IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS
WHY NO-ONE WILL EVER POSSESS THE TRUTH
Deutsch: http://peters-peter.info/
Espanol: http://02p.info/
Information about our World comes to creatures in a first step by
evolution, a genetic process that has shaped the hardware, our senses and our
brain. In a second step, by means of this hardware and signals as light, sound,
etc. information comes to individuals. In mankind language is the main tool for
the distribution of this second step information among individuals. Every
individual constitutes a very abstract representation of our World from this
first step and second step information in his brain, and the naives of us are ever taking this representation for the
Real Thing, we others only most time. This abstract representation of our World
is different in every individual and depends mainly on the actual and overall
information-input. In every individual open to the world the actual
information-input is changing continuously, and so the abstract representation
of the World in his brain is changing continuously. We can hope to improve this
abstract representation of the World in our brain more and more by improving
our information more and more, especially by means of science, but it will ever
be impossible to reach identity with the Real World.
10 008 Years ago: Anonymous
10 009 Years ago: Anonymous 28
February 2009
10 010 Years
ago: Anonymous (Now, 05 February 2010)
10 011 Years
ago: Anonymous 12 January 2011
10012 Years ago: Anonymous (Now, 03 April
2012)
Reproduction is free
Responsible: Peter Peters
Welcome at peter-peters.info
THREE (Unless in
the state of emergency) VERY RECOMMENDABLE WORKING HYPOTHESES:
‘What others are able to do, I as well am able
to do’: This can be a mistake. However, it is a recommendable working
hypothesis.
‘What others are able to do, you don’t have to
be able to do’: Anyone who tells this to me is my enemy: This can be a mistake.
However, it is a recommendable working hypothesis.
‘You shall not ask questions’: Anyone who tells this to me wants to
deceive me: This can not be a mistake; this is always
a very recommendable working hypothesis.
SUGGESTION ON A CONSISTENT PICTURE OF OUR WORLD
The aim of
this article is to give an understandable description, with some explanations,
of the point of view that our picture of the World has an in principle
hypothetical, not dogmatic, character in respect to the Real World; that we do
have a lot of information about this Real World but that it is impossible for
us to have knowledge about this Real World:
The word knowledge, a dogmatic word that signifies certainty too, can not be applied to the relationship of our information
to the Real World. If referring to the Real World, many inconsistencies can be
avoided by using not dogmatic words instead of dogmatic ones, e.g. extent of
information or information instead of knowledge.
The only objective unit is the entire Universe.
Living beings (And
possibly still hypothetical technical structures with similar dealing with
information), are dividing this unit, according to subjective points of view, up
into subjective subunits. These subjective subunits are constructed, in the
broadest sense, according to usefulness points of view. These subjective
subunits are subject to change concerning their number, size and content: The
change is driven by the flow of information.
The aim of the division of the Universe into subjective subunits
according to usefulness points of view is the construction of a picture of the
World that enables the most economic use of the World. This aim is an intrinsic
part of the process of evolution.
The fundamental acquisition of information is carried out genetically.
Useful hypotheses manifesting themselves in individuals are often passed on to
their descendants and accumulate, as genetic information, in a gene pool. The
harmful hypotheses and the ones that, at that time, are less useful to the
individual only seldom make it into the gene pool: The hypotheses not
falsified are kept in use and the hypotheses falsified are rejected.
Particularly because of the randomness of the hypotheses and of the
randomness of the environment of the selection there are many sorts of gene
pools: The one of the fruit fly, humans, the blue whale; of all types of beings
with exchange of genetic information. A somewhat different picture of the World
manifests itself in every gene pool and his individuals.
A gene pool can, according to its function, be regarded as a dynamic
information package and his individuals as partial manifestations and sense
organs of this information package.
The genetic information is in a process of constant change. By means of
random changes in the genes new hypotheses are generated again and again, even
ones concerning e.g. the ears, the eyes, the brain. Usually a gene pool
develops itself and adapts itself to the actual environment by means of these
random changes in the genes and selection of the individuals. This selection is very uncomfortable
for us individuals, but to turn off selection without replacement is not
recommendable. However, this selection can be replaced, saving us individuals,
by selective passing on of genes, and this with methods already existing or
coming soon. By this selective passing on of genes the gene pool can be
supplied with the information he needs to maintain the quality of his sense
organs, the individuals, avoiding the law of the jungle to do the work for us.
