..And to anyone in doubt about their own existence ...

It doesn't matter what we call it, does the thing or system that we call a vacuum (with the particles popping back and forth) exist as it is (whatever that may be, or whatever we decide to call it) or can it be something else at the same time?

Can you be you and Ethel Merman at the same time?

It's not meant to sound common-sensical, Bobby. It's a principle that the o'ist and many other philosophies use. You exist. If you don't exist, or if I don't exist, nothing else matters. It's similar to the primacy of the individual point made earlier. An individual must exist before there can be a species, because without x number of individuals there cannot be any species. Similarly, you and I must exist, because if we do not, there are no philosophies. Or anything else for that matter.

If you wish to take the position that you are not you, that you cannot possibly know who you are because you can't explain the entire universe, then we have nothing to discuss.

Right, but it is what it is, regardless of what we call it. We happen to use "matter" and "not-matter" because that's how physics presents to our senses. It is what it is regardless of how it operates or how we see it in the classical sense.

Do you even know what a principle is?

Do you understand the difference between using physics to justify that there is a universe and why human beings have to find and use principles to live and to describe the universe around them?

Frankly, this is the problem with discussing o'ism, or Marxism, or whateverism, or referring to Marx, or Rand, or whoever in the sense that the discussion should be about simple economics and how that is a part of our everyday life. What it becomes is a discussion like this one--of the various tenets of the whateverism, as if that has any bearing on the discussion of Economics in One Lesson.

Which is why, as a rule, I don't bring up personalities, or philosophies, or whatnot, it's a waste of time.

Maybe this will work: but is it what it is? No matter what we call it, no matter what it's doing, is it itself?

>snip the single particle interference experiment<

To be clear though, the law of identity is a philosophical principle created long before Ayn Rand was born.

It doesn't matter what we call it, does the thing or system that we call a vacuum (with the particles popping back and forth) exist as it is (whatever that may be, or whatever we decide to call it) or can it be something else at the same time?

vacuum 1. a space entirely devoid of matter.

From a simplistic understanding, once we've removed all the matter from a space, that space is a vaccum, unforunately, to my knowledge such a space cannot exist within the known universe, as once such a space is created, transitory particles will pop into existence in said space.

Can you be you and Ethel Merman at the same time?

The probability is small, but just as liquid helium flows uphill, because it probably can, I'd say my being me and Ethel Merman is not an impossibility.

Who and what I am changes from one moment to the next, afterall one cannot dip one's toe into the same stream more than once. Whether I can know who I am is debatable too, my recollections of myself are untrustworthy due to the very nature of memory, and, unlike Jim Carey in the Truman Show, I haven't had others recording all my actions for a better record. I'd like to think my idea of myself is more accurate than anybody else's, but I could be kidding myself. As you can see not being able to explain the entire universe is the least of my problems.

Right, but it is what it is, regardless of what we call it. We happen to use "matter" and "not-matter" because that's how physics presents to our senses. It is what it is regardless of how it operates or how we see it in the classical sense.

Clearly I didn't do a good enough job explaining the double slit experiment, particles are not what they are regardless of how we see them, they are what they are because of how we see them (and, yes, I do appreciate the issues this raises about what things looked like before there was an "us").

Do you even know what a principle is?

Heh, that's a bit of a low blow isn't it?

Do you understand the difference between using physics to justify that there is a universe and why human beings have to find and use principles to live and to describe the universe around them?

Yes, enough to know that physics shouldn't be used for the purpose you've suggested, because it isn't that simple. If you want to have a rational basis for your principles, that's fine, but don't look to physics to provide you with a starting point, it's plain sloppiness to leap from physics has laws to physics describes the universe as objectively rational.

Frankly, this is the problem with discussing o'ism, or Marxism, or whateverism, or referring to Marx, or Rand, or whoever in the sense that the discussion should be about simple economics and how that is a part of our everyday life. What it becomes is a discussion like this one--of the various tenets of the whateverism, as if that has any bearing on the discussion of Economics in One Lesson.

Which is why, as a rule, I don't bring up personalities, or philosophies, or whatnot, it's a waste of time.

