• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Correctness

tmdoca

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Messages
69
The uncertainty in universal correctness (σ_c) is inversely proportional to the uncertainty in happiness (σ_h).
σ_c∙σ_h≥1

And if you take that confusion of emotion to relate to lack of happiness, then another way of saying this is:

The more explicitly defined universal correctness is, the more explicitly defined your happiness is.
 
The uncertainty in universal correctness (σ_c) is inversely proportional to the uncertainty in happiness (σ_h).
σ_c∙σ_h≥1

And if you take that confusion of emotion to relate to lack of happiness, then another way of saying this is:

The more explicitly defined universal correctness is, the more explicitly defined your happiness is.
@tmdoca are you attempting to use the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as a metaphor for happiness due to scientific knowledge of the physical universe?

Otherwise what you have said does not make sense to me at all.
 
maybe i'm just smarter than you all!! no thats not it.


I was trying to say that what is correct and incorrect is subjective, and when thought of otherwise it causes unnecessary stress. I thought it sounded good at the time though, I promise!!!
 
But its not all subjective.

The distance to the Moon at any given time is not subjective.

Yup, I just meant a psuedo-mix between morality and choosing what to believe in at any given moment. If what is true is what we perceive, then get corrective lenses.

EDIT: ^Sounds a lot like I'm saying believe in whatever to make you happy even if it isn't true. I guess maybe I mean find out if it's true for yourself instead.
 
It still makes no sense and it's a terrible metaphor IMO.
Indeed, perhaps did not even go to English class...
maybe i'm just smarter than you all!! no thats not it.
Wow, you worked that all out by yourself? You may be a prodigy living with Aspergers, you never know!
How does one go about in believing something one believes to be false?

ebola
Psychosis?
Psychedelics IMO
Ahhhh theres the answer, good one!
 
Indeed, perhaps did not even go to English class...

Wow, you worked that all out by yourself? You may be a prodigy living with Aspergers, you never know!

Psychosis?

Ahhhh theres the answer, good one!

Well, I still hold that there is enough information in my OP (however unclear) to arrive at my conclusion that it's better to question everything than to risk not doing so. The thing is, I was thinking about it in my car, and by the time I got home, I was having trouble integrating the whole line of reasoning already. Maybe that should have been a sign, right??
 
A big part of Sartre's Book being and nothingness is dedicated to exactly that question. You can find some of his ideas on wikipedia. Bad faith Self-deception
I generally do not use wikepedia for information, but thanks for the info. I will look up Satre's essays at the library later and see if i can find anything about using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Unlikely:
jean-paul-sartre.jpg

Well, I still hold that there is enough information in my OP (however unclear) to arrive at my conclusion that it's better to question everything than to risk not doing so. The thing is, I was thinking about it in my car, and by the time I got home, I was having trouble integrating the whole line of reasoning already. Maybe that should have been a sign, right??
I still do not understand your first post tbh, i'll check some books on existentialism and abstract thinking later.
 
I will try make this as simple as possible...

After some reading and revision:

the basic premise behind Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle from a quantum mechanical viewpoint is "It is impossible to measure simultaneously both the position and velocity (or momentum) of a microscopic particle with absolute accuracy or certainty." This relates to wave particle duality ie that no physical event can be described as only a point particle or wave. So the more one knows about the physics of a particle (velocity, direction) the less we will know about its position, which means using probability thus leading to quantum entanglement. I prefer momentum, but I think that will confuse things here.

From that viewpoint you may be getting the Uncertainty Principle confused with "Observer effect". That is because what you refer to has happiness, confusion, emotion is actually electrical and chemical signals in your brain, which is observable.

I can see that you are using the standard deviation symbol so perhaps looking at it from a mathematical viewpoint. After further research of existential and abstract thinking you may have an entirely different viewpoint to that of myself who is thinking about this from a physicists viewpoint.

From a mathematical viewpoint, it is possible that your metaphor could work, albeit a poor metaphor, due to many people with other philosophies and views not understanding what you are on about.

In one of Satres works he defines facticity (better to use factuality than truth, as truth gets messy) based on "being and nothingness". From this conceptual view you may be disregarding a significant part of reality, that is the viewpoints of physical scientists and engineers (generally, and perhaps most mathematicians) to use this metaphor.

This view may allow you a large amount of existential freedom. However ones facticity depends on ONES OWN views and not those of others.

Furthermore, the concept of facticity depends on the viewpoint of the philosopher describing it. During "moods" facticity can have an enigmatic appearance ie you can accept it or deny it – this came from a German philosophy known as Geworfenheit. Yet if you look at facticity from Satre future events have an impact on your facticity.

What I take away from this is that you are more than welcome to think of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle as a metaphor for happiness, confusion, nothingness…. What ever you want, but others will not agree with you, which incidentally is what is happening here. Continue to dream on (or trip out, drive into a fence, or what ever else you would do in your car whilst thinking about this) my friend :)
 
trees please said:
So youre saying the distance to the moon from your home in canada is the same distance as someone in thailand [if distance is to be "objective"]? cus that wouldnt be right..

No, that is not what "subjective" and "objective" denote. To be a subject is to exist as an entity who perceives and acts upon an object. An "object" is an entity external to a subject, situated in relation to this subject. For a phenomenon to be 'subjective', it must be constructed in relation to a particular participant's experiences. "Objective" can denote multiple things. Most commonly, 'objective' phenomena transpire and hold certain characteristics irrespective of the subject that engages them. But we can also talk about objective things merely as that which 'stands before' a subject as its other (the subject may perceive, willfully manipulate, face constraint by, etc. this object). Thus, "subjective" does not mean "variable", although many aspects of subjectivity can vary (between or within subjects), even when elicited by identical objective conditions.

ebola
 
So youre saying the distance to the moon from your home in canada is the same distance as someone in thailand? cus that wouldnt be right..

No, but it's the same distance for me as it is for Ms.G when she's on top riding me.

It would be the same for anyone in the location (reference frame) as myself, and an instrument with no consciousness could measure it. It's not open to one's subjective interpretation, and instead is a brute fact.
 
Top