Re: The Right-Wrong Hologram

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


> The ultimate truth of all things is something  much greater than us
> and our ability to prove it. Would the truth have pended on our
> ability to prove it, we would have been in trouble.


"Truth", in one popular usage, refers to consistency with our premises. 
 All that we know to be absolutely "true" is true only by definition, 
such as "One plus one equals two".  All we can ever say is that 
proposition X is consistent with propositions (or premises) Y, Z, and W. 
 And since we accept Y, Z, and W, and since not-X would contradict Y, 
Z, or W, then we regard X as true.  We determine new "truth" according 
to its being logically consistent everything else that we have already 
accepted as true.  When there seem to be contradictions, we may 
grudgingly qualify our belief in Y, or Z, or W.  For instance, if 
proposition X satisfies the same criteria we used to determine the truth 
of Y, but contradicts Y, then some adjustment may be in order.

"Truth", in another popular usage, refers to some sublime or 
transcendental resolution, some synthesis from which everything can be 
explained, or some grand answer to our yearning for meaning.

The idea of "ultimate truth" is a human fantasy.  Physicist Richard 
Feynman commented that "The theory [of Quantum Electrodynamics] 
describes all the phenomena of the physical world except the 
gravitational effect ... and radioactive phenomena....  In fact, 
biologists are trying to interpret as much as they can about life in 
terms of chemistry, and ... the theory behind chemistry is quantum 
electrodynamics."

What this means is that, knowing nothing more than how subatomic 
particles interact and their initial conditions, one could predict (with 
the help of some really remarkable computing power and within the limits 
of quantum mechanical uncertainty) the immediate future.  One does not 
need "truth" except as a crutch for our limping brains.

A chess-playing computer that just knows the rules and has a simple 
scoring system can theoretically (with sufficient time) probably do a 
pretty good job of beating some pretty good players, but the computing 
requirements quickly become impossibly huge, at least for our current 
computer designs.  So in what sense are our equations for describing the 
diffusion of ions through a semiconductor "true"?  Isn't the more basic 
and simple model of colliding particles a better representation of the 
reality of what's going on?  It's just that we can't work with the basic 
model.  The equations make idealistic assumptions, and the equations 
won't work for slightly different scenarios, while the more basic model 
adapts much better.

How do we model the formation and collisions of galaxies?  Do we have 
some grand theoretical model that magically draw the spirals and hoops 
and waves of galactic designs on our computer screens?  No, we develop a 
simple model of stars and then let a computer perform the millions of 
calculations that compute the positions of stars based on their motion 
and their gravitational attraction to other stars.

Truth is not "if you treat others as you would like to be treated, and 
you will be happy".  Truth is not "history repeats itself".  Truth is 
not "Accept yourself as you are and you will be happy" or "work hard and 
you will become wealthy".  Truth is none of the popular aphorisms that 
we associate with wisdom.  These may be useful generalizations when 
applied to particular kinds of situations, but they are not "true".

Scientists seek truth for self-gratification.  All people, including 
scientists and mathematicians, fantasize that they will become rich or 
powerful by uncovering some treasure that has eluded others.  That's 
what motivates them, in their youth, to elaborate their knowledge and 
their skills.  They find shortcuts that others have missed, or that 
their peers are too dull to see.  They create tools that let them build 
bridges and rocketships, and do genetic engineering, and explain human 
behavior.  Without some immediate gratification or some possibility of 
eventual reward, they would do none of these things.  Ask them if they 
know "Truth", and they will affirm that they do, and point to their 
successes as evidence.

This "Truth" is a fantasy.  It is a fantasy that derives from the 
presumption that there is meaning to life, that there are leaders who 
can tap into that meaning, who thereby become our heros.  And if we're 
lucky, we can be one of the heros.  Thinking that we can know "truth" 
gives us reason to strive for greater knowledge, for seeking treasure in 
unlikely places.

If you are sufficiently frustrated by your cranial limitations, you will 
invent "truth" as a shortcut to what you seek.  Some will then advertise 
it as a special gift that they can then use to control others.  Such 
"truth" is a tool for deceiving one's self and others.

Real "Truth" is mundane and unspectacular.  It is the inexorable 
grinding of physical law, made grand only in the selfish and 
self-glorifying dreams of humans.  It is perfectly equivalent to what is 
and what will be, not our attempts to explain what is and what will be, 
which can at best approximate Truth.