Your conclusion that "there is no scientific justification for morals of any
sort, only that in the Darwinistic sense" depends on the definition of
"scientific." Without "morals" an argument could be made that mankind would
not exist - it would have self-destructed. Perhaps that is "scientific
justification" for morals, at least as far as mankind is concerned. And
perhaps our lack of morals will yet wipe us out through WMD, or other evil.
Norman
----- Original Message -----
From: <cesar314.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential
Nihilism
>
> I am writing my high school senior project term paper on defending ethical
and existential nihilism based on quantum and multiverse theory. I was
looking for any comments on the subject. Here I place my outline for said
paper:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> A Scientific Basis for Ethical and Existential Nihilism
>
> I. Introduction
> A. Societal habit of classification of moral disciplines
> B. Difference of anyone to a possibly fitting classification makes
such divvying impossible
> C. One must evaluate the individual sets of moral principles to
establish their validity
> II. What is ethical?-Establishing a Basis for Reference
> A. Definition of ethic/moral
> 1. Participation/contribution
> 2. Action
> 3. Earning
> B. Earning as an ethical point for reference
> 1. Earning governed by psychological history
> 2. Psychology influenced by the physical
> 3. The physical is governed by causality
> C. Ethic is debunked by the causal nature of space-time and quantum
superpositioning
> III. Space-Time and Quantum Physics form a basis for inevitability
> A. The "So-Called Relativity Theory" Perspective
> 1. The space-time manifold is a substrate upon which things
exist
> 2. The future condition of events or anything can be determined
using equations to model energy and position over time
> 3. All things have a definite past, present, and future,
ontologically
> 4. Limited by information acquisition
> a) speed of light
> b) infinitesimal spaces governed by quantum theory
> B. Quantum Physics Perspective
> 1. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
> a) impossible to know one's future
> b) definite past
> 2. Schrödinger's wave function
> a) Schrödinger's Cat Paradox
> b) superposition of waves
> c) collapse of the wave function
> d) Copenhagen Interpretation (CHI)
> e) Hugh Everett III's theory that all possible resultant
collapses can be defined by a superposition in Hilbert Space
> C. Multiverse Theory-Multiple Universes in which all possibilities
are played out
> 1. There is a total number of possible arrangements of matter
based on the limits of the entropy of space-time, where the total is equal
to the permutation of particles and energies and dependent on the total
number of particles
> 2. All these possibilities are superimposed upon one another to
form an infinite-dimensional Hilbert Space in which the wave function
resides, evolving over time
> a) Each universe is a subset, a space-time system in which
one arrangement of matter exists
> b) One space-time event sequence is merely the use of time
and physical law/rules to determine a valid progression of one universal
space to another
> c) This creates multiple space-time pathways, each of which
encompasses a version of the past, present, and future
> d) Each point has a past with possible futures to be
determined upon collapse of the wave function
> e) Our own physical, present reality, interpreted as a
resulting situation of the collapse, is one point in space-time with a
sequence of probability states with the same past configuration
> f) This course of action leading to each possible reality
yields multiple pathways from the beginning to the end of time
> g) Each point in time has nearly infinite future
possibilities, but each path contains only itself-one path with two
endpoints-essentially arriving from the restraints of causality on the
topological set
> IV. Philosophical Implications
> A. Every person has a definite past
> 1. Every person is the result of the path of space-time upon
which its universe's energy has traveled
> 2. Because of causality and entropy bounds, one has no control
over the past
> 3. A future is simply the result of influences of the wave
function and its probabilities on space-time
> B. A person's future is inevitable
> 1. No matter what decision one chooses, the psyche's action is
defined and controlled by the wave function in its space
> 2. All decisions, choices, and outcomes are predefined, if only
in a superposition of probabilities
> 3. This leads to a lack of personal contribution on the part of
the person.
> C. A person is not to be held accountable for what he/she cannot
control
> 1. If a person cannot control the set of probabilities of the
outcome, then are they really making a decision?
> a) Yes, they do define a pathway,
> b) But, there is no preference of one over the other
physically, except what is determined by the probabilities defined by the
wave function
> c) No one outcome is more likely then another with respect
to its predefined wave-function probability of occurrence within the Hilbert
Space
> 2. Not having any preference of one course of action over
another causes a void of emotional imperative
> D. The lack of responsibility on the part of the individual results
in a demoralization of human will
> 1. Human will is merely the result of a manifestation of a
pathway of the wave function
> a) There is no earning, as everything is determined as a
whole of the state of the universe-everything is part of the same system and
coordinates the various conditions for future outcomes
> b) If there is no preferred human will, there is no moral
imperative
> 2. Morals are the principles of conduct governing an individual
or a group
> a) This is devoid of valid background
> (i) There is only the physical that actually governs
someone
> (ii) An ethic is "a guiding philosophy" that drives
people to an end based on moral obligation
> (iii) They have no sound logical basis, s there is no
preferred action over another
> b) This yields a demoralization of the ends of ethics to
which people are judged
> V. Conclusion
> A. Societal Taboo
> 1. Societal taboo is the aversion of standard moral or ethical
principle
> 2. Because any ethic/moral end is void, so are society's totems
and taboos
> B. Existential Nihilism
> 1. In addition to the invalid social ends, there is no
scientific justification for morals of any sort, only that in the
Darwinistic sense
> 2. Everything is merely its own existence in the Hilbert
Space-time framework
> 3. