riddle

Einstein and Nirvana

23 posts in this topic

Ayn Rand is one brilliant writer, I myself was greatly influenced by her works. Howard Roark is still one of the patterns for me in many things. But what I want to say is that Ayn Rand doesn’t understand the real nature of the altruism. She told us that altruists are the second-handers and many believed in that. She mocked at religions, theosophy, paradise and Nirvana as they are some kind of instruments with which people like Ellsworth Toohey have manipulated us for centuries. Do you believe that? Of course many of you do. But how many of you researched writings of these realms, how many of you know about the real nature of Nirvana. You think these things are nonsense because they want us to give up our self and our self is the only thing that matters. And, yes it is. But what you don’t know is that the thing which they want to give up from is just the outer shed that hinders us from knowing the real self within us, to give up the deficiencies which we have in order to gain higher knowledge and correspondingly to that higher experience. In order to have some kind of apogee in our evolution. Some of you may think that higher worlds are just figments and such bliss as higher experience doesn’t exist but to say that you first have to argue with the modern quantum physics which considers the universe to have at least ten dimensions. And everybody knows that we can perceive only three of them. What about the others? My opinion became too accusing and because of that I want to say that Ayn Rand has a part of the truth in her works which is not little thing. The abstract egotism is not bad thing of course and not only that it is one of the highest things which we can consider. Don’t think that I am the sort of a person who doesn’t understand the real nature of egotism and considers it in the notion of Peter Keating for example. No, but you are those who don’t understand the nature of the altruism. Of course before helping to others you should help yourself, you should be an egotist in order to be an altruist but not vice versa. Because when you become this kind of perfect egotist like Howard Roark you will be able to be the fount which gives others and this will not be the end, Howard Roark is not the end, rather he is a kind of beginning for higher things to be accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riddle, your statements are not even worth quoting. I cannot speak for others on this forum, but your statements are useless to me. In other words, it is you that have misunderstood the nature of altruism as one cannot be an egoist-altruist, the term itself is oxymoronic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riddle, your statements are not even worth quoting. I cannot speak for others on this forum, but your statements are useless to me. In other words, it is you that have misunderstood the nature of altruism as one cannot be an egoist-altruist, the term itself is oxymoronic.

Yes, it is oxymoronic but only in our three dimensions. I wanted to say that Ayn Rand's theory is excellent for our Earth existence and I myself abide by many of its features. But what about after Earth existence. So I want to ask, whoever wants to answer, how you (objectivists) imagine the existence after death. I believe you imagine it somehow and don't restraint yourselves only in one existence about 70-80 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riddle, it is you (the believer) that must bring proof to back your claim(s) that there are other dimensions. There is only existence and existence includes everything that exist. There can be nothing outside of existence as it would not exist. When I die I will go out of existence, just like I was before I was born, in other words I will no longer exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riddle, it is you (the believer) that must bring proof to back your claim(s) that there are other dimensions. There is only existence and existence includes everything that exist. There can be nothing outside of existence as it would not exist. When I die I will go out of existence, just like I was before I was born, in other words I will no longer exist.

Yes, there is only one existence of course, but why are you so sure you can perceive it all. Why I should bring proofs for the other dimensions while the quantum physics already did it? Einstein had also done it before quantum physics and there were people who had done it before Einstein. But I know that you as an Objectivist trust only in the rational reason and so I propound Einstein to your consideration, isn't he a rational scientist? And so he expound that there are at least one more dimension and now physicians like Stephen Hawking and others have already proved that there are at least eleven dimensions. This is no science fiction, try to explain our Universe wihout these additional dimensions and perhaps you will receive Nobel prize. So the facts say, the reason says that there are existence which you cannot perceive, at least in your current condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riddle, it is amusing that all your posts are of the same format:

"I'm one of you, but here is how except for claiming I'm one of you, I hold the opposite philosophy."

One of the KEY part of Ayn Rand's philosophy, in my view the most important, and that which helps keep me sane in this mad world, is that compromise is evil, it is not an option, it is the first step towards the insanity of the irrational. You can only be fully rational. There is no altruism possible. Some people confuse helping those who have value to our eyes with altruism; it is not.

As for the New Age stuff... do look into what those dimensions represent. String theorists actually hold there are 21 :P

Pretending to know a higher truth and wrapping it in mystery (what a well chosen name you have) is what altruists have been doing for millenia. Pattern is easy to spot, and doesn't work when people have half a brain.

