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 1)

MasonM

on Jun 06, 2004

Ock, that was a pretty good explaination of Quata. I'm impressed. (I am something of a science nut) (OK, OK, geek)

As to the Quantum Truth, I'm not so sure I agree with what you are saying but it's a pretty good theory nonetheless. Another term for what you're describing is Relative Truth. I, for one do not subscribe to this idea simply because of the definition of the word truth itself.

I believe that real truth is absolute, but our interpretation of it is subjective to say the least. I also do not quite see the correlation bewteen truth and good vs evil. In my mind, these are two entirely seperate subjects. Kinda comparing apples and elephants.

I do see how our definitions of the terms "good" and "evil" may become very subjective and I suspect that is really the point of the article as I read it, and then re-read it. I agree, in spirit, that people do not define aht is good and what is evil in the way, but I believe there are certain things that all (ok, most) people would agrre upon as generally "good" and generally "evil".

I doubt there are many people out there who would apply the concept of "good" to a mass murderer. I also doubt many people would attribute the concept of "evil" to someone who saves a drowning child. I believe we all have some ingrained concept of these ideas, at least until we begin to think the ideas into oblivion.

Very good, thoughtful article.

MasonM

on Jun 06, 2004

I think we can all agree that typos are evil. Sorry about those.

EFalgui

on Jun 06, 2004

Whoa that made my head spin!

Gerry Atrick

on Jun 07, 2004

Ock,
Excellent (and, believe it or not, I am not referring to seeing my name in lights - all right, more like dull grey typing - nor even the fact that a points whore like myself is getting references) No, I am actually referring to a more scientific explaination of what I was trying to get to in the article you mentioned. In it I said:

To me good and evil only make sense if they are a concept invented by Man and is relative to each human being but to believe in God you must believe in absolute good and evil i.e. relative to God.

I feel your quantum theory of good and evil is a scientific explanation of the idea that I was clumsily trying to articulate....i.e. absolute versus relative good and evil. I have been thinking lately about the connections between physics/maths and philosphy, strange bed fellows at first glance but I am convinced that there is a connection and I am going to do some serious web surfing on it (feel another post brewing.) Your article here points to the same conclusion.

On a tangent, when I first got into JU I was hitting a lot of the political discussions. These days I find them not so interesting, not sure why maybe they get too emotional. I guess interest in certain topics comes and goes. Lately I have been pleased to find a few people who like to toss around ideas like you have done here. I know I am no Einstein but at least these discussions exercise the little grey cells.

Thanks again.

Gerry Atrick

on Jun 07, 2004

Mason,
I have a healthy respect for truck drivers, after all most of them could beat the crap out of me.....but it never struck me as a job with a lot of mental challenge.....how on earth did "something of a science nut" get into driving them?

kingbee

on Jun 07, 2004

this is a bit offtopic but since the door has been opened to quantum, relative and absolute truth--and it appears the discussion has attracted several fine minds--i'd be interested in knowing if there is anything that can be proven absolutely true.

Gerry Atrick

on Jun 07, 2004

Kingbee, I think the answer is yes....as long as you choose the right premise....will need to think a bit further on that. I the mean time, have a look at this little maths problem:

Let a = b
Thus,
a2 = ab
a2 + a2 = a2 + ab
2a2 = a2 + ab
2a2 - 2ab = a2 + ab - 2ab
2a2 - 2ab = a2 - ab

Rewrite this as:
2(a2 - ab) = 1(a2 - ab)
Dividing both sides by a2 - ab, we thus have:
2 = 1

QED.

So what is the error?

MasonM

on Jun 07, 2004

never struck me as a job with a lot of mental challenge.....how on earth did "something of a science nut" get into driving them?

Gerry, I won't go into it on this thread as it's irrelevant to Ock's article and I don't wish to disrespect Ock by taking his thread off topic. I'll post an article about it if you're actually interested. Pretty dull really.

if there is anything that can be proven absolutely true.

There are any numbers of things, IMHO that can be proven true by direct observation. A very simplistic example would be that the earth rotates towards the east. This can be proven true by simply observing in what direction the sun rises and sets using a compass to verify direction. This is a truth. Anyone can observe this and know it is true. A very simple example, but a truth that can be proven.

OckhamsRazor

on Jun 07, 2004

I don't wish to disrespect Ock by taking his thread off topic. I'll post an article about it if you're actually interested. Pretty dull really.

That's quite pleasant of you, Mason, but as I said in some other silly blog I wrote, everyone is welcome to come here and tear my pages if they so desire, as long as it is consistent with Brad's rules, I see discourse on any variety of subjects to be a value whether it be here, on a forum, or in email. Feel free to carry on

nor even the fact that a points whore like myself is getting references

Haha! I laughed for a couple of minutes when I read this

Your "proof" on the other hand is proving a mental irritant. But I have the mental lubricant to sooth this grain of sand and make it a pearl. Well, shaped like a pearl, anyway. Like a zero, even.

if a = b then
a - b = 0 (multiply both sides by a)
a2 - ab = 0

You cannot divide by zero (in your equation).

OckhamsRazor

on Jun 07, 2004

Sorry I made it look like that last part was to Mason, also. So to you passersby, the part after "Feel free to carry on." is addressed to Gerry

kingbee

on Jun 07, 2004

ahahahaha i was just gonna ask if b=0 i had to split and missed it earlier

shadesofgrey

on Jun 07, 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! I've recently moved from our illustrious state, and I was recently disgusted on a visit home to see that Tim Horton's had taken over Bess Eaton.

What I wouldn't do for three all the way washed down with some coffee milk right now!

(oh yea, and sorry for trolling up your thread)!

MasonM

on Jun 07, 2004

everyone is welcome to come here and tear my pages if they so desire, as long as it is consistent with Brad's rules, I see discourse on any variety of subjects to be a value whether it be here, on a forum, or in email.

Very magnanimus of you Ock, but I have never seen the point of "hi-jacking" a thread and can understand why someone would be upset by something like that. While it may be ok to you, it upsets others and so is IMHO just a bad habit to have. I appreciate your understanding and graciousness nonetheless.

Abe cubbage

on Jun 07, 2004

Good and evil will always be relative, but that doesn't mean that they aren't useful terms. There is no absolute truth/knowledge. If I remember correctly it was Hume who proved that.

I love Feynman. Everyone go read "Surely You're Joking Mister Feynman", it's a great book.

MasonM

on Jun 07, 2004

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

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!