The Principle of Uncertainty
Philosophical (PUP/PIF)
Jocax, November 2008
Summary: We will establish a philosophical-scientific principle that is similar
but more comprehensive, that the principle of Heisenberg uncertainty.
Key words:
Philosophy, Uncertainty, PIF, Philosophical Principle of Uncertainty.
Quantum
Mechanics, which is the part of physics that studies the microcosm, is a
fundamental principle, known as the "Uncertainty
Principle". This principle discovered by Werner Heisenberg,
establishes the physical impossibility to know (or learn measure) both the
position and velocity of a particle with higher accuracy than a certain
constant [1]. This imprecision is considered to be a fundamental law of
quantum mechanics, and such uncertainty does not depend on any technology, and
is considered an attribute of the universe.
Since
the advent of "Expanded Science" [2] we know that it is impossible to
even refute a theory as Popper thought. So everything pointed to a more
comprehensive and less uncertain of the universe, such uncertainty should cover
our observations. Based on these findings I will propose a principle,
which I called "Uncertainty Principle of Philosophy" or simply PIF,
which reads as follows:
"It's
impossible to know if some observation, measurement, or perception, in fact
corresponds to reality."
We
can take reality as something that has existence independently of any
interpretation, processing, or imagination.
Probably
many have had this same idea, but not formalized because since the advent of
the concept of "solipsism" [3], we know that is impossible to prove
that anything that is to be, in fact, reality. And worse than that, even
solipsism itself can be an illusion, since the "I" that realizes may
also not be real as shown in "I think therefore I exist!"
[4]. In other words, the very "being" who observes, thinks,
feels and can not exist outside of another level of
interpretation.
Furthermore,
and most importantly, is that even if we take our own reality as real, that is,
which exists independently of any interpretation of a higher level, as is
supposed by science, yet we have problems: Still can not
take no notice as being real. To understand this, let's steal the example
of the "shoebox" the essay on "Expanded Science" [2]:
Suppose
we are walking down the street and noticed a shoe box with a brick
inside. We can conclude from our observation that what we see is a shoe
box with a brick? Unfortunately the answer is no, because in principle,
there could be one of the following - possible infinite - when holding a brick
being who is not a brick:
-
The volume was actually a battery-operated radio mimicking a brick.
- The volume was something that resembled a brick, but it was not a
brick.
- A momentary brain short-circuit did you imagine a brick in an empty
box.
- A new weapon of alpha waves was tested on you for you to imagine the
brick.
- Someone created a holographic image of the brick so you thought it was
real.
- etc.etc.
These
types of mistakes, though unlikely, can happen at any level of observation,
whether scientific or not. And that justifies the PIF as a fundamental
philosophical and scientific principle about knowledge limit.
References
[1]
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princ%C3%ADpio_da_incerteza_de_Heisenberg
[2]
Expanded Science
http://www.genismo.com/logicatexto25.htm
[3]
Solipsismo
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsismo
[4]
"I think, soon there!"
Http://www.genismo.com/logicatexto29.htm