Welcome to Cameron's BLOG

When does something exist and when does it not. Does the floor exist at your feet? Does your brother exist? Does your next meal exist? Does God exist? Do you exist?

This is one of the hardest philosophical questions that has posed mankind since beyond time immemorial. A debate either with one’s self or a wider debate with the world at large will no doubt result in a number of answers and in many cases yet more questions. Bearing in mind there is no absolute truth what we would like to do is offer a hypothesis from which we would expect a large amount of debate in the coming years, but since when has that stopped us publicly opining.

The ancient study of understanding and notating existence travels under the name Ontology. It has in the past revolved around an ancient notion that anything with a noun exists. This approach has tied philosophers in knots for centuries, and no doubt will continue to do so for many more.

There is an underlying problem with the view that all objects that are nouned (tagged if you like) exist. The problem to a great extent is caused by the way man utilises language; in particular the tagging of abstract forms. It’s not hard to accept that a cup exists, considering you can see it, touch it, etc.

However, consider love: Does it exist, bearing in mind it can not be touched, nor seen in the same context as a cup? This problem has more to do with the construct of manmade language than it does with the existence of objects in our universe. Its failings have resulted in compromises & work arounds to maintain the original argument that all nouns exist.

In accepting ancient doctrine we are forced to conclude the following: All nouns are objects and all objects exist, ergo all existence is noun bound. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. This is a leap for abstract objects as the fact they have a tag, automatically means they exist. This is obviously a problem when we look at transient forms such as thoughts, ideals, and transformations like matter to energy, or man’s emotions such as love, hate, pride etc.

This is not the only problem with current doctrine. If only man has the ability to tag objects, then only man can acknowledge existence of objects in space.

If this were true, then why do chickens fear foxes, antelope run from lions, dogs go to their feeders yet cower their persecutors, or even salivate at the sound of Pavlov’s bell?

It’s clear that the application of the human lexicon when applied to the physical world we see around us fails too many tests to be a credible way forward. Given this we have taken a different approach. We proffer that nouns are tags, and given this add a point that a tag comes with a criteria by which to measure the given ‘object’. For instance grass has a given wavelength (usually in the green-brown spectrum), it is of the plant family, and like other plants it is connected to the Earth. It has a certain texture and taste. Moreover a plant’s criteria used for identification differs it from other objects like water for instance.

Furthermore, there are differing classes of objects, also tagged, in existence that revolve around the creation of a relative reality for each individual observer, whether that be man or beast. And finally there are differing types of existences that are based on objects found in shared time-space, or individual psyches of men such as emotions.

All of these points lead us to a new way of approaching the problem.  

We start with a simple hypothesis: Without observation there is no existence.

By saying this we acknowledge that some objects exist, and others do not. We will deal with those that we argue exist first:

We live in a universe that is populated with ‘stuff’…Let’s call this the Global Universe. This universe has been observed by mankind culminating in a rationalization by many, scientists, philosophers and mathematicians; resulting in a set of ‘universal’ laws that are measurable and with which we observe and conclude existence. This set of laws and measurements describe and predict the way in which the Global Universe operates, and of what it is made of. To keep it simple, in terms of this blog the Global Universe consists of matter, energy, and Vector (ŕ). (We’ve used the term Vector (ŕ) to represent a four dimensional universe: x, y, z, and time). We don’t want to over complicate this treatise by discussing the complexities of the mathematics around vectors, but to say let’s assume ŕ is relative to the observer at a given single point in time i.e. I look at the sky at 8pm from my house in New Zealand and before me is the moon at x,y,z,t from my position (where time is my time). To be sure: the Global Universe is external to our own psyche. It is independent of man & beast and yet observable by both at a given point in time.

One would hypothesise that anything in the Global Universe made of matter and/or energy at a given ŕ exists since it is observable and measurable in mathematic and scientific terms. Given this, the answer to our original question, ‘what is existence?’ is simply anything that is made of matter and/or energy at a given ŕ in the Global Universe, right?

Under test this hypothesis fails. If mankind does not ‘exist’ in the Global Universe, then the Global Universe can not be observed, nor acknowledged, and as such that universe can not exist. This is a hard concept to deal with. To help us navigate the gap let’s ask a simple question: For you…That is, in your mind did the Global Universe exist prior to your birth? If you answer yes, (in most cases we would expect, ‘what a stupid question, of course it existed!) we would ask: How do you know if you had not been born, and why now do you accept it did exist?

Maybe you read a book that said before you were born the universe existed. But do you believe the author? Simply put, before you were born somebody observed the Global Universe and based on their observation you were told that the universe existed prior to your birth. Maybe you observed direct evidence yourself that the universe existed, again based on a historically produced ŕ measurement. But for you to accept either of these observations, and conclude that the universe did exist, you have to take a leap of faith. Your faith is in the person who observed and reported to you. You trust that they did not lie or make a mistake. Where you observe evidence yourself you have to trust that the data and result concluding past existence is not flawed.

The latter two points suggest that unless the observer at that time is the questioner of existence (we’ll note at this point that time has a major part to play in this debate) and there is no need for a leap of faith, either in historical data or the observation data of a 3^rd party, there is no guarantee that the universe under question existed at that point in time. There is simply a probability of its existence.

If we make this conclusion, any object in the Global Universe is non-existent until both the observer and the object in space-time are in alignment. To be sure, the observer has to be in the same time axis and observable x,y,z as the object under scrutiny, and make a judgment that a given object exists. It is at this point of alignment that a reality is formed.

Given the last paragraph there seems to be a second universe at hand. This we’ll call the Local Universe.

Cogito ergo sum – a well known quote of Socrates that roughly translated means I think therefore I am. This summation of existence of the individual is extremely profound as it crystallises the notion of existence in relative terms to the individual. If we review our earlier points we see that for an object in the Global Universe to exist it has to be observed and a conclusion drawn that is based on cognitive measurement. This process of reconciliation to existence requires two universes. It requires the Global Universe (let’s say the shared physical universe for simplicity of the point) and the Local Universe (let’s say the individual cognitive universe, again for simplicity).

In illustrating the two parts of physical existence we gain an understanding that Socrates’ quote says that I am cognitive of me as an object in the physical universe, therefore I exist. To illustrate our point, answer this: If Socrates did not think, would he exist? The answer is – no, not in Socratesian reality (assuming we interpret ‘think’ as a point of consciousness resulting in observation and measurement of objects using ‘generally agreed measurements’ of the Global Universe). However, if I observed Socrates in the Global Universe and, in my Local Universe, was aware of his existence he would exist, but only in my reality.     

Given that the Global Universe is external to our psyche in relation to matter, energy and ŕ, yet requires a Local Universe to bring it into existence, we should examine what we mean by the Local Universe. Our definition is simplistic at this point although under that simplicity lays numerous problems around our theory of existence. Never the less we’ll remain on this track to set some foundations for further analysis and deal with the more complex problems in a short while.

