You might better start your own post on the subject. This post is meant to be about people that mis-quote or mis-interpet AR.

The only attempted explanations or explanatory materials I saw came from a link by jbrenner. If you have an understanding of quantum mechanics and wish to enlighten us (or to resolve the seeming inconsistency), PLEASE DO.

It is a fact that science currently lacks the ability to explain or reconcile the observed behaviors of sub-atomic particles which prima faciae contradict A=A. In this instance and lacking the conciliatory knowledge to preserve A=A in the face of real and observed phenomenae, I must challenge the theory insofar as it is presently constituted and conclude that the inconsistency does indeed pose problems of a real, and not an epistemiological nature. It is not unlike challenging the Theory of Relativity in the face of the discovery of strings or challenging Bohr's model of the atom once examining more complex elements. One must be willing to challenge what they thought they knew in the face of new evidence or one invalidates the scientific process, corrupting it through confirmation bias.

If you aren't versed in quantum mechanics or have no desire to explore the topic, that's fine. I, myself, am only the casual student of theoretical physics, but asserting that everyone arguing against your point of view are idiots is hardly the scientific approach to resolving the matter. We welcome your assistance in resolving this seeming inconsistency, but there is no shame in being stymied with the rest of us while we wait for a breakthrough on the topic.

No rage, just a form of contempt as a byproduct of knowing what Maphesdus is doing. The details of his misrepresentation of both Ayn Rand and Bloom should be informative to those Maphesdus tried to manipulate as he counted on readers not being familiar with his phony citations.

I could answer that I do know quantum mechanics, having studied it through the graduate level and since then, even though I did not choose it as my specialty. But more fundamentally, _no_ valid science inherently contradicts either reality or itself. One does not have to know quantum mechanics to understand that much, without or without a "PhD".

Scientists do not "speculate" about a "subject they do not know". As usual, Maphesdus ignores everything said in response to him, replacing it with his imaginations of "anger" as he dodges and weaves in yet another personal attack. He does not belong here.

Your comment is asinine. I did read what you wrote and responded to it, so drop the explosions of personal insults. Maphesdus is wrong as usual, and so are you in asserting that quantum mechanics "do [sic] cause problems for the law of identity". If you "disregard" the explanations given, you will never understand it. Any "science", and any pundit, that claims the law of identity is not valid literally has nothing to talk about.

It doesn't require a "book" to explain that change does not contradict existence and identity. Normal people know that a river has water flowing through it, which is required by the concept and does not contradict it. They understand perfectly well that they can and do can step into the same river twice, and don't go into an intellectual frenzy over it, let alone concoct an irrational philosophy like a Hegel denying identity.

Several books have of course already been written about it. For those interested in the progression of ideas and fallacies in philosophy, and how Ayn Rand answered it, see Leonard Peikoff's lecture series on the history of western philosophy. It is now very inexpensive to download the whole series.

https://estore.aynrand.org/p/95/founders...

https://estore.aynrand.org/p/96/modern-p...

Yes, you're right on that one and it can probably be said that collectivists and conservatives are two sides of the same coin just like we say that about the Democrats and Republicans. The biggest problem is that "collectivist" is a very large group. My statement would have been more accurate if I had compared progressives and conservatives.

Unfortunately, these days the lines between those two groups is beginning to blur.

You're going to have to stand corrected one more time. I wrote, " Libertarianism shares beliefs with conservatives and collectivists, such as no social welfare and no corporate welfare, respectively."

"I'm with you except for the part about libertarianism being in sync with conservatism."

Good, because I wouldn't be with me on that, either! I never said that libertarianism is in sync with conservatism. I did say this, "Libertarianism shares beliefs with conservatives and collectivists ..."

You should read more carefully.

"I matter. My life matters, and I value it. I refuse to surrender."
It's amazing how these same people are very comfortable saying other people are important and matter. But of other people says it themselves, it's terrifying to them.

Steve said it shorter, but the hate is a direct result of coming face to face with another human who says "I matter. My life matters, and I value it. I refuse to surrender."
And that absolute is SO TERRIFYING that their only response can be hate. *say this part very softly: "but whom do they really hate?"