I feel your rage.

Thank you for reminding everyone of what science really is.

Thanks.

Since you obviously didn't bother to read my comments and jumped right into disparagement and ad hominem attacks, I'll disregard your statements as such. My inquiries regarding quantum computing were for my own sake - not to either disparage Rand or to "prop" up any other post - which I do with voting.

You may not approve of Maphaesdus and his views in general, but even Barack Obama doesn't get it wrong 100% of the time (he did finally off Bin Laden). Doing so is prejudicial per se and unacceptable to the Objectivist or any other seeker of truth. Treat each question as a legitimate inquiry and set about to either sustain or disprove it with logical hypothesis. You certainly aren't going to persuade anyone of anything by calling them names.

Like him(or her) or not, Maph put forth a legitimate conflict: that quantum mechanics do indeed cause problems for the law of identity on a sub-atomic scale - so far as we know - because sub-atomic particles have been observed being in two places at the same time or having two conflicting qualities - phenomenae that with our current understanding we can not explain in harmony with A=A.

Does that mean Rand was an idiot? I certainly never contended any such thing. I will not speak for Maph. But using an emotional response instead of an intellectual one only highlights the deficiency in such a response - it does nothing to promote a logical debate or outcome on the matter. And neither does criticizing someone else's inquiry into the matter.

Polymythofrenic is an excellent word. My wife, who is educated in the sciences but has No Latin and Even Less Greek, was able to deduce its meaning with only the slightest of hints. She just told me that Alinsky recommends the technique--lie about your enemies, ascribing to them your own vices which they oppose.

Good comment. +1

QM doesn't contradict the law of identity. Any attempted principles contradicting identity as such literally say nothing. Unexpected results discovered in science are not contradictions in reality. The "contradictions" of QM are in the interpretations of those who gravitate towards the mysterious as an end in itself and who seek to spread their own confusions to undermine the possibility of rational thought.

Bloom promoted a lot of "mainstream" philosophical fallacies, not restricted to Heraclitus, without ever explaining what he thought it had to do with Ayn Rand's actual ideas, which he did not address, made no attempt to articulat, and showed no understanding of in his brief anti-intellectual smear or anywhere else. If Maphesdus does not understand something as simple as why the existence of change does not contradict the law of identity he doesn't understand either and has his own problems. But we already know that. He is a willing sucker for sophistry and gleefully spreads it in his nihilism. It does not mean that the law of identity is wrong.

Legitimate scientific inquiry by scientists has nothing to do with speculative guessing about a subject you don't know in a comment helping to lend any credibility to Maphesdus poison. This has nothing to do with quantum computers, which is a topic far over his head. His interest is to trash Ayn Rand, which he repeatedly does through misrepresentation and hysterical pronouncements. Don't look for excuses.

The confusion regarding A = A for quantum physics is over the "appearance" that an electron is in two places at once.

Those that "feel somehow" may be delusional, but if not, then I think you're right, they are the worse because they are consciously defending something they know to be a lie.

+1 for any reference to Jean-Luc Picard.

I have never heard quantum computing explained quite this way, but that was essentially my understanding of it as well, blarman.

Criminals are dealt with by the rule of law. Law enforcement is another one of the necessary evils that only government can provide. A civilization's mores are cultural. Culture is defined by society's philosophical standards. Your powerless police are a manifestation of the culture they live in. Change the culture and you will seldom need police and when you do they will be able to deal with the situation in a proper manner.

He's big at Reason.com and Cato, apparently. He's written some pretty fair stuff on libertarianism in the past, but he's no Objectivist.

Oops -- By the definition above, they are not libertarians.

By the defined above, they are not libertarians.

Where do quantum mechanical principles contradict "A is A"? Perhaps the "wave" / "particle" phenomena?

... and try not get hit by a flying dolphin...