Sorry, I don't usually join in the bloodbath but this is impossible to resist (see, same pattern: "I am like this but actually I am not. Now you're convinced because you sympathized with me on the first bit, and now you've switched your opinion because you hold me to be a friendly and you now agree with me.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riddle, it is you (the believer) that must bring proof to back your claim(s) that there are other dimensions. There is only existence and existence includes everything that exist. There can be nothing outside of existence as it would not exist. When I die I will go out of existence, just like I was before I was born, in other words I will no longer exist.

Yes, there is only one existence of course, but why are you so sure you can perceive it all. Why I should bring proofs for the other dimensions while the quantum physics already did it? Einstein had also done it before quantum physics and there were people who had done it before Einstein. But I know that you as an Objectivist trust only in the rational reason and so I propound Einstein to your consideration, isn't he a rational scientist? And so he expound that there are at least one more dimension and now physicians like Stephen Hawking and others have already proved that there are at least eleven dimensions. This is no science fiction, try to explain our Universe wihout these additional dimensions and perhaps you will receive Nobel prize. So the facts say, the reason says that there are existence which you cannot perceive, at least in your current condition.

The additional 'dimension' that Einstein included in his calculations, where it hadn't been a factor before was TIME. That is NOT another 'dimension' in the sense of a Bizarro world or event horizon, or any alternate universe you can go where clothes don't get dirty or people with 3 heads spout Shakespeare backwards, in harmony.

Postulating additional dimensions, in that sense, has been reserved for science fiction and arbitrary rationalist postulation.

Just because it is possible to create a closed mathematical system with n dimensions, where n is > 4 doesn't mean that it has any existentential referent. But it makes for cool fiction and I have no problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why I should bring proofs for the other dimensions while the quantum physics already did it?
As someone who uses 'quantum physics' every day in his research I find this brazen assertion a little surprising. Can you please enlighten me exactly where quantum physics predicts extra dimensions?
Einstein had also done it before quantum physics and there were people who had done it before Einstein.
As Alaan explained quite well, mathematical dimensions do not literally equate to real physical spatial dimensions.
...now physicians like Stephen Hawking and others have already proved that there are at least eleven dimensions. This is no science fiction, try to explain our Universe wihout these additional dimensions and perhaps you will receive Nobel prize. So the facts say, the reason says that there are existence which you cannot perceive, at least in your current condition.

This reveals you don't really know what you are talking about. Some of the various fringe theories like "String Theory" in Theoretical Physics remain to this day as unfinished products, and for the theories to have any remote chance of working they have to invoke bizarre assumptions about extra dimensions and god knows what. Because an arbitrary assumption must be invoked to crutch up an unproven theory doesn't mean that the assumption is true; what it probably means is that your theory is garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I want to answer to rtq24. I knew that some will say that - no compromise with Ayn Rand. But you don't understand me, perhaps because I haven't been too clear. I am agree that Ayn Rand is brilliant writer. I am agree that Howard Roark has essential virtues which everyone should attain. I am agree that we should not sacrifice ourselves. But I am not agree that the Earth experience is our only one and that we can perceive all the reality and because of that there are some fallacies in the Ayn Rand's theory.

About Einstein and relativity - you cannot have thing which doesn't exist, right? So Einstein could not have only mathematical explanation in something that doesn't exist. And Einstein gave a field for some genius like Stephen Hawking to expand his ideas. And they did, correspondingly to the theory of relativity, so you cannot just embrace Einstein and dismiss them. I said that you cannot explain the universe without these additional dimensions, it could not be existing without them, not just in mathematical model, but in real. You called that modern stuff with neglect, but if I have been talking of some old prophets you would say the same as well. It's easy to dismiss, it's hard to think over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why I should bring proofs for the other dimensions while the quantum physics already did it?
As someone who uses 'quantum physics' every day in his research I find this brazen assertion a little surprising. Can you please enlighten me exactly where quantum physics predicts extra dimensions?
Einstein had also done it before quantum physics and there were people who had done it before Einstein.
As Alaan explained quite well, mathematical dimensions do not literally equate to real physical spatial dimensions.
...now physicians like Stephen Hawking and others have already proved that there are at least eleven dimensions. This is no science fiction, try to explain our Universe wihout these additional dimensions and perhaps you will receive Nobel prize. So the facts say, the reason says that there are existence which you cannot perceive, at least in your current condition.

