
 
It is more like very loud mumbling.  In a way it has actually been rather instructive.  Rich has a way of employing, within a few sentences almost every logical and intellectual error held in distain by Objectivism.  Relativism, pragmatism, rationalism, nominalism, mysticism, emotionalism and just plain dumb irrationality.  All of this mixed in with a steady dose of crafty ad hominem attacks about the simplicity of Objectivists and bad use of the English language.  His posts are a body of work that adds up one gigantic horror file.

 - Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 12/29, 5:44pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 11:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich sez:

Well, these people are kicking your lofty asses, six ways to Sunday Service. They are recruiting at a frenzy pace.

Rich, your premise is that Objectivists are competing against Christians to brainwash people. Your premise is wrong.  The philosophy of Objectivism is a guide to help understand what we are and what to do. The focus is on self-development. Your focus appears to be on something external to yourself. 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Friday, December 30, 2005 - 5:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As is the way of almost all religionists, even those who claim they not be religionists...

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 9:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote:
I find it curious that Objectivists so often defend crank theories, apparently thinking that their armchair philosophizing can tell us more about science than all those scientists who're really doing the hard work.

A wonderful example of such an Objectivist crackpot theory can be found at http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/Stolyarov_RC7.html

There are so many howlers in that article that I wouldn't know where to begin. Just one example (Stolyarov is arguing that the speed of light is no absolute limit):
Not even human technology has yet produced entities capable of attaining velocities a small fraction of 3*108 meters per second.
Stolyarov apparently doesn't know that in particle accelerators particles are routinely accelerated to speeds of 99.999% of the speed of light. His elaborations on the Autonomist forum are also hilarious:
If radio signals are waves, they might be *sound* waves, which is entirely admissible, since sound requires a medium to travel through. Furthermore, radio waves are accessible only to the human ear, just as all sound waves are. It might also be that radio waves are in some manner different in kind from sound waves (I require more data to make a determination on this point), but, if they are in fact waves, it is *certain* that they are different in kind from light itself.

The key question here is: can radio “waves” be transmitted through a vacuum? If so, then they are not waves, and can be fundamentally similar to light—as accords with their classification on the electromagnetic spectrum. If not, then they might be waves—in which case they are not like light at all.
and:
The double-slit behavior of light is possible precisely because light is a relationship and not an entity. Given a sufficient amount of luminosity, a source entity can illuminate two nearby target entities simultaneously. This is nothing esoteric or mind-boggling. It is common sense, and we observe it around us daily. A lamp placed in an otherwise dark room will simultaneously illuminate many objects in its vicinity, at many angles from the lamp, depending on how much luminosity (i.e., the quality which permits the relationship of light to occur) the lamp has.

My theory can explain experimental evidence *and* ubiquitous observation, whereas conventional theory can only partially explain the former—and in a contradictory manner at that. Which theory is more compatible with reality?

Well, ehm... ehmm... (bursting out laughing...)


Post 38

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 10:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Calopterix-
Thanks for that hilarious post.  That provided me with the best laugh I've had in a while.


Post 39

Friday, January 6, 2006 - 1:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just remember , Cal - Stoly is a court jester, nothing more...

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.