Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Softice
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Softice... such a title! Of course I
liked this essay! BTW, soon or later any reality cracker will have to swallow
Heisenberg's cats (and everything correlated), so you better
right now, dear
readers... have a good trip in the uncertainity of science, will take quite a while till you'll be back...
see you here in a
couple of years :-)
Is immortality the lack of events? I don't believe this: immortality is A LOT of events... it is also, maybe, the simple satisfaction that you believe in what you are doing and learning because you see that it works... at least in my -admittedly biased- opinion :-)
If I may add a personal note about our friend Pantheon's 'signing out' line... well: Nietzsche was right (it happened at times) and God wrong, of course...
I just now, after about 2 years of visiting this site, managed to read articles from your "Reality Cracking" section, and I admit, I think I read most of them. So... here is my own candidate for publication. (I wrote this with edit.com, so there'll probably be some funky CRs) The exact science of guessing. Futility of argument. It is comforting to know that some things in life are certain; Milk does a body good, Diamonds are forever, and the universe is rapidly and continually expanding. I pause a moment to let the reader convince himself of these thoughts. To truely crack reality, one must put aside what is "known" -- I used the quotes to signify that we know for certain absolutely nothing. Confuscious said "To know that we know what we know, that is true knowledge"; I disagree. "To understand that we cannot know what we think we know" is a more enlightened statement. We "know" that time passes at a constant rate. Siddhartha may have summed up this argument with a single phrase: "time is not real"; the concept of time is distorted, it's new meaning has evolved from circular reasoning. Time is generally considered to be an interval that perpetuates life into the future. Life is measured in time. Time was created by the thought that events happen in an order, not all at one. The sun rose, I ate Lunch, the sun set. The idea of order required an event to seperate the other events of daily life. From the rather simplistic example above, the notion of infinite events was born. I woke, the position of the sun changed a little, it changed a little more...ad infinitum. In this sense, life was measured in events. Each time a set of events repeated, man marked off another portion of his life gone. Where is the guarantee that the sun moved across the sky at a constant rate? The only indication would be that man felt roughly the same ammount of fatigue at the end of each cycle. From this view it would be indiscernable whether the rate of the sun's travel influenced the fatigue of the man, or whether the man had accomplished roughly the same number of events, of course whether or not he started each cycle with the same ammount of energy was in question, as well as the nature of energy itself. It is possible to take any event or "truth" and find where an unjustified assumption was made, merely because is fit the current paragigm. Let us not forget that fire was once believed to be the release of a substance called "phlogiston" from the "burning" material, solely because there was a visible trail(smoke) and the weight of the object was decreased by burning; this held until a material was found that became heavier once burned. Now we believe that fire is the bonding of oxygen to another substance, even though fire is hot, and heat is generally considered to be from the breaking of molecular bonds. Also some materials become lighter once burned, thus the combination of oxygen must cause a molecule to become less dense, while other burned substances become more dense. This is explained by the theory that "bonds" (also a theory) are of different lengths because the "electrons that are bonding" (also a theory) are located at different heights from the nucleis (another theory). Even experimentation is invalid based on Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which basically states that through examination of any subject, we modify it's behavior. A familliar example: Softice. We use Softice to follow program flow, by setting a break-point, we actually alter flow to another program, never being 100% certain that the program we were previously running had not altered the breakpoint handler to point to itself, giving us a bogus set of data. Here we believe that we necessarily are in softice, just because we've never seen a program do such things before. We may assume whatever conventions make our tasks easier, but when we find our selves stumped by an apparent impossibility, we must not hesitate to toss what we "know" out the window. An important principle in discovering the Theory of Relativity is the constancy of the propagation of light in vacuuo. Light moves at a constant speed no matter what the velocity of it's emitter. I made a reference earlier to the "fact" that the universe is constantly expanding. This was determined by the frequency of the light emitted by far away stars. Doppler shift is a principle easily detectable by the ear, a train whistle approaching has a higher frequency than one travelling away from you, the electromagnetic wave is shifted by the motion of the emitter toward one end of the spectrum. The frequency of light from far away stars is also shifted toward one end of the spectrum -- thus, they are rapidly traveling away... correct? Not according to the law of propagation of light in vacuuo; which, by the way was upheld by the man who did much work with the aforementioned atomic theory, Albert Einstein. It should be noted that the propagation of light as such necessitates the Theory of Relativity, which makes such bold claims as to say that a man on a train travelling at 40 mph, if walking in the direction of the train's travel at 5 mph, has an overall speed NOT equal to 45 mph. This is due to the slowing of time for accelerated bodies...So much for time as a constant. Thus is it valid to revert our measure of life to a number of events before death? And then is immortality the lack of events? I think not. Humans ultimately are arrogant creatures, claiming to control even that which they cannot possibly understand. We can afford to take nothing at it's face value. Reality crack where you believe necessary, compromise at only what MUST be cracked, lest your quota of events expire before you can jot down your findings. Forgive me for having been longwinded, Seek Enlightenment, therein lie some truths. Ayin (Pantheon) (Px21) P.S. I like the new artwork on the site...classy. -- God is dead. -Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. -God