This reveals you don't really know what you are talking about. Some of the various fringe theories like "String Theory" in Theoretical Physics remain to this day as unfinished products, and for the theories to have any remote chance of working they have to invoke bizarre assumptions about extra dimensions and god knows what. Because an arbitrary assumption must be invoked to crutch up an unproven theory doesn't mean that the assumption is true; what it probably means is that your theory is garbage.

These theories are indeed unfinished, because of some obstacles. But I dont't know how you are working in this field and talk like that. Since Einstein every self-respecting physician have known that there are additional dimensions. I repeat that there will be no use of mathematical method for something which doesn't exist because mathematic is rational discipline. And dont't talk like Einstein is a kind of objectivist because he has been talking for inexplicable cosmic forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

riddle, I don't mean any offense, but if you've intended your posts as a parody, I have to congratulate you--you've done a brilliant job. I had numerous good laughs while reading your posts!

If you meant them seriously, though, ... well, I don't know what to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riddle, what you state is easy to dismiss because it does not exist. It does not get any easier than that.

I would offer (not that I expect you to take my offer) that you read or reread Einstein works and get a proper understanding of his ideas before you claim what he meant and did not mean in his writings. And as for Stephen Hawking, he has awed a large amount of people with his complex mathematical models/calculations, but he is totally off on all his irrational theories which are nothing more than mathematical calculations with almost no tie to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First I want to answer to rtq24. I knew that some will say that - no compromise with Ayn Rand. But you don't understand me, perhaps because I haven't been too clear. I am agree that Ayn Rand is brilliant writer. I am agree that Howard Roark has essential virtues which everyone should attain. I am agree that we should not sacrifice ourselves. But I am not agree that the Earth experience is our only one and that we can perceive all the reality and because of that there are some fallacies in the Ayn Rand's theory.

About Einstein and relativity - you cannot have thing which doesn't exist, right? So Einstein could not have only mathematical explanation in something that doesn't exist. And Einstein gave a field for some genius like Stephen Hawking to expand his ideas. And they did, correspondingly to the theory of relativity, so you cannot just embrace Einstein and dismiss them. I said that you cannot explain the universe without these additional dimensions, it could not be existing without them, not just in mathematical model, but in real. You called that modern stuff with neglect, but if I have been talking of some old prophets you would say the same as well. It's easy to dismiss, it's hard to think over.

You know what, you've totally convinced me. I decided to think about it rather than just blindly accept it. And I discovered that Allah was great, so I went and donated all my fortune and future earnings and my house to the local mosque. Sorry, must dash, I have a yoga class to attend - the master is awesome, he can float in the air and make you really question your existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, RayK Einstein has believed in inexplicable cosmic powers which controls your objectivsist reality, whoever has doubts like that - you have i-net check it out. But let's stop talking about Einstein if you wish. To the thing which you said about Hawking, many people could dismiss Rand in much the same way, but this is not the goal. You believe in what you are seeing, aren't you? But you have not seen a black hole, do you really believe such thing really exists? I think that if you lived in medieval times you would dismiss gravitation, and the spherical form of the Earth. I don't want to offend you, but consider that, you cannot see these things and people like you which believed only what they see dismissed these statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, the 1st Rule of the Internet is to never poke a Troll with a the logic-stick; it causes them to spontaneously release spam into your discussion threads, and then you get a mess everywhere that a moderator has to clean up. Let's leave the troll alone for a while...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carlos, we could educate him or at least attempt to do so. The value-add would be clear statements of Objectivist philosophy for future guests of the Forum. We shouldn't get too carried away. Riddle's questions are very typical of the average student in an average educational institution, or the average man in the street who wonders "what am I? The world is what I see with my eyes, maybe it doesn't exist?" etc. to which Objectivisim has clear cut, clear and powerful answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carlos, we could educate him or at least attempt to do so. The value-add would be clear statements of Objectivist philosophy for future guests of the Forum. We shouldn't get too carried away. Riddle's questions are very typical of the average student in an average educational institution, or the average man in the street who wonders "what am I? The world is what I see with my eyes, maybe it doesn't exist?" etc. to which Objectivisim has clear cut, clear and powerful answers.

