Answering the Randroids

With no metaphysics and minimal consciousness, Objectivism turns out to be an opinion—one among many.

(CALGARY, Alberta) - I’ve been accused by a number of Randroids of ad hominem arguments because they think I don’t actually address Rand’s “ideas”. So, here goes. Time to take off the gloves.

Once asked if she could explain Objectivism while standing on one foot, Rand lifted one leg, and said:

The key to the validity of Objectivism overall is the first, metaphysics. If its metaphysics is invalid, then the other three points are simply an ideology like any other. Objectivism then becomes Subjectivism.

Physicists have known since 1905 (the very year in which Rand was born) that there is no objective world, thus proving Objectivist metaphysics false. As Einstein said: “For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past, present and future is only an illusion, however tenacious.”

The simplest way to validate Einstein’s statement is through the every day use of the GPS (Global Positioning System) in which both Einstein’s relativity theories have to be factored in because satellites are moving at such a velocity and height, (away from the mass of the Earth—reduced gravitational field), that relativistic effects have to be calculated to get an accurate location for earthbound objects.

Physicist Peter Galison calculates that time, for a satellite orbiting at 20,000 km/hr, runs slow, relative to an Earth-based clock, by 7 millionths of a second per day. At an orbital height of 18,000 kms, satellite clocks run fast by 45 millionths of a second per day. These two combined mean that an orbiting satellite clock runs fast by 38 millionths of a second per day relative to an Earth-based clock.

The clock time of GPS satellites must be correct to within 50 billionths of a second per day for GPS to accurately position earth locations. Without relativistic corrections, GPS positioning would exceed its allowable error in less than two minutes and earth-based positions would be off by ten kms after only one day.

These sound like miniscule effects, but they are real and prove incontrovertibly that the space and time we believe in at our slow earth-bound speeds are actually our societal constructions.

Space and time are not separate aspects of reality. Hermann Minkowski, who had been Einstein’s mathematics professor, gave Einstein’s Special Theory its final logical and mathematical polish by re-interpreting it as a form of geometry. In 1908 he wrote that “space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.”¹ Physics Nobelist Max Born later concluded: “If physics is to retain its maxim of recognizing as real only what is physically observable, it must combine the concepts of space and time into a higher unity, namely a four dimensional expanse.”² Today, says Columbia physicist Brian Greene, “the only thing that’s real is the whole of spacetime.”³

“Recent measurements reveal a universe consisting mostly of the unknown. Fully 70 percent of the matter density appears to be in the form of dark energy. Twenty-six percent is dark matter. Only 4 percent is ordinary matter. So less than 1 part in 20 is made out of matter we have observed experimentally or described in the standard model of particle physics. Of the other 96 percent, apart from the properties just mentioned, we know absolutely nothing.”⁴

Nobel physicist Leon Lederman:
“All our experiments indicate that quarks and gauge bosons interact at points with no spatial dimensions, and so are fundamental, like the leptons. If the fundamental particles really are dimensionless points with mass, flavor, color, charge and other quantum properties, occupying no volume, then the nature of matter appears quite bizarre. The four interactions give matter shape; matter itself is empty.⁵ (his emphasis)

The whole is obviously the entire universe—past, present and future. There is no reason to artificially limit the whole to the earth, the solar system, our galaxy, or a cluster of galaxies.

(Lest the Randroids wish to accuse me of another logical fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam—Fallacious Appeal to Authority—note that the people I quote are among the top authorities in physics. If anyone wants more detail, just ask.)

Conscious control is also another important aspect of Objectivism. Here, too, the theory falls short of reality.

Every second the eye sends at least ten million bits of data to the brain; the skin another million bits; the hearing and olfactory senses about a hundred thousand bits each and our taste buds another thousand bits. Add them up and more than eleven million bits a second floods through our senses every second, which our brains are tasked to process and interpret.

Almost all of those eleven million bits are processed automatically and unconsciously. What we are conscious of is actually very little—psychologists estimate about 40 bits per second. Almost all of the world goes on around us, and we have minimal to no awareness of it.

