Absolute Truth - Page 2

north · #31 (**permalink**) 24-October-2005, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASEI

Still, it's hard to believe that absolute reality would vanish as a principle. Everything we see macroscopically, all the way down to quantumn physics, seems to be based on conservation laws and regular descriptions of something there. That it would all go fuzzy for a reason not due to our instruments or knowledge, on a small scale, is hard to wrap my mind around. Why isn't the integration of fuzzy microscopic components into macroscopic components not more fuzzy? How can a well-defined macroscopic realm be composed of ill defined quantum components?

If we can no longer describe position, or momentum as being absolutely there, in terms of particle properties, could we possibly still hold to some absolute properties? After all, the electron is there right? If it cannot have properties such as position or momentum theoretically defined, could you at least hold the various probability fields as absolute properties of the particle?

my current world-model goes something like this:
class entity
{
properties...;
behaviors...;
};
Where's the error in this model?

in my classically specific model:
class entity
{
//properties
vector position, velocity, acceleration, ect...;
double mass, various energies, charge, ...;
};
could this be swapped for:
class entity
{
//properties
giant vecor/scalar fields of position and momentum probability;
double mass, charge, ect...;
};??

or if i'm on the right track here, macro(world) orders the randomness of the micro(quantum).

Disinfo Agent · #32 (**permalink**) 24-October-2005, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bathcat

Lonewulf: "The thing is, I'm not claiming that anyone KNOWS the 'Absolute Truth'. I'm just claiming that it's THERE, that it exists. Some people seem to disagree with that concept, and I'm curious as to why."

What I'm suggesting is that at the quantum level there is no absolute truth. There are only probabilities that something is or is not true.

It's not common sense, but it appears to be true anyway. You cannot, even in theory, assert that an electron is exactly there and also moving exactly that way because the universe does not allow both things to be absolutely true.

It's not that we can't figure out both things about an electron, it is that the universe is consituted in such a way that certain absolute truths are impossible if you look closely enough.

I'm a layman in these matters, too, and apparently more than you, but I'm a bit skeptical about the contention that the Schroedinger's Cat thought experiment rules out absolute truth. Where QM does put a nail is in the coffin of determinism: the idea that every effect is well-determined by a certain set of causes, the same set of causes invariably producing the same unique effect.

The statement that the cat is "half living and half dead" before someone opens up the box seems silly (I may be terribly wrong, though). For every particular "cat" in every particular "box", it is either alive or dead. It's just that, when you repeat the experiment a large number of times, with many cats and boxes, you find that half of the time the cat is dead, and half of the time it's dead, and -- here's what's truly mindboggling -- for a particular box and a particular cat, there's no way to predict whether he will survive or be killed before the experiment is performed!

So, at the quantum level, it seems, the same set of causes can lead to different effects! In your example of the diode, I'd say that there are (roughly) 60% atoms in one side of the barrier, 20% inside the barrier, and 10% on the other side of the barrier at all times¹. The question is that there is no way to determine which electrons will end up in each place without somehow capturing them. Their distribution when 'free' seems to be completely random.

¹Although... technically, we can't prove this. It's another case of 'Tree-falling-in-a-forest-with-no-one-around-to-see-it'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASEI

Still, it's hard to believe that absolute reality would vanish as a principle. Everything we see macroscopically, all the way down to quantumn physics, seems to be based on conservation laws and regular descriptions of something there. That it would all go fuzzy for a reason not due to our instruments or knowledge, on a small scale, is hard to wrap my mind around. Why isn't the integration of fuzzy microscopic components into macroscopic components not more fuzzy? How can a well-defined macroscopic realm be composed of ill defined quantum components?

It's for the reason that Bathcat wrote above:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bathcat

Back to your TV: Quantum theory is by and large a theory of probabilities and averages. As you know, if you roll a pair of dice only 10 times it's not hard to get some pretty odd streaks of numbers. But if you roll them 100,000,000 times you will almost certainly come up with a very close approximation of the mathematical probabilities for each number combination.

The electrons in your TV "roll the quantum dice" so many times (because there are so many electrons) that the overhwelming odds are that the TV will behave exactly as the sum of average electron behavior says it will.

As you make more and more random experiments, the results tend to 'smoothen out', reflecting the general pattern more often than not.