Dear, rtq24 I am sorry that you misunderstood me, I am not wondering what am I. I am sorry if I wasn't clear. I understand that you want to think about me like some sort of Peter Keating, or other average mediocre. I don't blame you, if this will raise you in your eyes as an Objectivist who understands the very real nature of the Universe or, if you prefer as an Objectivist, of the Earth. What's important is the ideas. I don't want to offend anyone I am just trying to show you some fallacies in your philosophy. It's late in the country where I am so good night all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys, the 1st Rule of the Internet is to never poke a Troll with a the logic-stick; it causes them to spontaneously release spam into your discussion threads, and then you get a mess everywhere that a moderator has to clean up. Let's leave the troll alone for a while...

Hilarious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ayn Rand is one brilliant writer, I myself was greatly influenced by her works. Howard Roark is still one of the patterns for me in many things. But what I want to say is that Ayn Rand doesn’t understand the real nature of the altruism. She told us that altruists are the second-handers and many believed in that. She mocked at religions, theosophy, paradise and Nirvana as they are some kind of instruments with which people like Ellsworth Toohey have manipulated us for centuries. Do you believe that? Of course many of you do. But how many of you researched writings of these realms, how many of you know about the real nature of Nirvana. You think these things are nonsense because they want us to give up our self and our self is the only thing that matters. And, yes it is. But what you don’t know is that the thing which they want to give up from is just the outer shed that hinders us from knowing the real self within us, to give up the deficiencies which we have in order to gain higher knowledge and correspondingly to that higher experience. In order to have some kind of apogee in our evolution. Some of you may think that higher worlds are just figments and such bliss as higher experience doesn’t exist but to say that you first have to argue with the modern quantum physics which considers the universe to have at least ten dimensions. And everybody knows that we can perceive only three of them. What about the others? My opinion became too accusing and because of that I want to say that Ayn Rand has a part of the truth in her works which is not little thing. The abstract egotism is not bad thing of course and not only that it is one of the highest things which we can consider. Don’t think that I am the sort of a person who doesn’t understand the real nature of egotism and considers it in the notion of Peter Keating for example. No, but you are those who don’t understand the nature of the altruism. Of course before helping to others you should help yourself, you should be an egotist in order to be an altruist but not vice versa. Because when you become this kind of perfect egotist like Howard Roark you will be able to be the fount which gives others and this will not be the end, Howard Roark is not the end, rather he is a kind of beginning for higher things to be accomplished.

To paraphrase one philosopher, ""It is not advisable, riddle, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Einstein every self-respecting physician have known that there are additional dimensions.

Hmm, not sure about this. I'll have to ask my doctor next time I see him. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys, the 1st Rule of the Internet is to never poke a Troll with a the logic-stick; it causes them to spontaneously release spam into your discussion threads, and then you get a mess everywhere that a moderator has to clean up. Let's leave the troll alone for a while...

I've had to be away from THE FORUM for a day or so and things have gotten rather messy, haven't they?

"riddle": I will be suspending your posting privileges because you are in violation of THE FORUM's Rules and Guidelines:

1. You do not have to have knowledge of, or agree with, all of Objectivism, but you should be here because you value Ayn Rand's ideas and want to learn more about them. If your goal is to argue with, "convert," exploit, or insult Ayn Rand, her ideas, her admirers, and/or the Ayn Rand Institute, this is definitely not the place for you. Trolling[*], proselytizing, and flaming posts will be deleted, and those who post them may be permanently banned.

I don't believe you are a troll, but whether you realize it or not, you are insulting us and Ayn Rand by arguing for ideas that are totally opposed to Ayn Rand's philosophy. As a result, I will be suspending your posting privileges, but you may continue to read anything on THE FORUM that interests you.

I am hereby closing this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carlos, we could educate him or at least attempt to do so. The value-add would be clear statements of Objectivist philosophy for future guests of the Forum. We shouldn't get too carried away. Riddle's questions are very typical of the average student in an average educational institution, or the average man in the street who wonders "what am I? The world is what I see with my eyes, maybe it doesn't exist?" etc. to which Objectivisim has clear cut, clear and powerful answers.

Sure, if people have honest questions, then let's answer them. But riddle wasn't really asking questions, he was making a statement: he was telling us that while he loved Ayn Rand's ideas, he didn't quite agree about the "A is A" part. The attempts to educate him were all useless: he just responded by repeating the same statement in a different form. He wasn't here seeking answers; he was here to proselytize for mysticism.

I also found his style suspicious. He seemed to be way too familiar with the English language to be making the kinds of grammatical errors that his posts were full of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.