Quantum Truth

Ramblus umpteen

Published on June 6, 2004 By OckhamsRazor In Philosophy

It's a bloggy day here in Rhode Island, and while there are any number of things I probably OUGHT to be doing, I find myself surfing, and reading other people's stuff here (something I'm actually guilty of not doing enough of for all my implicit claim of being a part of this community.) And because of the fact that it's impossible to NOT stumble across a thought provoking post in a group such as this, I have found my writing duties unfolding before me. After this I swear I'll pick up my desk which is a disaster area. I promise.

Gerry Atrick, someone who's ideas I have always enjoyed reading, recently posted this philosophical bit. Please read it right quick. I will wait.

Excellent. If you read the comments, you'll see I mentioned something about "Quantum Truth" and then ran off to post what you have in front of you now.

In order to properly dispense this idea, I should attempt a brief (dear god please let me be brief just once) explanation of this physics buzz word "Quantum." For those of you that really hate science, just sort of nod like you're paying attention and quickly scroll down. I don't blame you one little bit. Jump down to where it says "non scientific folk can start here".

"Quantum Mechanics" is based on a very simple principle that states that light comes in discrete little packets called quanta, and instead of getting into the details, I'll just show you how it makes determining certain things, e.g. defining certain truths, to be impossible.

Each little atom of light, or "quanta" has some energy. Well that's not so hard to grasp. But the fact that it DOES have some energy causes a problem in determining truth - in this case the truth about where exactly in space and time some test particle is. You see, imagine, if you will, a box. And in the box somewhere is one particular particle. Just one! This particle is travelling around inside the box and bouncing off the sides and just having a grand old time.

And speaking of time, at any given point in time, we want to determine the TRUTH of two things about our particle. We want to know "where in the box is it?" AND "how fast is it travelling?" Brief Ock, brief...I AM trying.

This is where the problem comes in. It is dark in the box, because except for the particle, there's nothing in the box. Not even any light. Now most of you know that light comes in a whole lot of forms. Ultraviolet, for example, is some pretty high energy light whereas infrared light is low energy light. Let's say for argument's sake that a UV quanta has energy of 10, and IR quanta has a value of 1.

If we shine a UV camera on our particle, the quanta repeat very quickly because of the high energy. As each quanta hits, we get a snapshot of "where" our particle is. We can tell pretty darn accurately exactly where that particle is. Unfortunately, we have HIT our particle with an energy level of 10, and so we are changing it's speed! So with high energy light we can tell where it is with great accuracy, but we mess up the accuracy with which we can determine how fast it is travelling. I am sure you can see what comes next. With the IR camera, we can tell very accurately how fast it is travelling because we are affecting it far less with the energy level of 1 we are hitting it with, but exactly WHERE it is is harder, because the quanta taking the location snapshots are spaced farther apart.

All of this is what you may or may not have heard of as "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle" in a nutshell. The answer to the questions on location and the speed of the particle become a statement of "probability", and it is the undeniable scientific fact that this is the best we can do.

Now how the heck does this have anything to do with truth?

Well, Gerry Atrick's forum post is a philosophical consideration about how we determine what is good and what is evil. And how relative to a certain set of circumstances, what once appeared to be an "evil" act could theoretically be described as "good".

In my theory of Quantum Truth, I state that it is impossible to accurately determine the "goodness" of an action and here is why.

If you take an action by itself and remove it from its circumstances, it is analogous to the particle in the box with high energy light on it. We can discuss any number of physical nuances regarding the evnt, but we lose accuracy on the "meaning" it has because there is nothing for it to relate to.

However, if you surround the event with, say, a month's worth of events on either side, the meaning expands. If you add a year's events on either side, that meaning may change again. We can more accurately see what led up to the event and what the event caused into the future, but because we can never see ALL of the events surrounding this event, we can never discover with absolute accuracy the "goodness" or "evilness" of this event without an accompanying arbitrary choice of a definition of "good". This arbitrary choice, as much as many people wish to try to prove is not at all arbitrary, is what is called "faith."

Some years past, a scientist named Richard Feynman came up with the idea that for every point in spacetime there are infinite numbers of possible histories that are all very real. For instance, in one possible history I wrote out this entire article without stopping, and in another history I went and got a coke in the middle, and both histories are theoretically correct. They both happened. But I do not see a coke in front of me, so this point for me continues to be the one where I wrote the article all the way through. This is not to say that in some other spacetime, I am not finishing this article while enjoying the bubbly goodness of Coke.

If you can get your heads around all of this, far out. It has some pretty far reaching implications, but the main one is that all that would be labelled good is a probability based on relative terms that surround it, and the same is true of evil. These two measures, assembled together make up what I call the Quantum Truth. I have heard others refer to it simply as God, however.

Non-scientific folk can start here.

Thanks for reading my blog and have a GREAT day!

Comments (Page 2)

Abe cubbage

on Jun 08, 2004

Actually Hume failed to prove that. If he had proven it, that in itself would be an absolute truth.

I can only assume that you have not read Hume then.

Abe cubbage

on Jun 08, 2004

I doubt there are many people out there who would apply the concept of "good" to a mass murderer.

If you consider "millions of people" as not very many, then sure.

OckhamsRazor

on Jun 08, 2004

I'm sorry that this is about to be completely off topic, but I didn't get past the first sentence...a fellow RIer!

With all due respect to the good people of Rhode Island that think Dunkin' Donuts makes coffee, I must separate myself. I'm northern born, southern raised, and I call the far west, continental US, my home. My wife and I bought a house here in Newport, and in two years, we, for some intellectual failing of our own, I am sure, have failed to see the attraction.

I think it has to do with going from 300 sunny and mild days a year to 6.

(I always exaggerate so - 12.)

MasonM

on Jun 08, 2004

I can only assume that you have not read Hume then.

You shouldn't assume. My comment was actually more humorous than serious, but still IMHO Hume was full of crap.

Abe cubbage

on Jun 08, 2004

...but still IMHO Hume was full of crap.

Blasphemer!

Hume is one of the greatest minds of all time. Why? Because his stance on epistemological questions are similar to mine of course.

MasonM

on Jun 08, 2004

Hume is one of the greatest minds of all time.

No, actually that would be myself, but of course I am far too modest to say so.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!