Each of us is born with an individual psyche. This psyche, independent of all others, observes the Global Universe within its own bounds based on its observation. You might consider the term ‘observe’ in this context to be a feed-forward sensation that is formed in the brain from physical contact with the Global Universe. It need not be based on sight alone, merely interaction resulting in brain stimuli. Each psyche is a self-contained universe (Local Universe) where objects can exist independent of other objects. We are using the term ‘objects’ in a different way than one might consider a vase or a table to be an object in the Global Universe. These objects are in the imagination of the subject. In this instance an object in the psyche is imagined only and has not been reconciled with the Global Universe.

A point of note here is that objects that may exist in the Local Universe are formed either from direct interaction with the Global Universe at that second in time (this is point-in-time observation) or thoughts and memories of objects that were once formed and now recalled in the mind based on past observation (this is object memory recall). The latter point is made in relation to the Freudian view that no object in the psyche can be recalled without the subject having first been exposed to that object from an external perspective; this need not be observed! (See earlier context.) An idea shared through story can be an object exposed in this instance and may be enough for the psyche to construct a given object within the Local Universe without point-in-time observation. We have no reason to doubt Freudian doctrine on this point.

To explain the Local Universe a little more let’s form a reality for you: Think of a banana. If you can imagine the banana then the banana exists as an object in your psyche. Let’s say that this thought is exclusive of all other objects that you may also be imagining right now, and any physical objects that you are currently observing around you at this point in time, for instance the monitor or paper that this treatise is rendered on. All of these objects have created a reality – your reality. At this point in time in your reality some objects exist in the Global Universe and others, such as the banana, only exist in the Local Universe (provided you don’t have a Global Universe banana in front of you). If you reach out to the Global Universe you will find that in space-time there is no banana. The two Universes have not been reconciled and as such the banana does not exist – although in your reality the banana does exist, but only as an object in your mind.

By this we clarify our hypothesis: Without observation there is no existence

Only objects that are Global Universe bound and reconciled exist, all other objects such as ideas, feelings and transient global objects such as matter that has been destroyed don’t exist.

To expand the point let’s imagine two people in a room sitting at a table with a vase upon it. One person has been taught from an early age that the colour they see reflected from the vase is green. The second person was taught from an early age that the colour they see is blue. What colour is the vase? In the Global Universe the vase’s colour is a function of light reflection and absorption on its surface resulting in a specific wavelength of light within the visible spectrum at a given time. One observer sees that light and renders it into their Local Universe as green, the other blue. At this point we have three universes and two relative realities. We have the Global Universe and we have two Local Universes. All of them are different than each other. In simple terms the Global is acting as a common reference point for the two Locals, both of which are forming relative realities for each respective subject. These realities are time specific and relative to the reconciliation of each subjects’ Local Universe to the global reference.

To recap: If we go back to an earlier point: For you…in your mind did the Global Universe exist prior to your birth? We can see that your Local Universe and the Global Universe at some point in time meet, and as they do a reality is formed in the mind of the observer. This reality is made up of ‘objects’ in each Universe; some exist and others do not.

A simple test to prove this conclusion: You are walking up a flight of stairs that you have traversed many times before. It is dark. In your mind you have one stair to go. You raise your foot and as you lower it you discover the stair you imagined is not there. Here there is a mismatch between your universe (the Local Universe), where a stair existed, and the Global Universe where one did not. If we rewind this situation, where you are on the Global Universe’s last stair, and ask you: ‘Does another stair exist?’ your answer would be, yes. Here we see that there is a mismatch between the Local Universe and the Global Universe. It is only when the two collide at a given point in time and create a reality that we can come to a firm conclusion on the existence of objects external to the subject’s psyche.

Let’s go back to the room with the vase upon the table where the two people observing the Global Universe remain seated. We ask one person to close their eyes, and the other to remain sighted. Here let’s assume the only means of observation for each subject is by way of sight (although one subject is prohibited from seeing). If the closed-eye observer were told to clear his mind and now asked if the vase exists, they may say, no. In their Local Universe the vase has been removed. If we asked the other candidate they may say, yes. The vase still remains globally and their Local Universe is in agreement as they are observing it. Here we see clearly that existence is related to relative reality.

However, as an external observer of both parties we can see that the vase does exist globally as our universe coincides with one of the test subject’s. Furthermore, if we were to test the vase against globally agreed universal laws we would conclude that the object was made of matter, energy, and time. We see at this point that the Global Universe has objects in it that we can observe collectively based on our interaction with the world around us. Here we see that we have two different types of existence: Universal and Local.

The question is: Out of these two states which objects exist and how are they related?

As explained earlier, the reconciliation of existence is based on the formation of a reality. In Socrates’ mind he only exists when he knows he does. In my mind even if I imagine him he does not exist as I can not observe him in the Global Universe (given he is dead). Had I have been alive and observed him when he was alive he would exist for me as I, like him, would have observed him and reconciled my Local Universe with the Global  Universe and formed a common reality.

However we should not dismiss our closed-eyed test subject. In their Local Universe a vase does not exist and their perceived reality is one of no vase.

In areas where reconciliation has not taken place probability of existence defines the Global Universe. With each step I take along the stairwell there is a probability that my Local Universe will not coincide with the Global Universe. This is to say that when I take my next step, there is always a probability that in the Global Universe of time-space the ground will not be under my foot and I may fall into something that is not within my comprehension.

Given the points so far, we would sum up with the following:

Where Local and Global Universes meet and agree, a relative reality is formed where two types of objects exist – universally and locally.

Only universal objects found in the Global Universe ‘truly’ exist, but have to be observed and rendered into a person’s reality before their existence is snapped from probability of existence into ‘true’ existence.

Other objects that are not ‘universal’ are by default ‘local’ objects. These objects do not ‘truly’ exist; they are just objects.

Objects that may ‘truly’ exist in the Global Universe, but have not been reconciled by an observer, do not ‘truly’ exist. They will only ever ‘truly’ exist once discovered by observation and only exist at the time of Local/Global reconciliation.  

To make clear this last point. A planet in the heavens that is yet to be discovered does not exist. Once discovered and reconciled by the individual the object then exists in the Global Universe for future reconciliation into each of our own realities. However, if there is no observation of the object it remains out of existence.

Our summation is: Without observation there is no existence.

But, we have two problems with our summation; both based on the fact that we have disconnected the Local Universe from the Global Universe when in reality this is not feasible.

Where there is agreement in the Local and Global Universes we conclude a notion of existence for a given object. However, the measurements of existence for objects within the Global Universe are manmade. This forces an extension of the Local into the Global. At this point we are left with a measurement problem.

The second problem is related to the first, and Secretes’ quote, I think therefore I am. If we accept this as the basis for proof we have a problem for other sentient animals. That is animals can not reconcile the Global to the Local because they are not cognitive and as such animals without a reality are animals that live in a world where nothing exists. This begs absurdity!

The measurement problem

I ask a believer of God (lets say the Christian God for this point): ‘Does God exist?’ A resounding, yes, is said by the Christian. We modify: ‘Given the discussion of existence where Local and Global meet in time-space to create a reality in which global objects ‘truly’ exist and local are merely psychological objects, on what basis do you base your argument on God’s existence? How do you measure God’s existence in the Global Universe?’

