I’m sorry. I gotta work on something else.
PS. Muting this thread. Usually, I don’t mention that, but I thought it might be rude not to in this case.
Whatever, fish girl, I don’t remind my challenging you for a debate on Rand. 
I will return to this topic next week. For now, I will only mention here Rand’s radical rejection of subjectivity.
For her, true concepts are formed, can only be formed, by actively processing the data of the senses to identify real properties in the real (=external) world, and not by arbitrary mental constructs. Therefore, she rejected both subjective value judgments and epistemological approaches that prioritize feelings or arbitrary (=abstract, indefinite) definitions over objective facts and rational thought.
She radically rejected, then, the notion that the world exists within one’s mind. It’s the other way round, actually.
Facts are self evident Nathan.You are correct.
It’s a scientific fact that the attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interaction NN,NS,SN,SS ABSOLUTES!!! that exist right now between all spinning objects and particles in the cosmos at both the macro and micro levels DO NOT cancel out and yet mainstream cognitively biased nonsense atheistic science claims that they do.
Which is precisely why cosmology and particle physics has totally failed.
Don’t listen to cognitively biased atheistic crank/crack pot scientists.
Ask for your money back.
Forget the claim “I think therefore I am”, that claim is philosophically dead now.It’s been replaced with the claim “I need to exist to claim that I don’t exist”.