However, without thorough control and discussion and without comprehensive
strategies against the trap of intraspecific selection, the danger remains that
an accumulation of too many harmful hypotheses may, as without selection of the
individuals, lead to the decline of the gene pool or even to our extinction.
We enlarge our individual and super individual or collective extent of
information by means of manifestations of our genetic information, our sense
organs, our brain, again and again checking new hypotheses on their usefulness.
The expansion of our extent of information reveals new possible aims to us and
pursuing new aims we enlarge our extent of information.
Some ways to new aims require us to leave some concepts or subunits we
took for granted because this concepts or subunits have come to us mainly
genetically. The fact that this concepts, like matter,
space, time do have limited applicability to our World shows us that they do
have an in principle hypothetical character.
What we believe to be our World is our picture of Something represented
by this picture. This Something we can only approach by building hypotheses and
testing these hypotheses. What we believe to be our World is a very abstract
representation of our World in our brain, a manifestation of a collection of
information coming from genetic, individual and super individual or collective
sources. And this information is generated testing random hypotheses by
selection of these random hypotheses according to their usefulness in random
situations. It is important to be aware of the fact that
this information is not knowledge: Because knowledge is a dogmatic concept that
signifies certainty too it can not be applied to the
relation of our information to our World.
The more comprehensive our picture of the World, the nearer we are at
what is represented by means of this picture. But the identity of our picture
of the World with this World is in principle impossible and therefore our
picture of the World can never be perfect; it can never be true. Only the
Universe itself can be the whole truth about the Universe. With respect to the
Universe our picture of the Universe can only have the quality of a picture.
The emotionally controlled irrational assumption of the identity of our
picture of the World with this World is a useful working hypothesis in the
practical weekday and in some other areas. However, using this hypothesis in
some border areas, some of the best minds have lost much time and strength: In
science the working hypothesis of the identity of our picture of the World with
this World is not recommendable.
Whether a part of our picture of the World is true or only a hypothesis,
this is not a recommendable question. But the assumption that every part of our
picture of the World can be improved or replaced, this is a very recommendable
working hypothesis: To adopt ones picture of the World
at the appearance of new information is one of the billions year old strategies
of life on earth to which we owe our existence.
Among
other, the sentence ascribed to Socrates: ’I know that I do not know’ and the
sentence ascribed to Heraclites the Ephesians’: ‘Everything flows’, can be
interpreted as a reference to their assumption of an in principle hypothetical
character of our picture of the World.
On occasion a very recommendable link: http://google.com/
Continuation and Conclusion
Supposing our picture
of the world
has an in principal hypothetical, not dogmatic character, avoiding by this supposition
severe contradictions, experiments can not establish objective facts. Experiments can only bring about useful hypothesis about objective facts and in general more than one
hypothesis will be useful. So different scientists may come up
with different useful Hypothesis concerning the same objective fact ore the same scientist
may come up with different useful hypotheses concerning the same objective fact.
To avoid problems
of interpretation it is very
important to distinguish objective facts, which are
only indirectly, by means of
hypotheses, accessible to us, from
the hypothesis pointing at this objective fact, and to be aware
that more than one hypothesis
can be useful
for the same objective fact.
From this point
of view the
interpretation of arXiv.org > quant
ph > arXiv.1902.05080 Experimental rejection of observer/independence in the quantum world , has to be
interpreted as the evidence that
there are different but at
least partly equivalent useful hypothesis concerning the same objective fact in the quantum/world.
This can be interpreted as a reference to the
hypothetical character of our picture
of the world.
Matter is sometimes considered
being a particle, sometimes a wave. As well particle as
wave are hypotheses concerning the same, not directly accessible, objective fact and therefore there is no
contradiction.
Matter and particle are concepts
integrated in our “hardware” as fundamental facts, being a big advantage in the practical weekday
but making it very difficult to be aware
of its hypothetical
character. (In this case, a very useful
error has eliminated the logic).