The believer may respond: ‘I am told God exists by others,’ or; ‘I observe God myself by the world around me,’ or; ‘I feel God. That is how I measure God in the Global Universe and that is how I imagine God in my own.’

The observer in this instance is using either: The observations of others that tell them of existence, or; the observations they themselves make of the Global Universe, or; the feelings they feel as a result of interacting (observing) with the Global Universe, described by many as physical as much as they are emotional. Once they have reconciled their Local Universe to the Global Universe, a relative reality is set in place.

Many scientists find the resulting reality of the Christian difficult to accommodate, mainly as the measurements used are immeasurable in independent terms using current scientific doctrine. Currently we conclude the Global Universe to be made of matter, energy, and ŕ. The current laws and measurements that determine the Global Universe are based on the adherence to these laws and measurements.

If we imagine a ghost and tell Frank (our neighbour) that there is a ghost in front of us both. Since Frank can not see the spirit, he would ask for proof of its existence beyond our psyches. That proof would have to be supplied in scientific terms based on the measurement of matter or energy within a given ŕ of the universe. Here we see that for objects to exist in the Global Universe the Local of Frank and others has to coincide with currently agreed measurements. In the case of the ghost there is no measurement and as such the ghost remains a local object in our individual reality and does not enjoy ‘true’ existence. But what if an alien were watching who like all other aliens had the ability to observe spiritual energy and could reconcile the global with the local. At that point the ghost would enjoy true existence in relation to all other aliens.

By using man as both the provider of the global measurement devices and the observer we end up without the ability to definitively agree on the existence of any object in the Global Universe. We are left confused as to what ‘truly’ exists, considering the Global is the common universe where object existence is based on scientific measurement.

Therefore, we must conclude that for an object to ‘truly’ exist it has to be a global object that has been reconciled into a relative reality. The reality that is formed by each person is unique, and yet fashioned into rationality by a common framework. That framework is the reconciliation of the Global Universe based on energy, matter and ŕ. For some people however other measurements such as spirituality are acceptable where energy, matter and ŕ have a different interpretation than that of current scientific doctrine.

Given this our summation stands that: Without observation there is no existence. Although we have to acknowledge that this summation is related directly to a scientific view that the Global Universe is made of observable energy, matter and ŕ. The net result is emotions, thoughts and even God does not exist in these terms. This is not to dismiss belief. Merely to say that in our physical terms and globally agreed measurement we can not accommodate God today, but may be able at some point in the future. In these terms there is a probability of God’s existence but the current state is – we have no agreed means to measure this type of existence. 

 The Descartes problem

René Descartes discussed in detail the Socrates ‘I think therefore I am’ summation. The broad conclusions were to place mankind at the centre of the existence universe which at the time of Descartes was within the doctrine of the Church (a substantial influencer of his day).

The argument is relatively simple according to Descartes: Animals do not think; not in the same way as Socrates described himself in thought. Therefore, an animal’s inability to think removes its ability to enjoy a reality. In short, to all but humans there is no reality; ergo there is no perception of existence by the animal.

No doubt the animals we speak of do not care, they simply survive, replicate and continue to adapt. But in philosophical consideration we have to acknowledge Descartes’ point and ask: Is it only mankind that can create a reality with local and global objects within it i.e. do animals simply undertake the duties of living based on simple reflex, genetic memory, or mimicry without the creation of a reality? If the answer is yes, we conclude that animals follow a predetermined program the way a motor vehicle does. If we do not accept this view we must acknowledge that animals are closer to man in relation to them forming a reality the same way man does.

One can state clearly that a motor vehicle’s engine does not live. In specific terms motor engines do not have a sense of consciousness (A soul if you like) which itself spawns a sense of self survival. In short, there is no empirical evidence that machines can sense or feel their environment and as such mechanical devices do not autonomously interact with the universe so as to sustain their own ‘life’. At this point we stray close to mechanical artificial intelligence (AI) and the construct of machines that can pass the Turing Test…These are not the machines we are talking of in this context and would remain on the track of non-AI machines for the remainder of this treatise.

It is clear that a machine is not imbued with a soul (based on consciousness). However, animals show evidence of self survival that is drawn from a self-contained mental consciousness that interacts with the Global Universe. Historically, animals that have failed to interact with the Global Universe have failed to survive as they have had no way of sustaining the three functions of life – food, reproduction, and avoidance of life threatening danger. Given this, animals in some way must reconcile, through mental calculation, their Local Universe with the Global Universe as this is a primary function of life.

In contrast, we should consider plants in relation to their interaction with the Global Universe and find out, as we have with animals, how closely related plants are to machines, compared to animals. Empirical evidence suggests that plants don’t exhibit the traits of consciousness. One can therefore surmise that plants are closer to machines than they are animals; albeit biological ones. Plants interact with the Global Universe at a passive level and don’t form a reality of their own. In doing so, they trust their fate to nature alone. Their continuing survival is based on their evolved ability to reproduce in vast numbers and applying traits that offer them the best passive survival such as size, spines, toxins, arid tolerance, etc. 

Considering Descartes’ philosophy was drawn up back in the early 17^th Century and the knowledge of man is distinctly improved, as well as the development of secular free thinking, the time is right to question his view that only humans can form a reality. Our points listed earlier we believe are enough to raise doubt to his conclusions.

There is a point here that lays a distinction between Socrates and our thoughts that animals must recognise the existence of objects in the Global Universe to survive. That is: is it a requirement to be both sentient (have a conscious) and self-cognitive (be aware of one’s self) before any objects in the Global Universe can be reconciled? To be sure, Socrates was both sentient and self-cognitive and as such reconciled his own global existence within his relative reality. This point Descartes focused on and in doing so dismissed an animal’s ability to reconcile the existence of objects in their own reality. Descartes was arguing: To be devoid of self-awareness is enough to disbar the beast from forming a reality. Descartes in this way was aligning animals with plants and machines, rather than acknowledging their status closer to man. No doubt the doctrine of Descartes’ day was such that man existed on a plane well and above that of animals. This we would consider not true, given current knowledge.    

The evidence today is such that cattle, fish, bees and most other animals, including man, do not interact with the universe in a purely passive manner, unlike rocks, plants and machines. Animals sustain life by interacting with the universe at three levels: The pursuit of food; sexual reproduction, and; the avoidance of life threatening Global Universe objects (such as predators). Given this fact, animals have to form a reality that within it includes Global Universe objects with which they interact for their individual and species survival. To fail to do so would prevent the animal surviving in its current form. This last point certainly includes man’s survival as much as other animals.

In conclusion, for objects to exist they must be reconciled into a reality. That reality is a function of Local and Global Universe objects. Only those objects in the Global Universe are measurable within the context of generally agreed measurements. By observing Global Universe objects we can conclude true existence; all other objects are simply objects.