Argos · #33 (**permalink**) 25-October-2005, 05:39 PM

I don´t think the adjective "absolute" is needed to modify the noun "truth".

I would say that in order to recognize the truth one has to have information. We are limited at that (the uncertainty principle, again). We can only approach the truth in an asymptotic fashion, at best.

Frog march · #34 (**permalink**) 25-October-2005, 06:53 PM

of course there is the world of mathematics, you could argue that the truth in maths are indestructable.

Lonewulf · #35 (**permalink**) 25-October-2005, 07:00 PM

Frog March, I will forever love you for having me equate
"Absolute Truth"

With the idea of

"I AM INDESTRUCTIBLE! Mwahahah!"

Sorry, I have a weird mindset. It would've been funnier if you used the word "invincible", or even "inveencible", though.

Argos · #36 (**permalink**) 25-October-2005, 07:18 PM

Karl Popper has an interesting take on the validity of the uncertainty principle, which I think ultimately pertains to this discussion.
Popper´s experiment (PDF) (a must).

NanC · #37 (**permalink**) 25-October-2005, 10:40 PM

Bathcat, thank you. Your explaining had me thinking "Okay, I undestand. Almost. It works like so. No. But I have the idea. The idea is something. I understand now. Almost" I laughed at myself because your explaining got me closer to getting my mind around this than before but my mind is still not that agile. Thank you for your efforts.

I ask this to see if I understand one part of it. Does quantum theory say the electrons are actually spread out fuzzy so we can not tell where they are and where they are going or does it say we can not tell both things so they are fuzzy? I did not ask that right. If we had a pretend machine that could look at electrons without opening the box would it see where they are and where they are going or would it see them fuzzy? I am still not asking right. I am not perfect with English. Do you understand my question? It is are electrons actually fuzzy or is it just that trying to detect them makes them fuzzy?

Lonewulf · #38 (**permalink**) 25-October-2005, 10:51 PM

I find it funny that this went into Quantum Physics as greatly as it did.

Bathcat · #39 (**permalink**) 26-October-2005, 01:32 AM

I'm going to get in over my pointy little head directly if I'm not careful.

----

NanC, your question is difficult.

We can't detect the position of an electron without losing information about its motion. And we can't detect the motion of an electron without losing information about its position.

Most physcists seem to agree that this is a real aspect of the universe.

If we had a magic machine to look inside a TV tube, if the magic machine obeyed the physics of our universe, then it would be able to either see an electron's location or it would be able to see the electron's motion (kinetic energy).

A magic machine which could detect both properties of the same electron at the same time could not be built in our universe. We can imagine such a machine, but the universe does not allow it to exist.

We can imagine seeing both things about the same electron in the way we can see both a billiard ball's position and its movement. But this is imagination and not physics.

Physicists seem to agree that what we imagine is not a reasonable indicator for the way the universe really is. The experimental reality is a better indicator...and therefore they say that the electron really is smeaned out the way the experiments suggest.

----

On another topic: I'm reluctant to say quantum indeterminacy makes all absolute truth impossible. I think that certain absolute truths are dependent on a degree of coarse-graining...they depend on summing over or averaging out quantum indeterminacy (and, in practice, chaotic behavior).

I would not quarrel with an absolute assertion that the Moon exists. Or that Lonewulf has a table. Or that I am going bald.

And maths are something else again. In our universe math facts may be absolutely true.

Lonewulf · #40 (**permalink**) 26-October-2005, 03:35 AM

*Rubs Bathcat's bald head* Great Buddha, allow me this wish...

Oh, wait, that's the stomach.

and you need to be overweight. Erm, sorry. ^_^;

Nereid · #41 (**permalink**) 26-October-2005, 07:39 AM

also deals with the various interpretations of the experimental results:

EPR paradox (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen - if there are no hidden variables, the universe is spooky).

Bell's theorem (here's a way to test the EPR paradox; yep, the universe IS spooky!)

Interpretations of quantum mechanics (some people go to extraordinary lengths to try to banish spookiness)

Argos · #42 (**permalink**) 26-October-2005, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NanC

If we had a pretend machine that could look at electrons without opening the box would it see where they are and where they are going or would it see them fuzzy? I am still not asking right. I am not perfect with English. Do you understand my question? It is are electrons actually fuzzy or is it just that trying to detect them makes them fuzzy?

