"There ... are ... four ... lights ..."

Hmmm -- It is not clear to me what you mean by "rational morality". From your subsequent statements is seems like "successful morality". It seems to me that Rand is targeting what you are getting at here:

"The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected."

Isn't legitimate scientific inquiry built on formulation of hypothesis and confirmation/rejection of such?

If you know how a quantum computer operates and wish to explain, please do. That in and of itself would be confirmation/rejection of my hypotheses - well-reasoned or ill-informed as they may be.

The major problem with quantum mechanics is the influence of Bohr, Schrodinger, and the "Copenhagen" interpretation. These people were ardent determinists and nihilists. Q.V David Bohm who, in the 1950s, was able to counter much of their determinism with an alternate interpretation. His findings have been regaining credence recently.

Ah, I had to look that one up. +1

Golly, I hope you can get over that 'holding back' difficulty and let us know how you really feel someday.
Seriously, I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head. Definitely +1

Is the implication here: "All people are stupid"? I would probably agree with "All people are stupid sometimes."
My uncle often said:
"The masses are asses."

It is much worse than that. The original pin ponderers had a malevolent anti life on earth philosophical agenda, too.

All of civilization "came after" the most primitive times in mankind's development.

I take it that you mean they know the truth. Then indeed they have only the choices you stated. I have run across those that cannot counter the truth but still refuse to agree (usually stating that they "feel somehow" that their position is the right one.) Sometimes I think this behavior is worse than a lie.

And who cares? Why is he being given publicity for his non-original nonsense?

This is actually a common way for new words to enter the language. Those of us who learned to read using phonics find this to be a natural process.

A is A matters everywhere. Maphesdus is not "getting at" anything rational. He is trashing Ayn Rand again with misrepresentations.

Ayn Rand did not write about quantum physics at all. She knew she was not a physicist and did not confuse it with general philosophy, which does not require specialized scientific knowledge not accessible to everyone. Maphesdus, as usual, isn't correct about any of it.

IIRC, Rand said of the rape scene, "if this was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation."

They were not paying attention -- these two come to mind:

1) The wet nurse.
2) Owen Kellogg

You shouldn't guessing and speculating.

The law of identity is presupposed by all science and all knowledge, including quantum mechanics. Ayn Rand did not reject quantum mechanics, she rejected nihilists like Maphesdus who try to steal science to undermine rational thought by employing false philosophical interpretations; and she did not "desperately cling" to Newtonian physics -- she did not engage in scientific disputes at all, let alone phony popularizations such as pitting Newtonian physics against more recent discoveries expanding our knowledge.

Maphesdus constantly makes things up in the repeated misrepresentations of his agenda to trash Ayn Rand. He obsessively grasps at anything he can find to cite "refutations" -- that is, anything he can find except reading and understanding what Ayn Rand actually thought and why, or accurately and honestly portraying it as what it is.

This latest example invokes Bloom -- a previously very good chemist who at the age of 80 tried to dabble in philosophy by publishing a very bad book repeating time-worn philosophical fallacies to a wished for popular audience. Contrary to Maphesdus it is not "about quantum mechanics", not that Maphesdus could know enough about either philosophy or quantum mechanics to know the difference.

Neither does it, contrary to Maphesdus, "directly address Ayn Rand's theories". He quotes from Atlas Shrugged on "A is A" (and nothing else) without understanding what she is talking about and proceeds to confuse it with mathematical equality, followed by other philosophical fallacies that are as old as Heraclitus. He "directly addresses" Objectivism in the following polemical way (with nothing else on her "theories"): "One of the strangest uses of A = A is in pop philosophy. The followers of Russian American novelist and philosophical thinker Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, have adopted A=A as their slogan. These 'objectivists' chant 'A is A' like a mantra to ward off evil thoughts." And that's it. Maphesdus is dishonest.

This is the kind of crap that Maphesdus relies on as a substitute for reading Ayn Rand and peddles in the name of "refutations" "directly addressing" Ayn Rand as he dishonestly trashes her for being against "science" and claims that "anyone who considers themselves a serious student of Objectivist philosophy should read this book". And no, the book isn't any good for understanding "quantum mechanics", either, which would require reading the standard reputable texts and histories of the subject, which are all over his head.

Maphesdus is perversely, intransigently ignorant, not very brights, intellectually dishonest, and has a bizarre psycho agenda obsessed with trashing
Ayn Rand. He has no credibility, is malevolently motivated, and does not belong here.

Exactly conscious, so many try to conflate self defense force with pacifism. +5 if I could.

That conflation in people's minds brought about by the mistaken belief that government will take care of you, leads to the prevalence of Robbie's drug gangs. If the individual or the neighborhood doesn't stand up to the first drug dealer then the gang will follow. Self defense has to happen in order to maintain liberty.

Robbie, the Philosophy of Objectivism only asks that man reject those instinctual reactions in favor of rational and reasoned use of the mind. Those reactions that happen in the amigdala are not rational to all situations and certainly not reasoned.

I like that one. +1

+1

Yes, it was special.

Well, that may be OK. The more the merrier, I've heard.

You seem to be confused regarding the nature of self-defense and how you define "non-aggression philosophy". There is no dichotomy in Objectivism regarding the exercise of self-defense. It isn't a philosophy of personal pacifism.