In relation to other animals, there is evidence that a reality is formed that includes Global Universe objects. This formed reality enables the animal to interact and survive in the Global Universe in an active manor. Plants and inanimate objects on the other hand need not form a reality and as such interact with the Global Universe in a passive manor. They therefore rely on autonomous biological mechanics for passive survival and as such do not enjoy any kind of recognised existence. In essence to a plant, machine, or rock our universe simply does not exist.

Comments(0)

Exporting Democracy

Deeply disturbing

of late is the changing political landscape and the associated pain that is linked with the international political turmoil affecting all our lives. From the price of oil to the mortal danger that is published every night on our television sets; none of us are immune to its insidious nature. No doubt the years 2000-2010 will be marked in history as the decade of the bomb and ‘murdering-suicide’ of extremists who see their role in life is to end others. And gloriously from the Muslim world’s perspective it will be the decade of the Jihadic martyr.  

These two perspectives are a product of a cultural schism that will continue on well beyond this troublesome decade with its root buried in the past and stock & bush floating in a theological future that is so to speak beyond reconciliation in today’s terms. This is disturbing for all of us and our children as it means there will be no letup of the economic-theological divide that currently splits the World East to West.  

So what’s really going on?

The West lead predominantly at this time by America is convinced that liberal economic democracy is the answer to the woes of what it would consider ‘backward nations’. This is reflected by the work of

Fukuyama in his account of modernity – The End of History. Here

Fukuyama expands on the notion that we the West have somehow arrived at a state of economic and democratic termination. According to

Fukuyama this terminal is a solid foundation in relation to economic growth, democratic governance, and long-term population prosperity for the World at large.

It seems according to Fukuyama, and other commentators of the many international liberal democratic schools of thought, that through a liberal-economic and Western based democratic evolutionary process we have attained a place that is somehow Lockean, even Neitschean, in maturity. In essence we have emancipated the individual, the government, the judiciary and the financial institutions from the state; and by us arriving at this liberal economic and democratic Wonderland it is obvious that the track of other nations, on a democratic and economical evolutionary progressive timeline, is simply inevitable. In essence

Fukuyama and other liberal-democrats suggest that all nations over the coming years will move, as if fated, to the pro-American liberalist economic & democratic model.

It’s not surprising then to hear the current United States president profess the necessity to democratise, and through aggressive foreign policy push for democratic liberalism to all of the rogue nations around him since this is considered by the American establishment – and other followers of their Western Wonderland view – as some sort of panacea to cure all the evils of their World. After all, most of the American establishment is centre-right Ivy League; and Bush an MBA graduate with an American right-wing Christian ethic. With this perspective the hawks of the Whitehouse view economic maturity of the secular liberal democracy as the cornerstone of American and European economic success. After all, the World’s free-market economy is built on the successful Western free-market economic model.

But there is a problem!

When we apply liberal democracy & economics to the nations of Islam we see hot conflict. There are four primary pillars of Western liberal economic democracy: Elected representation; Free-market economics; Freedom of speech; Freedom of association including religious tolerance. These pillars are supported by three principles: Separation of the state from religion; Separation of the judiciary from the state; Separation of the state from a hereditary monarchy. Considering the first principle of this model is the separation of state from religion it’s not hard to see that the Islamic World is very different in its view of state governance compared to the West.

Simply put, the nations that have Islam meshed into the mechanics of the state are at odds with the introduction of Western based democracy and its associated economics. So much so that there is an impasse that can not be bridged in Western liberal democratic terms. But even so, why is there so much friction between the two models if each model works effectively for each respective society?

The Islamic world is under an inordinate amount of pressure – more so than the West – to ‘modernise’ in Western terms, both internally and externally. From inside the Islamic states that make up the Islamic World, people – particularly the young – can see the humanly selfish trappings of the liberal West. This is causing an internalising pressure change that is challenging the traditional frugal views at all levels of the Islamic ruling governments, although somewhat denied at higher levels. This was seen in Eastern Europe during the Cold War and had a large part to play in the failure of the ideological Communist Left and ultimately dominoing the entire Eastern European bloc into numerous Western-based constitutional democratic republics.

Compounding this internal pressure are the financially stronger economies of the West and the institutions that are dominated by a Western free-market liberal economic view, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the United Nations (UN). These international agencies are placing substantial external pressure on Islamic states to a point where their theocracies choose isolationism over Western viewed international prosperity. To be sure, this was the position taken by the Taliban in Afghanistan during the late nineties. The rational for their view was simple: It’s better to be a simple purist, than a rich sinner; where sinner is assumed to be those who abandon the strictest view of Islam, as interpreted by the ruling council – this included in Taliban terms – being audaciously rich.

So what is left is a not a hot Christian crusadist war on Islam – as expounded by most Islamic anti-West proponents, although from the inside it seems like this – but a hidden agenda by the West of emancipation of nations from what it sees as Islamic repression.

Is this a naive illusion?

Maybe the West’s agenda is a little more sinister: Economic and democratic emancipation of the Islamic World with the end-game to remove the market skew for international resources which they, the West, can exploit within the capitalist multiplier. Noting that there is a great emphasis on emerging states’ valuable oil and gas reserves accessible under free-market trade. Personally I don’t think the West is so divisive, although the argument goes: The economic multiplier is a World phenomenon that can deliver economic prosperity to the World system at large, and set free those World citizens shackled to the apparatus of the ‘dysfunctional state’. In simple terms the West believes that by it democratising Islamic, and other autocratic and oppressive nations, we as the liberator will unleash the people from the shackles of state slavery into some realm of secular tolerance, economic free-marketism and democratic freedom. This end will release political stability and a fair distribution of wealth across a meritist environment. In other words – free the people and they will sell their assets at free-trade prices, or not sell them if they prefer, and in doing so will themselves see the riches of international prosperity.

It is not a great leap to consider this the worthy cause that underlines Western policy. But the pursuit of this ideal is where the wheels fall off. Fukuyama is wrong in having us believe that we The West have arrived at the End of History and we should drag others here to. And I doubt we will arrive soon at that destined terminal, nor those we drag with us.

To be fair Fukuyama looks into the West as proof of his argument more than he does the Islamic Middle East and Asia. In my criticism I’m looking for international proof as to the end of history as I would contend that until all nations, as the basis of the entire system, have arrived in Fukuyama’s Wonderland none of the others can be there either.

My last point is salient as an economic system that has to accommodate for dysfunctional elements is itself dysfunctional – particularly free-market economics with a foundation of information perfectionism. Yes I know this is a circular argument as it is clearly understood that the base value of the market is through imperfect information (arbitrage) – or at least the time-lag associated with perfection. The point being – Fukuyama’s End of History at an international level fails with its reliance on perfect information that is not just time-lagged, as experienced in the free-market, but over time guaranteed not to be perfect. Nations that purposefully skew the market for non-free-market ends – or rather, as seen in Islamic nations for theocratic reasons – will always fail the End of History test as well as the surrounding nations that rely on them for trade.

What I am actually saying here is for Fukuyama’s argument that the End of History has arrived to be true all market participants have to work within the framework of free-market economics. Failing this an altered version of liberal economic democracy is applied to all states to accommodate external distortions. Therefore

Fukuyama’s Wonderland is skewed and we have not arrived at the End of History; nor will we while Islamic states remain coupled to a non-secular governance model. But let’s not confuse free-market economics with democratisation, although in real-terms the two are mutually inclusive, i.e. a state must be democratic to practice free-market economics, and free-market economics needs an open government which is democratic to operate efficiently. In the Islamic world this is simply not possible. The thrust here is, at the heart of the Islamic state is the theocracy and since there is no separation of religion from the state liberal democracy in Western terms is simply not possible.

To understand this we need only look at Iraq. That country was, during Hussein’s tenure, the closest state we would have seen able to bridge the gap to secular democracy within the traditionally ‘hostile to Western democracy’ Islamic world. Hussein did not allow a theistic philosophy to reign over the governing council and for this reason Islam was not bound to the country’s governance. But scratching deeper we see this is actually a false statement and ultimately the reason why

America and its coalition will fail to deliver liberal democracy to this beleaguered nation. This I think is where the warring coalition has gone drastically wrong.

To recap the ‘Old Western World’

European history is one of post-Romanic Aristocratic governance where the Catholic Church was deeply intertwined into the workings of a mature feudal continent: Similar to Afghanistan prior to the Western invasion. The constituent states of Continental Europe from Russia to the depths of Ireland where ruled by groups of elite that held the Catholic Church close to their moral principles and legal & administrative governance. In short they were theistic governing clans. If we look closer at England there was a breakaway from the theistic model during Henry VIII’s rule where the monarch was at odds with the Catholic Church. He resolved the conflict by quasi-dissolution from the central influencing theocracy (

Rome). With Henry’s emasculation of the Catholic Church in relation to English politics and the installation of a liberal English Christian Church, the stage was set to review religion’s closeness to the country’s government and associated laws. This is not to say that the weight of the Catholic breakaway was wholly on Henry’s shoulders alone, but offers as an example of not only the will to go against the domineering Church in relation to constitutional change but also the desire to devolve the power of the Church from the state within a given population. The principle set the precedence of a monarch above the constitution without guidance from the Catholic Church.

Following Henry was Cromwell – not a monarch, but instead a republican – and with him a new view of religious tolerance which in the longer-term resulted in a state separated from Church. The secular state had arrived in Britain, the result of which, in psychological terms, was a transcended cultural shared-psyche based on Judaic-Christian belief for moral guidance. The Christian moral ethic became a reference for law, not the reason for law.

The key here is Henry’s break from Rome, followed by the disconnection of the Protector of the Faith – the monarch – from state governance, and the introduction of a Parliament that tolerated the differing belief systems of the land (although mainly rooted in the Judaic-Christian faith). The result is a secular state where religion is separated from state, and the judiciary, and the military; moreover the market evolved into a non-interventionist free-market rooted in capitalist economics.

So moving back to Iraq : Hussein – as the de facto monarch – held back the Mullahs’ influence as Henry had, and by ruling with an iron fist as Tito did in Eastern Europe, prevented ethnic factions from warring. This removed the pressure of internal historical factionists breaking the state apart. Equilibrium was achieved by the Sunni minority through the iron fisted rule of a Sunni ruler without that ruler being dominated by an external theistic force.

The problem with Iraq is the ruler was the holder of the equilibrium and that ruler did not do what Henry VIII did in Britain. That is to disestablish religion from the apparatus of the state to such an extent that the natural progression of the state would be secular governance. So what is left today is not only a political vacuum, but also a need by the population to resurrect historical political systems steeped in the dominating religion of the country – Islam. And this brings us to the ongoing conflict – ‘The Lost War’ – that we see ourselves being drawn into day by day.

The Lost War.

The catalyst for change in the Middle East was operating well before Osama Bin Laden, but not for the apparent reason of the Islamic martyrs’ brigades hitting The West the way they have over the past 25 years. The root of the war is in the Islamic World and how it is coming to terms with western based secular democracy. Its people are dieing for modernity, the bourgeois establishment pining to sell the assets (oil and gas reserves) spread over many kindred countries, and the World’s apparatus is pressuring it to respect life, gender, secularism, suffrage, and all other Western values including the rules of international free-trade.

It is the West’s foolishness – and to a great extent arrogant pride – that has dragged it into an internal factional fight that will result in all parties losing. This is why it is ‘The Lost War’. The problem is obvious, if the Islamic World is to democratise it has to come to terms with the problems listed earlier – particularly secularism.

However, let’s assume Fukuyama is going to be right. Let’s assume that there is a state where Islamic based democracy is feasible and a cross-democratic free-trade framework is established. The End of History may then be possible; but only when the two systems find a means to interface in a way that underscores the basic principles of free-market economics. Is this possible? The answer is short. No!

America will not find the road to world peace through the export of Fukuyama’s End of History democracy as it stands today, nor accommodate the Islamic republics in free-market terms. Not until the Islamic World ends its struggle through what will be its own reformation – as seen in the West over the last 600 years – will the world come close to

Fukuyama’s Wonderland.

Yet, Bin Laden’s view is without doubt: No reformation on any terms! He would argue that the only way to remove the West from interfering in the Middle East is to draw it in to a bloody conflict based on the West’s view that it can deliver democratic freedom to ‘the oppressed’, and for the Islamic world to prevail by consolidating it’s Islamic values. For Bin Laden this would result in the end of the Jewish state by Islamic nations discovering their joint strength – a substantial goal of most Islamic nations of the

Middle East. The end game would be solidification of the Islamic way resulting in a continuance of the theistic state. At the heart of this view is the realisation, no doubt by Bin Laden and other extremist followers, that the Islamic World is under pressure to change and that change must be resisted by the introduction of a stronger change-agent that can be rallied against – This is classical Machiavellianism.

In conclusion the West’s ‘War on Terror’ is a fool’s errand. As we have seen the emancipation of the Afghani and Iraqi people from repressive governments has resulted in democratically elected theistic republics with associated Shari’a law. The resulting rights and laws are to some extent as repressive as those of the previous incumbents as seen through Western eyes. This is due to the political strength of the mullahs who are seen by the population as both clerics and spiritual governors. The Western view is freedom of expression including religious worship. There are no western imposed religious limitations on those who stand for election in these nations. So it’s not hard to see why the parliaments of Iraq and Afghanistan, along with Palestine, have become dominated by the Islamic Right. The West can not have it both ways in Islamic open suffrage nations – free democratic representation and secularism.

No doubt over the coming centuries the Islamic republics of today, regardless of Bin Laden and the other fundamentalist hardliners of the Islamic Middle East and Asia, will evolve into their own version of democracy in spite of the constant stream of suicide bombers and retaliations, or the West’s pressure through international institutions. To be sure, Islamic evolution will take much longer than the West would like.

In the interim Iraq will descend into a bloody civil war, whose fault will be the West’s as decided in the aftermath, and result in a shi’a Muslim theistic republic similar to Iran, with a bitter distaste of Western interference. No doubt over time Afghanistan will move back to a hard-line Taliban type republic and unravel the hard fought principles of Western secular democracy, again blaming the West for the bloodshed it will undergo as it did Russia. And the Western blood lost to the distant oil rich sands over the last decade will petrify as democracy will, and all the pain today and in the future would have been in vain. 

Ironically over the next 500 years, when the Islamic evolution results in some type of secular governance model, the Western World would have moved on to some other system beyond the exploitative liberal economic democracy promoted by Fukuyama, and alas history will show that Fukuyama’s End of History was too early an absolute statement.

Cameron Macdonald – 2006

Comments(1)

Social Philosophy – Path of Least Resistance

 

Before I roll on in here, I must first apologise to Justin for doubting his wisdom in the area of social breakdown under state stress.

Before rattling on, I would first like to offer my heartfelt condolences to all those people who have been affected by the unraveling disaster that was Hurricane Katrina. Nothing is more heartbreaking than to see my fellow man under such saddening anguish.

What has become apparent from this terrible disaster is the tenuousness of social order in our modern world, and how much we the people rely on that social order and the trappings of modernity, to survive.

I have always been of the view, similar to Hagel, that our social structures, particularly Liberal Democratic, are inherent in the people of those structures. That is to say that our view of Liberal Democracy is as a result of the populous-psyche’s belief in equality and the good of the general population over individual views of self-service. However, Lockean social philosophy, based on a simple point that man, particularly bourgeois man, is self-absorbed and on mass does what is right only for himself. I always considered Lockean theory was inconsistent with modernity.

To simplify, the three hundred year ago view of society is based on three classes, The Poor, the Bourgeoisie, and the Aristocratic class.

Hobbs and Locke considered that the Bourgeoisie class, where we now see the capitalist (industrialist) class, are simply self-interested to the extreme with little interest in social justice.

As time has moved on, through Hagel and Kant’s time, we have undergone a social awakening where the three-class system has been replaced by a multi-tiered structure with a predominantly socially aware (people’s) government. This is Democratic Liberalism in the US, and Democratic Socialism predominantly across

Europe.

My hypothesis is that this modern social justice awareness has a direct relationship with the populous view. This is reflected in the following actuality – we as people elect those representatives of the government who stand on a platform of helping those less fortunate than ourselves on our behalf. My thoughts are: if I myself am socially aware then I will elect those that will do my bidding. Therefore, a government system that is elected on the popular vote is representative of the majority that is itself socially aware.

However, the recent events in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, and in particular

New Orleans has left me astounded. How can it be in such a short period of time social order is lost when that social order is based on a Hagellean society in the first place?

I would consider that there is a balance between Lockean and Hagellean social order. As Marx suggests, there is a social justice premium that people are prepared to pay for social harmony. We consider that we must pay this premium to ensure that those of unfortunate circumstance are covered under social justice with an underlying thought – we ourselves may well be rendered unfortunate and seek use of that insurance at some point in our lives.

However, under social breakdown, a Lockean view takes over where people will put themselves before the good of the state (and others) when resources are so scarce as to threaten personal existence. The social justice premium will only ever be paid by the people when they themselves have everything they desire (are at a greater height than Esteem needs within the Maslow hierarchy of needs system). This desire point in a modern state is balanced between the needs of the poor and the wealth of the rich, bearing in mind that the poor are the majority and it is they themselves that empower governors to deliver social justice. Yet it is they themselves that under social breakdown are most needy (lower down Maslow’s needs model to begin with) and quickest to resort to Lockean selfishness.

To expand, in the space of four days the city was suffering massive looting…and not just for food and water! Roaming armed gangs, with law enforcement under gunfire from some within the civilian population, is unbelievable in such a short period for what is well understood a modern democratic state. No doubt this catastrophe will shake the American governance view to its foundations. In the past the state has been hands off in relation to social justice in favour of the free-market liberal economics. This is not a sustainable position. 

I am careful here not to suggest that everyone under this disaster lost their sense of social justice. In fact the majority were appalled at what was happening in their city and indeed fell victim to the breakout of lawlessness.

My theory is that social cohesion is a balance between Lockean selfishness and Hagelean liberalism while the majority is held above the Maslow Esteem Needs. Under disaster where the state, the social guarantor, is lost, Lockean selfishness will step in the moment those Esteem Needs are no longer guaranteed, all at the expense of society at a whole. This is were Anarchy is tested to failure.

The reason for my apology to Justin is his hypothesis that the lowest common denominator will prevail under social shock is true. Even when lawlessness is a minority factor within that modern society; under limited government guarantee of social justice and the delivery of needs at or above Esteem levels, the powerful minority will rule the majority, either through the barrel of a gun or the denial of food and water to the needy through intimidation and strength of will. All modern states exist at or just above this balancing state.

I am saddened that this is true, and am left wondering if this is an American only phenomenon where society is more machiavellian self-interested compared to the European and Oceanic Social Democratic psyche where Democratic Social justice has a higher priority over Capitalist Liberalism.

I think in summary that the Liberal democratic system of the US offers its poor little more the the achievement of Esteem Needs with a collective psyche that to ascend higher up the Maslow model is solely down to the individual alone regardless of all other factors. However in Europe and Oceania where social systems offer higher levels of achievement within the Maslow model the breakdown of law and order mayl take longer until at least the Esteem level is descended to. Ergo to see stability in any system, including systems under shock, the social psyche must accept that offering the lower classes more than the lower self-esteem levels of the Maslow model is something to aspire to.

Comments(0)

Schrödinger’s cat – A theistic expansion

This section is based on a conversation between myself and Justin on duality and shared truth. Justin’s hypotheses is that the volume of believers of a given deity is in direct proportion to is Absolute Truth. Although I have discussed Absoluteness earlier…see Absolute Truth, the point that mass-belief makes an object of that belief true is an interesting theory (if only to find the Simple Truth).

To address this theory I will start with an interesting thought experiment: Schrödinger said: In 1935 Schrödinger published an essay describing the conceptual problems in QM1. A brief paragraph in this essay described the cat paradox.One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a “blurred model” for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.We know that superposition of possible outcomes must exist simultaneously at a microscopic level because we can observe interference effects from these. We know (at least most of us know) that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared out state between the alternatives. When and how does the model of many microscopic possibilities resolve itself into a particular macroscopic state? When and how does the fog bank of microscopic possibilities transform itself to the blurred picture we have of a definite macroscopic state. That is the measurement problem and Schrödinger’s cat is a simple and elegant explanations of that problem.

In English I think!!! He is saying in the micro (quantum) world, the cat can quite easily exist in both states at the same time and there is no contradiction…In probability terms that is, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. It has a 2 in 1 chance of being alive or dead!

What he was saying is that it is not unreasonable in the micro world to consider both states true at the same time. The issue is, as you traverse from the micro (immeasurable) to the Macro (observable) we find it difficult to believe that the cat can be both dead and alive at the same time. This is the quandary with quantum physics. We observe in macro and yet theorise in micro, where both possibilities are true at the same time. In theoretical terms I have no problem with this.

As to the theory that God’s existence, probability is based on the volume of current belief; this is at odds with Shrodinger’s thought experiment. Only the physical macro is true in one or other state in our physical world i.e. the cat is either dead or alive and can not be both, independent of the volume of faith by the people. What I am alluding to is even of 99.99999 % of the population were to believe in a given deity, without objective proof, its existence is still in the balance, AND, in the Macro physical world, a duality is simply not possible. 

But, the argument may be that the deity is not of the Macro world and can be a duality, the macro-macro (for want of a better term – theological super-space) can not be observed and as with the quantum micro is in both states (a superposition). In other words God is and isn’t at the same time. Ergo; 2 in 1. Is this a contradiction? Schrödinger I think would not see any contradiction here – provided it did not offend his theological belief. I doubt he would conclude that a given state is based on the percentage of belief. If 90% of the population believe that Schrödinger’s cat is alive, they would be wrong, as would the 10% who believe it is dead; they would also be right on both sides of the divide, as the truth would be: everyone is right and wrong at the same time.

Is this true in reality under test? In other words, does the Micro ascend to the Macro. I do not know in general terms, but how does this equate to deity Macro-Macro? Well according to test – per results below – Schrödinger is correct that in the micro quantum state there is duality (superposition); and that can be observed from the macro through physical experiment by associated results. But how this equates to theology is somewhat tenuous. We need to work in the realms of philosophy: If only we could build a machine and illustrate both states are true definitively at that higher level. Who knows one day!

But even if we had a machine, we would prove that there is a superposition and that would prove that God is there and God is not. Would this help us in the real world?  For Micro there is application as the mathematics that are derived from superposition understanding, and other applications to come, will be no doubt mind blowing! But to know the Macro-Macro is a superposition will not stop man killing men for their version of truth! See test results below, and what do you conclude?email me if you wish to add comments or challenge any points made. I will be happy to publish any comments made. 

Article retrieved from the web 13^th April 2004: http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/ion/qucomp/cat.htm

Schrödinger’s Cat

In 1935, Erwin Schrödinger proposed a “thought experiment” to highlight one of the ways in which quantum mechanics contradicts our experiences of reality (E. Schrödinger, Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935)). His proposal involved placing a cat (a macroscopic object) inside a closed box with a vial of cyanide and a radioactive atom initially prepared in the metastable state (a microscopic object). The radioactive atom has a probability of ½ of decaying in one hour. If it decays, then the cyanide is released and the cat dies; if it does not decay, then the cyanide is not released and the cat remains unharmed.The paradox arises because the atom, being a microscopic object, must be described by quantum mechanics. After one hour, and before it is observed, the atom is in an equal superposition of being decayed and undecayed. However, if quantum mechanics is a universal and complete theory, it must describe the whole system. And, since the state of the cat is correlated with the state of the atom, the cat must also be in a superposition of being dead and alive. This clearly contradicts our everyday experience of cats!This sort of apparent contradiction arises whenever the state of macroscopic objects is correlated with that of microscopic objects. It comes about because in our experience of our macroscopic surroundings, objects are either in one state or another, but never in a superposition of several states at the same time.Our ability to create “coherent states” of motion in our trapped atom has allowed us to create a Schrödinger cat-like situation. In our case, we can put the atom in a superposition of two electronic levels, each of which is correlated with a different state of the atom’s motion. The microscopic electronic state plays the role of the radioactive atom, whereas the coherent state of motion plays the role of the cat’s livelihood.We create our “Schrödinger cat” by creating coherent states using our “walking standing light wave” technique. The key to “cat” production is to adjust the polarization of our laser beams so that only the 2S½(F=1,mF=1) state interacts with the laser, while the 2S½(F=2,mF=2) state does not. Thus, the laser only creates a coherent state out of the part of the wavefunction in the upper electronic state. The sequence of laser pulses used is as follows.

See hyperlink reference for diagram. 

We start out in the ground motional and electronic states after sideband cooling and optical pumping (a). We next use a carrier transition to split the wavefunction into an equal superposition of ground and excited electronic states, both parts of which are in the ground motional state (b). We then use our “walking standing wave” to create a coherent state of motion in the upper electronic state, while leaving the motion in the lower electronic state unaffected (c). Another pulse on the carrier swaps the wavefunctions (d). Another pulse of the “walking standing wave,” this time with a different phase, creates a different coherent state of motion in the part of the wavefunction that is now in the upper electronic state (e). At this point, we have one coherent state in the upper electronic state and a different coherent state of motion in the lower electronic state. Thus, a microscopic superposition within the atom has been transformed into a larger superposition of atomic motion.Recall that our only observable is the probability that the atom is in the ground electronic state after the experiment. We use this observable to show that we have, indeed, created a “cat” by applying a final laser pulse on the carrier transition (f). This recombines the parts of the wavefunction in the upper and lower electronic levels. If the two wavepackets overlap in position and momentum at the moment of recombination, then they can constructively or destructively interfere, changing the relative probabilities of finding the atom in the ground or excited electronic states. If the wavepackets do not overlap, or if the system is in a mixture rather than a superposition prior to recombination, then there is no interference and so the probability of finding the atom in the ground state is ½. Data from one of our experiments are shown in the following graph, showing the expected interference fringe.

See hyperlink reference for diagram. 

The x-axis represents the separation of the two coherent-state wavepackets in phase space (measured by the angle between them). The y-axis is the probability that the atom is in its ground electronic state after step (f). The x-axis is the phase angle between the two coherent state creation pulses. The above figure corresponds to a situation in which the motional wavepackets are 84 nm apart at their maximum situation, which is approximately ten times the spatial extent of either motional wavepacket. Note that the contrast of the fringes is not one. In fact, the contrast is theoretically expected to degrade exponentially with the square of the physical separation when the system is coupled to the environment. This decoherence process underlies the reason quantum superpositions are not generally seen in the macroscopic world.In the future, we hope to use our “Schrödinger cat” state as a sensitive detector of decoherence. Characterizing decoherence is important for evaluating our system for possible use in larger-scale quantum computation, and represents research at the boundary between the quantum and classical worlds.

Comments(1)

Entry 25th March 2005

Absolute Truth

 Q: What is Absolute Truth and how does it compare to basic truth?A: To explore Absolute truth, consideration as to what constitutes truth should be understood.

We can look at this from three points of view: Past, Present, and Future in relation to legal, scientific, and theistic absolute truths.LegallyIf we look at the legal area first we may start to understand that truth, or in this case absolute truth, is based on past events. After all the courts, particularly the criminal justice system, are based on discovering the truth of a given past event i.e. did I kill Mr. Jones.To expand: I dug a hole, bought a gun, loaded it, invited Jones for dinner, took him to the hole, shot him dead, and then buried him. Or so that’s what the prosecution claim. Is this true within the criminal justice system (CJS)?

