Although GRT indeed gives the possibility of Time-travel, the fundamental metric of de Sitter indicates that there is far too little energy in our own particular universe to accomplish this.

Moreover, because most all of your equations in cosmology are not arrow-of time designated, the equations therein are reversible: ie not only Einstein, but also The Schrodinger and back to laPlace.

What also seems evident is that the process of Emergence itself gives the arrow of time that's not present on a lower level.

The go-to concept of Existentialism indicates that there is no fundamental reality beyond human experience; Essence precedes Being, etc..everything--even Science--is imbued with free choice.

To his end, Sartre's Being and Nothingness critiqued Heidegger's Existenz Philosophy because it permitted Death as a natural End to life. Well, no--we choose life or death as a choice of freedom or slavery, etc...

Epistemic closure seems to be another word for 'paradigm'. Because all avenues of truth-justification appear certifiably closed, we simply work within the agreed-upon frame of reference. Then, a meaningful event nudges us out of our dogmatic slumber....

In Kant's Crit 3 (Judgment) he wrote that we're hard-wired to form images of the perfect, the absolute, god, freedom, etc. This is simply what the imagination does. the main issue, therefore, is how our imaginary objects are related to what we understand as The Real (doxa--received wisdom, habit) --or not. For example, Deleuze's 'Image of thought'--ch 3 of Difference&7 Repetition'....

In passing, permit me to add the quote of Einstein that time isn't real (ie it's an outcome); only clocks are real.

Bergsonian Time might be best approached from the perspective of Quine: internal states are not real because they're unverifiable. This is sort of what Einstein was driving at in his debates with Bergson. In so far as we now understand thru GRT that time/space is created by the flux of the gravitational force, we can infer that the sense of time that's inside our heads is a product of GRT, as well. Or else, again, we're speaking unverifiable timely nonsense.

The problematic is that in so far as the amerikanz soak her up, she becomes a social problem. think of Hitler with literary pretense. Mein Kampf, anyone? Ignoring her carries the same risk as ignoring the anti-global warmers...Therefore, her and her ilk must be denounced at every opportunity.

No cosmology is the new name for 'astrophysics'--which is as real a science as there is. Moreover, i'm saying that the philosophical issue is phony (filosofikal) and founded upon an ignorance of what the particular science studies and can say. So yes, i'm deciding for others that talking filosofikally about an issue internal to scientific research is, at best, a waste of time; at worse, it gives bullshit a bad name. Otherwise, i have no ideas as to what you mean by Bohr and Einstein changing their view of reality. Newsflash: the GRT equation is pretty much in your face that spacetime s the outcome of the bending of the gravitational force (left side) by an object (rt side). In Bohr vs Einstein the former was correct in stating that The schrodinger gives a complete explanation --ie entanglement--as proven by aspect & Cie. Otherwise, perhaps one might note that filosofy is for the math-challenged?

No, Rand is far more the laughing stock of academia--ie a representation as to what academics is not.

All you're saying is that the owner or a NBA franchise has no idea as to what philosophy is. Bfd. So what's next? his 'opinion' on Global Warming?

The landscape is easy: she dressed up basic amerikan kapitalist ideology in filosofikal garb in order to gain intellectual credibility. This is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.

If you want to know what a pathological cult her junk has become, simply go onto an objectivite site and see for yourself how they treat respectful disagreement. On most, even the stated rules of posting say, 'no criticism'. So why should these peeple be treated any better when thay attempt to go public?

We now know from cosmology that the primordial state of energy is a wave-- as expressed in Quantum Field Theory. Therefore, the problem becomes, how are energy waves quantitized? From this, we can look at the double slit and ask, under what conditions have our experiments given us particular results? Now this, of course, is not a philosophical problem, but rather one of mechanical cause whose solutions will be found within the context of the science itself...