Conclusion: With no metaphysics and minimal consciousness, Objectivism turns out to be an opinion—one among many.

The Objectivist movement is top-heavy with Ph.D.s in economics and philosophy (despite its official disdain for these degrees), as well as with MBAs, lawyers, and medical doctors. Scientists are relatively scarce. The above explains why scientists don’t buy into Objectivism. They know better.

People used to believe the earth was flat. Now people still believe the material world is real. GPS is only the first eye-opener. As more seemingly contradictory phenomena become real in an every day sense, the 21st century is going to see momentous shifts in our understandings that we can't even imagine. Differing rates of time, for example, was only a theory until the technology appeared to verify it.

Defining society with the individual human as the central unit, has given us dysfunctional societies where (particularly in the U.S.) any attempt at recognizing the interrelationships between human beings and encouraging cooperation—on almost any scale—is furiously rejected as socialism leading to communism.

Bill Gates, computer genius that he is, would not be a billionaire today without the synergy of his initial partnership with Paul Allen, then the cooperation from his initial band of about a dozen employees, and finally the Herculean efforts of his tens of thousands of employees. Just as crucial is the fact that his parents were wealthy, giving him financial advantages at the outset.

Most of his fortune, and Microsoft’s growth, is the result of his placing the DOS operating system on IBM computers. This would not have happened without a high level connection—Gates’ mother was on the national board of the United Way with IBM chairman John Opel. After the initial all day meeting where Gates pitched DOS to IBM, Don Estridge, the man in charge of the IBM PC, went before the Management Committee and acknowledged that he was taking a risk contracting out the software to a small company in Seattle. Opel said, “That wouldn’t be Mary Gates’s boy, Bill, would it?” Bill was in.

Any person who declares himself to be “self-made” and did it all “on his own” is, in their self-delusionary way perpetuating a destructive individualist fantasy.

Another Harvard dropout is Mark Zuckerberg who founded Facebook in his dorm in 2004, dropped out of school, and went to Palo Alto and is now estimated to have a net worth of $1.5 billion. But without an initial $500,000 investment from PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel or other Venture firms like Accel Partners and Greylock Partners, Facebook would have been stillborn. Zuckerberg is another “self-made” myth.

Imagine that Bill Gates (or you) had been born alone on a desert island and somehow magically kept alive. How intellectually developed would he be as an adult, with no one to teach him, no one to imitate, no pre-existing tools, no spoken or written language? He would certainly possess basic skills for dealing with the physical world, but they would not be particularly impressive. He could not invent for himself English (or any spoken language at all because there would be no one to communicate with), Arabic numbers (let alone binary numbers, the basis for computer languages), metal tools, or money. These are products of human beings who, in a society, cooperate and put their heads together for goals impossible for any individual human to accomplish. The desert island analogy is not so far fetched. There are well documented cases of what are called feral children, children raised in the wild by animals and when returned to society, they cannot be fully socialized. Depending on their age when found, some cannot even learn to speak.

Aristotle would have been comfortable with Objectivist metaphysics—A flat earth and a fixed, unchanging sky in a dome overhead. Both our understanding of the world (science), as well as philosophy have moved on in the last twenty-five centuries.

In fact, said philosopher Bertrand Russell, “Throughout modern times, practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of opposition from Aristotle’s disciples.”⁶

Recommended reading for those interested in learning more: Einstein's cosmos : how Albert Einstein's vision transformed our understanding of space and time by Michio Kaku, Norton 2004

Salem-News.com Top Stories

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

One Killed and Two Injured in Shooting Near South Salem High School

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

American Antitheist January 18, 2010 1:11 pm (Pacific time)

"Physicists have known since 1905 (the very year in which Rand was born) that there is no objective world," This is nonsense. The very GPS you cite as an example could not work if the world did not exist objectively, as something knowable. How can you ascertain where something is, if it is in a different place for everybody? The answer is that it does exist at a certain place and is bound by definite laws. Objective reality is a critical assumption to any scientific enquiry, namely that there must be something about which to inquire. Does that mean that we can readily apprehend all facets of that reality? Of course not. That is why scientific rigor is necessary to define what reality is in specific terms.