The quantum state of a particle is not only unknown but is actually unknowable. There is no "god´s eye" when it comes to quantum mechanics. The object and the observer are inextricably intertwined. That´s fundamental to QM.

Ilya · #43 (**permalink**) 26-October-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

People can debate about this table across the world. Even though they can't see it, it's still there. Even if 6 billion people don't see it, it still exists. Even if 6 billion people don't acknowledge its existance, it still exists. Nothing changes this fact.

<skip>

Yet, this idea seemed to emit some resistance from my friend. I couldn't tell why. He can be VERY vague when he disagrees with something, and rarely goes into detail why.

So this is my question - why would anyone contest the idea of Absolute Truth? WHen I say it, am I unknowingly spouting off a different philosophical standpoint? Am I just confused as to the "true meaning" of it? Or what?

I don't think anyone here actually answered Lonewolf's question: Why do some people deny the concept of Objective Truth? (I prefer the term "objective," i.e. independent of observer, to "absolute," which itself is a somewhat vague term.)

And yes, there ARE people who deny there is sush thing as Objective Truth. They are called Postmodernists. Here is a critique of postmodernist thought.

Quote:

According to postmodernists, words do not have a definite objective meaning. Rather, meaning is only a matter of interpretation. People interpret words in different ways; therefore, words are incapable of communicating any kind of objective truth, as such. In practice, this "deconstruction" of language means that such texts as the Constitution and the Bible do not have fixed meanings, but are open to unlimited interpretation.

Here is a more neutral (and long) description of postmodernism

And here is an article which touches upon why people would follow such a wooly philosophy

Lonewulf · #44 (**permalink**) 26-October-2005, 05:47 PM

I love you, Ilya. I'll read over those when I have enough time (about to go to dentist soon. Yay.)

And it's Lonewulf, not Lonewolf

Disinfo Agent · #45 (**permalink**) 26-October-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilya

I don't think anyone here actually answered Lonewolf's question: Why do some people deny the concept of Objective Truth?

Hold on a minute... The concept of objective truth, or the existence of objective truth?
I thought Lonewolf's question was about whether one could question the existence of an absolute truth. If so, then I believe the answer is 'yes'. As for the concept of absolute truth, denying a concept seems kind of silly. If you can think about it, it's there to think about.

Lonewulf · #46 (**permalink**) 26-October-2005, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

I believe I did, indirectly, in the previous page: because they can.

Ur? I recall you saying something about how you can never be sure if a tree makes a sound if it falls in a forest even if no one hears it. Though that argument is VERY silly, to me, personally. Maybe I'm just arrogant, but I say that I'm very sure that it makes a sound.

Here's a better question:

If a tree is launched into space and hits a space station, does it not make a sound? If you aren't there, how can you be sure?

Disinfo Agent · #47 (**permalink**) 26-October-2005, 05:58 PM

Nevermind that, Lonewulf. I've edited my post. I think there's something else that we need to clarify.

Lonewulf · #48 (**permalink**) 26-October-2005, 06:04 PM

Well, I was more of talking about the concept of AT. Someone seemed weirded out that I could believe in such a thing. He was more like, "Well, if that's what you want to believe, hey, why not?". He never explained to me what HE thought, and I haven't talked to him in a long while (This is another one of those "Shower Incidents" - I remember the conversation in a shower and I need to know an answer :P )

However, I AM curious about questioning the existence of AT. I find it rather interesting that people can't think that you cannot be sure that there is a truth behind everything.

I mean, it doesn't matter how you perceive it, if you hear it, or not. For instance: About the tree falling in the woods.

It doesn't matter if you hear the sound or not. If it didn't make a sound, then it didn't make the sound. That's the truth. If it did make a sound, then it made a sound. That's the truth. The truth is there, whether you perceive it or not, understand it or not, or can determine it or measure it or not.

Science, as a whole, is about understanding the fundamental truths about all that surrounds us - whether we like it or not. Even if what we discover flies in the face of all we believe, then it's still a fundamental truth (unless our perception of it is faulty, but we can argue about that until the cows come home)