Fundamental facts are only
indirectly, by means of hypotheses,
accessible to beings as we
know them, evolved by choosing
random hypothesis according to usefulness
points of view.
The appearance and disappearance of particles in an physical theory or hypothesis is
not contradictory if considered part of the theory
and not of the fundamental fact the hypothesis
points to.
Only hypothesis and concepts without contradictions can be tested on reality
in a way
2
that leads to
useful information about our world.
A singularity is a concept that contradicts
itself, with a cube the form of
a ball this is only easier to
recognize.
The qualities of the system of
registration are qualities of the
hypothesis and should be distinguished from the qualities
of the entity the hypothesis refers to, the entity
we can only
approach by hypothesis, that is indirectly.
Hypothesis are not identical with what they
point at and they do have a restricted area of validity
concerning the entity they point
at.
Hypothesis can be useful
or useless, but not true or wrong,
because the hypothesis are not identical with what they point
at, as our “ hardware” tells us in an irrational manner.
The irrational
assumption that our picture of
the world is identical with
this world seems to be
hardwired in our “ hardware “ (The usefulness point of view is
strong enough to override logic). But how can a very
abstract picture of the world
in our had, a collection of abstract
hypothesis, be identical with the world?. But it is
very probable that we humans and most
other living beings would not have survived in a brutal world without this
hardwired irrational assumption.
But now, in an at least for us humans partially
tamed world and in order to find new
hypothesis useful as tools for
handling our world in an more efficient way we
can, now and then, avoid this
inborn irrational assumption
as it has
already be done, partially involuntary ,
finding the quantum world.
Hypothesis are instruments for handling of
what they point at. Hypothesis that can not be used
as instruments for handling of
what they point at are useless
as hypotheses but are sometimes useful
as means for discovering other useful hypothesis.
The working hypothesis of evolution seems
to be the
following:
The only objective unit is the
universe .To use the
universe in the best manner possible, this objective unit is subdivided
in hypothetical subjective units which are,
according to usefulness points of view, changing
in number, content and size, driven by
the flow of information gathered by the hypothesis tested for their
usefulness on the real world.
We owe our existence to
this working hypothesis: But this working hypothesis does not
3
lead to certainties but to hypothesis. Hypothesis are dynamic and open to adaptation and change and are conditions for evolution to work.
Our emotional desire to certainty, to
something absolute, is
strong enough for us to be
easily convinced by the claim
that some story is telling
us the “absolute truth” about the universe.
But this “absolute truth” can only be
maintained by directly or indirectly
prohibiting to be critically questioned
and our access to reality is
by critically questioning our hypothesis. Therefore, by avoiding to
question our hypothesis, we are in danger to
use more and more unquestioned and therefore unproved hypothesis as instruments in dealing with our
world, loosing more and more of our
effectiveness. Ineffective societies statistically tend to be
absorbed, often by force, by
more effective ones or to
destroy themselves. Many examples of this
can be found,
for instance, looking at the history of the
last ten thousand years.
Some had
or have, as for instance
Karl Popper, the opinion that possibly there is no final theory
for physics , but only a infinite succession of more and more
hypotheses. Something similar
may be true
concerning our whole picture of
the world.
Supposing our
whole picture of the world
to be hypothetical,
it will be this way for
ever, no matter we do not like it.
But we are
lucky to live at a time when,
for us humans,
it jet is
clearly to be seen that
without “absolute truth”
we can get
very far. Even we living beings
are made without “absolute truth” and to be made
without “absolute truth” has even made
possible the dynamic process of evolution
we owe our
existence.
In all probability we living beings
do not have a better access to the real world
than our mother, the evolution,
and for science to succeed the
strategy of evolution is too
the best one.
We living
beings are respectively the manifestation of a hypothesis put to the test
and the sense organs of live on earth.
Technology
does provide us humans with
extensions of our sense organs, which does lead
us to find new useful hypothesis for a more efficient
use of our
world and this in such a
rapid manner, that it needs severest
caution for us to get
unimaginably far.
München, 07 07 2019
Peter Peters m@peter-peters.info
4