Sorry, but you have no understanding of the argument, at all. You say: "The very GPS you cite as an example could not work if the world did not exist objectively, as something knowable. How can you ascertain where something is, if it is in a different place for everybody? The answer is that it does exist at a certain place and is bound by definite laws."

GPS works only because there is no objective world and things are in different places for everybody. That's why relativistic corrections have to be built in. If there were an objective world it would always be the same and the distance between A and B, for example, would always be the same. But the world--space/time--is not fixed and objective. The location of an object, in relation to any other object, depends on the velocity of the objects and the strength of the gravitational field in which they sit. This is standard, uncontroversial physics.

Nat T. January 15, 2010 12:46 pm (Pacific time)

I left a rather lengthy comment that addressed your points philosophically, even suggesting Objectivist texts that answer questions posed in the article. Yet it seems that you didn't deem it "fit" for publication. A site where the writer is also the moderator doesn't seem conducive to any real debate. This will be the last time I visit. (I suspect this comment won't be published either.)

If you entered a lengthy post, I never saw it. But what you objectivists don't seem to understand is that as a former O, myself, I've been there and done that. I've moved on to larger intellectual worlds (science) and there is nothing in Rand's writing that convinces me any more. But I've learned my lesson. No more writing about objectivism because discussions with Randroids are like arguing with the wind. It's always shifting and can't be pinned down (except for what Rand said, which makes Objectivism tautological). We're a left-leaning, pro-people site and I don't understand what you were doing here, anyway. I'm sure you can find lots of websites that you will find more sympatico.

Rob Quinn January 14, 2010 6:26 pm (Pacific time)

I don't think objectivism has anything to say about the scientific understanding of the universe. Whether the universe is comprised of bubbles, or strings that travel every which way through "time" is irrelevant to objectivism, or philosophy in general. I think objectivism would simply say that reality exists - possessing an identity; you exist - possessing consciousness; your conceptual faculty can understand reality using the correct cognitive process. "Now, you scientists - go do your thing!" A scientist that denies existence, denies his consciousness, or denies his cognitive functioning is a walking contradiction.

Objectivist metaphysics says that there is a world "out there". Although physicists pretend that there is in order to do their work, they know it's not "true" in the same sense that we know that the earth isn't "flat".

The basic point I am making that expressed by Brian Greene. The only thing that's real is the whole of spacetime. It's like water being made up of hydrogen and oxygen. Take away the hydrogen and the concept of "water" disappears. So it is with the world "out there". Take away time, i.e., make it a variable part of spacetime, then the concept of a three dimensional world in which we believe disappears as well (i.e., also becomes variable).

As chemist Roald Hoffman poses the question: "If we look at the continuum of reality as we currently understand it, we see that matter doesn't exist, but is only a manifestation of energy. Going up through physics and chemistry, we arrive at our everyday, material world. At what point does consciousness or self-awareness enter?"

The conclusion I come to is that the metaphysics of Objectivism is far from obvious and in order to avoid dogma, Objectivism must address the issue lest it become like a religion--believing what it wants to, no matter what the contrary evidence might suggest.

Ken Krawchuk January 14, 2010 11:32 am (Pacific time)

Given I have a B.S. in Physics and am a long-time Libertarian, I could not help but comment on this article.

Ken: A forty-year old BS in physics just doesn't cut it because at that level, you wouldn't even have become aware of the issues I discuss. My time (a subjective phenomenon--like yours) is too valuable to respond to your callow meanderings. If you wanted to actually address any of the specifics, we would have had a basis for discussion but otherwise you committed the Fallacy-of-being-too-full-of-yourself.

Nat T. January 14, 2010 7:20 am (Pacific time)

Why are no new comments showing up?

Because commenters keep wanting me to quote Ayn Rand's writings, a tautological system of thought. Some comments are insulting and irrelevant and I just flush them. I will be happy to post the comments of anyone who addresses the issues I covered in the article. Luke wondered, but no one has responded to his query. Here's your chance to get involved, Nat T.

