The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is not how those proposed matter and energy things were predicted. They come from macroscopic physics which shows that the laws of gravity when applied give results which do not fit the observations in the case for the hypothesis that there is more matter than observable so some matter must not interact electromagnetically, so dark matter, and the Universe seems to be expanding in an accelerated fashion which would imply some form of new energy expanding space, thus dark energy, and the knowledge about electromagnetism and the force of gravity can be used to hypothesize objects which have overcome electromagnetic forces when a star has fused the supply of hydrogen and then helium to the point that there is not enough force to support the gravity of the star so that, if large enough, it will collapse to the point where the nuclear forces finally stop its collapse as a neutron star or even further to a quark-gluon substance, thus black holes are hypothesized and there is good evidence for their existences.
The hand waving of Rand and Peikoff about modern physics and other philosophers is pathetic.

You know, it's so sad that on the subject most dear to your heart, the one that you have the most experience in, your response to any disagreement is insult and name calling.

You refuse to acknowledge independent invention which is the philosophical weak link in the property rights argument to the fruit of your own intellectual labor. Note, I am not saying simultaneous, simply independent.

Yes, FEE says and believes some things that are dumb and illogical. But they continue to be one of the best and most prolific voices out there promoting (mostly) sound economic principles. I'd say they do more good than bad, which is not very common these days.

more on rights as not objects, from Rand: "“Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object."

One thing I have learned as a scientist, "All theories are incomplete." To the extent that the Copenhagen interpretation is a theory that holds. When a theory suggests a particular outcome for an observation and the observation is consistent with the theory it can be said that the theory is strengthened. However, strengthening a theory is not the same as proof. Without realizing it Newton predicted black holes. His equation determining the escape velocity of a celestial body can be reformulated to the Schwarzchild equation defining the event horizon of a non rotating black hole. Does this mean that black holes exist? Not necessarily. It does provide a testable set of criteria that a black hole must meet to be considered a real phenomena. It is my suspicion that reality is more complex than any theory can possibly be.

I don't need "help" I do not understand the point of all you are saying but I would reinforce for you that natural rights are not "objects" but they must be recognized. Men are inherently "good." We do not pass laws or limit natural rights based on flawed psychological illnesses or physical illness. "goal seeking behavior." are you a praxeologist? Of course, Rand rejected Libertarianism and its foundations, which are not rooted in philosophy but merely a political structure. "Power" and seeking it refer to lessening of someone's rights which is not the foundation of capitalism. I'm seeing a lot of "original" sin in your comments.

You appear to be completely confused. Rand never talked about the science of economics only what economic system was moral and her position is unimpeachable and the only one consistent with the founding of the United States.

Unfortunately, there are no schools or sciences of economics that are right or consistent with Objectivism. I have developed one. My book Source of Economic Growth lays the foundation and I have a series of blog posts under the tag of "intellectual capitalism" that explain other aspects.

I think you are getting some of your illusions wrong. The Copenhagen interpretation is an illusion purposely pushed for philosophical reasons. It has lead to more and more nonsense, such as black holes are everywhere, dark matter, dark energy and other shims to prop up this failed interpretation of physics.

Much much muchier very much so.

I was thinking more like "You are not the same as you were before. You used to be much more muchier, but now it seems you've lost your muchiness."

I agree. That is precisely why classical physics is an illusion.

Classical physics is considered deterministic only to the extent that measurements are absolutely precise and for a system under analysis that all knowledge about the system is known. So it is only an ideal about how a system will evolve. As for the Universe itself, classically it cannot be predicted due to the lack of whether there is a gravitational aberration affect from gravitation propagating at the velocity of light. There is too much unknowable about the bodies within the Universe to even begin to classically determine much about the Universe.

Hi Thoritsu,
A quote from Alice in wonderland.
“Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”