Hey, I wasn't the one who said that Objectivism gets its name from physics suggesting there is a universe that exists objectively. But I agree, this discussion is tangential to the subject at hand so, if you're prepared to concede that the principle of Objectivism that gives it its name may not have a sound basis in science I won't labor the issue any further.

Rush. You don't get it. According to physics the observer and observed are linked. There is no objective universe because the mere act of looking at it changes it.

In other words your statement "No matter what we call it, no matter what it's doing, is it itself?" is not actually accurate or correct.

Frankly, this is the problem with discussing o'ism, or Marxism, or whateverism, or referring to Marx, or Rand, or whoever in the sense that the discussion should be about simple economics and how that is a part of our everyday life. What it becomes is a discussion like this one--of the various tenets of the whateverism, as if that has any bearing on the discussion of Economics in One Lesson.

Which is why, as a rule, I don't bring up personalities, or philosophies, or whatnot, it's a waste of time.

Hey, I wasn't the one who said that Objectivism gets its name from physics suggesting there is a universe that exists objectively. But I agree, this discussion is tangential to the subject at hand so, if you're prepared to concede that the principle of Objectivism that gives it its name may not have a sound basis in science I won't labor the issue any further.

That's silly, it's tangential to this discussion. That doesn't mean we can't discuss it another time.

Fair enough, for giggles you might like to read this before asking me "Do you exist?" again.

Maybe this will work: but is it what it is? No matter what we call it, no matter what it's doing, is it itself?

>snip the single particle interference experiment<

To be clear though, the law of identity is a philosophical principle created long before Ayn Rand was born.

Rush. You don't get it. According to physics the observer and observed are linked. There is no objective universe because the mere act of looking at it changes it.

In other words your statement "No matter what we call it, no matter what it's doing, is it itself?" is not actually accurate or correct.

Idiots.

Bobby, was Mother Theresa the age she was when she died, and does that age change because of the fact that your sense organs registered some of the light that reflected off of her body?

The Principle of Supply and Demand:

My ancestors, from the Iron Age, among others people from the Jastorf culture, got around. They sailed the rivers of Europe in their dugout canoes, where they brought amber, which they have picked up at the beaches here at home, and traded that for things they were offered for it at the places they got to.

One of the artifacts that has been found is the Gundestrup cauldron, which is an about 9 kg heavy cauldron made of pure silver, and richly decorated. It's most probably made by the Thracians, which the traders from the North have got in exchange for the amber from home.

So the amber, which was not worth much for the Norse, there was so much of it, it was just to take a walk along the beach and then pick up what they could carry, was so much worth for the Indo-European people that they would give such a huge treasure of pure silver in exchange for it. Amber was in demand but in very little supply in those areas. If amber were in supply there, they wouldn't have traded it with such a fine treasure as the cauldron, which got it's name after where it was found, in Gundestrup in Jutland, home of the Cimbris. They would have given less for the amber they were offered.

Same the other way around, glass beads were traded for amber, because glass beads were in demand at home, so a lot of amber were paid for those beads.

They didn't know about economics back then, but they knew about supply and demand, that the more a thing is in demand, the higher price they could charge for it, and the bigger supply there was of a thing, the less it was valued and traded for. Things only became valuable when there were some who would pay for it, some way or the other, with goods or with blocks of silver and gold, which have been that time's money. Those blocks of silver and gold later developed into coins, where the coining were a kind of security for the value which then became fixed, and money economy was born.

Supply and demand always have been and always will be the corner stone of economics.

Rush, you've got the little 'golden fishie' or whatever it's called that is used as a school book for little tikes in order for teaching them that they need to give up their 'pretty scales' to the ugly fish so that everyone is equal.


I love your banner. People can choose now....one or the other.....give up the scales or else.....Obama or else (just like mussolinni).

Does a person belong to himself or not, Rush?

Rush, you've got the little 'golden fishie' or whatever it's called that is used as a school book for little tikes in order for teaching them that they need to give up their 'pretty scales' to the ugly fish so that everyone is equal.