Daniel Johnson January 14, 2010 5:00 am (Pacific time)

And yet, says physicist Brian Greene: "At a deep level, there is a collective longing for an explanation of why there is a universe, how it came to take the form we witness, and for the rationale—the principle—that drives its evolution. The astounding thing is that humanity has now come to a point where a framework is emerging for answering some of these questions scientifically.”

Objectivism's only contribution to these questions is dogma and how to make more money--something of importance in the cosmic scheme of things--even though Randroids should know that they can't take it with them.

Luke January 13, 2010 7:33 am (Pacific time)

>>How do Objectivists feel about multi-dimensional reality?

Rob Quinn January 12, 2010 7:41 pm (Pacific time)

One of the nice things that you get in objectivist writings that you don't get in other places (like your article) is a clear definition of terms. The fact that you didn't bother to reference any such definitions, or even provide a quote or a reference to Rand's written work, indicates a lack of intellectual rigor, and possible laziness, on your part. A couple of actual quotes should help here: Metaphysical objectivity is "the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness" The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1965 The basic point about "Objective Reality" is what she called the primacy of existence, which refers to the simple fact that existence is axiomatic, and consciousness presupposes existence. This is not to be confused with the term "objective" in an epistemological context, in which she defines it: "Identified by man's consciousness in accordance with the facts of reality" Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. So I don't think it's "ad hominem" you are doing, it's more like "arguing against something you don't even understand". I guess you could call it a straw man attack.

"[R]eality exists independent of any observer's consciousness"--the science of the last century or so has demonstrated this to be a limiting viewpoint, just as it was obvious for most of man's existence that the earth was flat, but science is not a strong point with objectivists. Would you agree with Einstein, et al that the "fact of reality" is reality is comprised of at least four dimensions? Or is that something you don't understand? When I read AS several times through the 1960s I was always struck by the fact that Rand didn't seem to know who Einstein was or, if she did, she certainly ignored him and replaced him with the pseudoscience of Robert Stadler where somehow cosmic rays were basic to most scientific advances.

Intellectually, I've been where you're at and escaped through the expanding knowledge of science. It doesn't sound like you've ever been where I'm at.

Ted January 12, 2010 7:19 pm (Pacific time)

I am in full understanding, and at a loss as to how to extract myself from the intellectual dilemma of forcing myself to ignore the glaring intrusion of logic in the face of Ayn's sequence of observation. I have, in the past, wondered about where to seek reference material concerning the extraction of veracity from this scenario.

Ted: I would recommend the Kaku book I've referenced at the end of the article.

Hank Ruark January 12, 2010 4:00 pm (Pacific time)

Ken K. Methinks you overlook that part about what is real for YOU may very well be illusion or nothingness for ME ! SO how do I know you are really real ?? !! Really this whole regimen re Rand now gets very ragged and raspy,on us who know we ARE real !! (At least for long enough to dig this dialog...)

Ken K January 12, 2010 1:37 pm (Pacific time)

Science proports so called objective facts every day which over time must be changed as more information is discovered, however, just because we don't know everything there is to know about our existance does not mean we cannot know that we exist i.e. I think therefore I am.

Science is an expanding understanding and it does not go backward. Concepts, once discovered, cannot be undiscovered. Forty odd years ago I, too, saw myself as an Objectivist. But I was also a student of science, particularly physics and astronomy and and the more I learned, I outgrew Rand and her limited, restricting ideas. She had no working knowledge of or understanding of science. As my worldview expanded and I became aware of an infinite universe, Objectivism and its focus on money grew smaller and smaller and finally vanished into irrelevance. My comment about GPS shows that science knows that space and time, as we experience them in our three dimensions is limited. As Brian Greene said (and this is the standard view in physics) is that the only thing that's real is all of spacetime. Reality is, at minimum, four dimensional. String theorists like Greene are arguing for at least ten dimensions. How do Objectivists feel about multi-dimensional reality? Since you made your post, I've added a reference book at the end of the article which, if you're interested in stretching your mind, you might find of interest.

[Return to Top]

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News