More Uncertainty!

Difficult lines must be drawn but many will not like them! I will attempt to explain why this is so.

For instance, concerning tax breaks, it seems obvious to most that those of limited means with many hungry children to feed should be entitled to tax breaks more so than others. But what if you were just beyond any given line of entitlement? What if your income and number of children just missed this “line”? Would you not feel cheated? Perhaps you think the line should be drawn to include you? Trouble is, there is always another unlucky bloke who happens to be just beyond this new line of entitlement leaving him feeling cheated just the same as you were before!

There is a seemingly never-ending succession of "yous", at least until everybody is entitled to said benefit. But of course this will never happen because we as a society can ill afford to offer entitlements to everybody. (also problematic with this approach is that it would simply be a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" in turn being ineffectual in redistributing wealth) Things will seldom if ever be “fair” drawing lines because they are by their very nature predicated on discontinuities. But most of life's matters can not be treated as such. Rather, most of life's matters tend to be based on continuities.

For instance, where does an embryo become a living, breathing human being? Clearly, it is not a living, breathing human being at its insemination (this being the left end of the spectrum) but clearly it is a living, breathing human being when it comes out of the birth canal (this being the right end of the spectrum).

Does it ever become a living, breathing human being? If not, is it always a human being or is it never a human being? This is silly, as a small clump of cells certainly can not be a living, breathing human being but I'm pretty positive I am a living, breathing human being! Perhaps it is both human and less than human all the while being neither? This exemplifies what is known as the “barber paradox”: if it can not be human, it must be human. Conversely, if it must be human, it can not be human. Is the set of all sets that are not members of itself a member of itself, or is it not, and if it is not, is it?

On the other hand, if it becomes a living, breathing human being, at what discrete point does it become so? It does not seem to at all but it must. If there is a discrete point whereby an embryo becomes a living, breathing human being, all we can be certain of is its uncertainty. I am using this example as a way to demonstrate the difficulty of drawing 1 absolutely right line in any given situation!

In any case, it appears people instinctively like to draw absolute lines, in all likelihood because they are slaves to their egos' pursuits. The problem with this is the lines themselves are arbitrary because lines are ultimately predicated on discontinuities whereas issues in life, especially the most difficult ones, are predicated on continuities. Therein lies the root of all (intelligent) controversy!

It is tempting to believe there is a discrete point whereby a fertilized egg becomes a baby worthy of protection. Just the same, it is tempting to believe there is a discrete point whereby a person is becoming of a given entitlement. But this is all opinion no doubt shaped by each person's perspective. Project this argument on all issues in life, especially the most difficult ones.

Can we all just learn to get along with all of our differences by realizing nobody is “absolutely” right?

Might Truth Be Like Quantum States?

I have found more truth asking questions and introspecting than I ever did trying to find “absolute” truth. Trying to find “absolute” truth is an endeavor destined to fail because it inevitably winds up skewing one's objectivity in one way or perhaps many.

Might the search for truth be a bit like Heisenberg's uncertainty principal? Truth, like quantum states, is very elusive. It is not possible to know with certainty both the velocity and location of a given particle because the mere act of measuring one skews the “truth” of the other. One can know completely either of the two or know a little something of both but he can not know both with certainty.

If velocity is like relativity and location is like absolutism, let's attempt to find “absolute” truth. How would one do this? That's easy! The precise measurement of a particle's location/absolutism will produce an “absolute” truth. But only at enormous cost. For he will now forgo any knowledge as to the velocity/relativity of the particle, thereby making it erroneously appear as though its velocity is zero and hence not relative in the least. In this case, it seems clear that whatever truth is found is absolute and unquestionable.

Trouble is, somebody else can just as easily measure the particle's location/absolutism in exactly the same manner but come up with a contradictory assessment regarding the particle's “absolute” location. The explanation for this disagreement is that the particle actually has a velocity and hence its location is seemingly relative to any given measurer and time. In other words, because the person and the time of the measurement is different and the measured item actually has a velocity, it will not be in the same position as it is for any other measurer.

This will cause disagreement between the two as both are presumably unaware that the particle has a velocity and hence is not in an identical location at any given time. Each measurer then erroneously believes he is in possession of the “absolute” truth as to the particle's whereabouts at all times.

It is my contention that ego tends to creep into any “honest” assessment of truth. Reason being, the ego's ultimate aim is not, perhaps surprisingly, to find truth. Rather, its ultimate aim is to find an “absolutely right” answer, however arbitrary, to inflate its sense of superiority by being absolutely right.

The issue with finding truth always revolves around fundamental assumptions. Why choose one over another? It can only be arbitrary to individual preferences. If one wants to believe the world is ultimately good, he might assume a good God exists Who out of necessity must be uncaused, this itself another blind assumption. On the other hand, one could just as easily believe the world is ultimately not good and assume there is no God or at least no good God. Of course neither view is provable nor disprovable! They are nothing but assumptions!

Another might just as easily see the world as being equally good and bad (of course this being merely relative to somebody's chosen perspective) and conclude the world is neither good nor bad.....it just is. Would this world be atheistic or would it be “ruled” by an indifferent God? Either could be assumed.

Alternatively, one could just as easily measure completely velocity/relativism and conclude that there is/are no truth(s). Might the true search for truth be inspecting ourselves? What outcome might this have on the world? What if everybody were to partake of this endeavor? Could this be the beginning of the end for the ego? What might happen concerning violence and war or perhaps between their far less dramatic yet insidious siblings, argument and conflict over seemingly petty things?