I love your banner. People can choose now....one or the other.....give up the scales or else.....Obama or else (just like mussolinni).

Does a person belong to himself or not, Rush?

No. You are confusing Nemo with the Rainbow Fish.

Rush, you've got the little 'golden fishie' or whatever it's called that is used as a school book for little tikes in order for teaching them that they need to give up their 'pretty scales' to the ugly fish so that everyone is equal.


I love your banner. People can choose now....one or the other.....give up the scales or else.....Obama or else (just like mussolinni).

Does a person belong to himself or not, Rush?

No. You are confusing Nemo with the Rainbow Fish.

No, Esme. It's the 'Rainbow Fish' I was after.

I want to shuck his scales....every last one, dearest.

The Principle of Supply and Demand:

My ancestors, from the Iron Age, among others people from the Jastorf culture, got around. They sailed the rivers of Europe in their dugout canoes, where they brought amber, which they have picked up at the beaches here at home, and traded that for things they were offered for it at the places they got to.

One of the artifacts that has been found is the Gundestrup cauldron, which is an about 9 kg heavy cauldron made of pure silver, and richly decorated. It's most probably made by the Thracians, which the traders from the North have got in exchange for the amber from home.

So the amber, which was not worth much for the Norse, there was so much of it, it was just to take a walk along the beach and then pick up what they could carry, was so much worth for the Indo-European people that they would give such a huge treasure of pure silver in exchange for it. Amber was in demand but in very little supply in those areas. If amber were in supply there, they wouldn't have traded it with such a fine treasure as the cauldron, which got it's name after where it was found, in Gundestrup in Jutland, home of the Cimbris. They would have given less for the amber they were offered.

Same the other way around, glass beads were traded for amber, because glass beads were in demand at home, so a lot of amber were paid for those beads.

They didn't know about economics back then, but they knew about supply and demand, that the more a thing is in demand, the higher price they could charge for it, and the bigger supply there was of a thing, the less it was valued and traded for. Things only became valuable when there were some who would pay for it, some way or the other, with goods or with blocks of silver and gold, which have been that time's money. Those blocks of silver and gold later developed into coins, where the coining were a kind of security for the value which then became fixed, and money economy was born.

Supply and demand always have been and always will be the corner stone of economics.

They were also pirates who raided up and down the British coast. So I guess your analogy to capitalism holds fair.

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

The Principle of Supply and Demand:

My ancestors, from the Iron Age, among others people from the Jastorf culture, got around. They sailed the rivers of Europe in their dugout canoes, where they brought amber, which they have picked up at the beaches here at home, and traded that for things they were offered for it at the places they got to.

One of the artifacts that has been found is the Gundestrup cauldron, which is an about 9 kg heavy cauldron made of pure silver, and richly decorated. It's most probably made by the Thracians, which the traders from the North have got in exchange for the amber from home.

So the amber, which was not worth much for the Norse, there was so much of it, it was just to take a walk along the beach and then pick up what they could carry, was so much worth for the Indo-European people that they would give such a huge treasure of pure silver in exchange for it. Amber was in demand but in very little supply in those areas. If amber were in supply there, they wouldn't have traded it with such a fine treasure as the cauldron, which got it's name after where it was found, in Gundestrup in Jutland, home of the Cimbris. They would have given less for the amber they were offered.

Same the other way around, glass beads were traded for amber, because glass beads were in demand at home, so a lot of amber were paid for those beads.

They didn't know about economics back then, but they knew about supply and demand, that the more a thing is in demand, the higher price they could charge for it, and the bigger supply there was of a thing, the less it was valued and traded for. Things only became valuable when there were some who would pay for it, some way or the other, with goods or with blocks of silver and gold, which have been that time's money. Those blocks of silver and gold later developed into coins, where the coining were a kind of security for the value which then became fixed, and money economy was born.

Supply and demand always have been and always will be the corner stone of economics.

They were also pirates who raided up and down the British coast. So I guess your analogy to capitalism holds fair.

Actually they didn't. They never crossed the North Sea, they couldn't do that in those canoes.