The burden of proof is the moderator of truth. That is: if it is shown to the Jury, through presented artifacts that ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ I must have done it, then I did. But this is not to say it is absolute truth. Simply that there is a high probability that it is true that I killed Jones. If the courts had to work on absolute truths then the fact would have to be true yesterday, today, and tomorrow. this can never be proven in legal terms as the future is not predictable.

However, if we look at Mr. Jones it can be argued that it is absolute truth that he is dead. He must be if his corpse is in the hole. But considering there is a probability that I may have shot another man, then nobody knows for sure Jones is dead. Even if Mrs. Jones testified and Mr. Jones’s dentist did too, this is not absolute as it can be disputed at some future date by new evidence – like Mr. Jones turning up five years later with a tan and a new wife.

Therefore, I doubt the notion of absolute truth in legal terms as there is the future that remains uncertain as long as the universe is around us.

Although this sounds absurd from the point of view that Jones’s body has been tested by all the tests known to man and the testimony of the experts points to Jones’ being dead there still remains uncertainty as to the future. 

We should understand that a statement may be true – I did kill Jones, but there is no absolute truth as the future is not certain.

The only truth in my opinion from a legal standpoint is there is no absolute truth in legal terms, only a reasonable probability!

This is important as the areas covered in this BLOG are not of absolute truth…but merely of observation and research of others’ observations where I have no reason to dispute the their proof.One of the key points I am making here is if we are looking for absolute truth we should consider that the legal definition is based on probability of a past event. This is unlike the scientific method as science offers truth based on a yet to be proven falsehood. So let’s look at science to find the truth:  

ScientificallyIf we look at this quest to seek absolute truth scientifically, which is where we may expect to find truth with directly observed proof, we may understand what constitutes truth. That is to argue that truth is a manifestation of currently observed proof, not, like law, a probability of a past event and facts.We know that the scientific principle is Hypothesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. We make a statement, we test that statement through experiment and observation within the physical world to prove the original hypothesis wrong, and if it becomes impossible to prove wrong then it must be true.In practical terms Einstein’s E=MC^2 is true by definition; that is it has been tested through experiment and observation, and currently proven not to be not true.But is this absolute truth? 

It seems science may help us understand that the underlying principle for truth is proof as proof is not prone to our own subjectivity. That is, proof must be objective to be relied upon. This is the foundation of scientific fact!

We know for instance that life has five characteristics that have been observed in all living things, and as such an organism that displays all five is indeed alive. These characteristics being: Cells, Homeostasis, Reproduction, Metabolism, and DNA Heredity. I doubt people around me would suggest these tests are not objective. There would be no reason to set these tests any other way. Nothing thus far has disproved this theory nor put in to question these tests, and as such the five points applied to a human being means that it is alive and this has to be true. Until that is that person no longer exhibits one or more of the five characteristics where upon it would be true they are now dead. note, I’ve left the argument of Reproduction to one side as being infertile during any stage of life can not suggest the person is not alive; this is an absurdity…Let’s not go there!

But let’s not forget that truth is proven until it is proven no longer true – through a second truth that proves it false. And the second truth again may not reveal the absolute truth as it too can be discounted. This is correct in relation to Einstein’s argument that time is relative, where Newtonian physics stated it true that time is fixed. Newton was correct and his fixed time a truth but it was not an absolute truth as Einstein later discounted that as false. This suggests that scientific truth is relative based on current knowledge and observation that is restricted within the current observation frame.So science is not the place to find ‘Absolute Truth’.

Would theology be a better place to find Absolute Truth?

TheisticallyIf we ask the faithful if God exists would we expect to apply the scientific method to test. The hypothesis is that God indeed exists. The antithesis is that God does not exist. The observation is what? What is the test? what can the parties seeking Absolute Truth agree is the objective test? One might argue the existence of the complex universe we live in is the test, as this could only have arrived through intelligent design. This is one of the latest theories of the theist movement that attempts to offer an alternative to independent big bang non-theistic Darwinism.    Einstein, The great theoretical scientist of our time may chip in and argue, as he did about Uncertainty Theory that “God does not play dice.” This is an indication that Einstein’s proof of the intelligent designer is such that: there is intelligence here so the universe with all its rules has to have been constructed under intelligent design. The probability of the universe creating itself as a random event is so infinitely beyond probability that it had to have been planned, Einstein may say. 

But hang on! Is the fact that the universe exists and it is too complex to have arrived by chance a valid proof. After all I have just argued that truth is the result of proof and that the fact that something exists is by no means evidence of proof, merely an observed state. 

Let me expand: If we theorise, test & observe, and conclude then we should be able to repeat that proof anywhere and obtain the same results. But to observe the Universe as is and suggest that this is proof of intelligent design without observing its construction, or in fact repeat its construction in a controlled environment, is absurd. Scientifically it merely states that the object exists as we know it -  and yes, at this point in our understanding it is complex. Theistically the Universe is complex and although that complexity suggests intelligent design it still requires a ‘leap of faith’ the reconcile and intelligent creator. 

To develop this point further we should look at the hypothesis that the Universe is not by intelligent design. As before the Universe exists and there was no observation of its design or creation. As such we can not prove that the Universe was created by another independent means. In fact there is no proof either way and as such one would argue there is no Absolute Truth here that God exists by means of the proof of the Universe’s complex existence.

What I am alluding to is theism is not Absolute Truth but merely a state of mind based on faith. We could go a great deal deeper here and discuss Freud in relation to Man’s pre-disposition to faith which in itself both ratifies and bolsters the view of the believer that what they have is Absolute Truth. That debate will follow in other areas of this BLOG. 

But, for for millions around this Earth there is no doubt that a deity exists, has existed, and will continue to exist without any challenge. That to them is an Absolute Truth. So it may be that truth is not based on proof but something else.

These points suggest that those who accept that God exists without scientific proof, or legal probability accept that Truth needs no proof, artifacts or experiment.So what is Absolute Truth? Is it legal beyond reasonable doubt, scientific observation, or theistic faithful belief?

I believe that perception is the fulcrum that brings these forces together. What is true in my Universe may not be true in yours. Sometimes we share truth through shared objective proof and other times we don’t. But that is not to say where we don’t agree there is only one truth and one of us is wrong. We may easily both be right in relation to our perceptive frame…See Schrödinger’s cat for more detail on duality.So, in relation to this blog: The discovery of Absolute Truth is insurmountable since proof is only as good as the next proof that discounts the claim, AND is relative to the person who is looking for truth.

To clarify: I would argue that Absolute Truth is a state of belief that has the highest probability of Absolute Proof, that is observed and repeatable, at this time in my Universe. That does not deny others of their Absolute Truth being a faith leap through spiritual guidance within their perceptive frame. Although in general terms Absolute Truth is merely a state of shared Basic Truth with faith attached.

To conclude, the only time when absolute truth exists is when time itself ends. At this point there will be no possibility that a truth can be refuted. The problem is all energy and matter will be lost at that point. Sadly truth itself will be lost.

Comments(0)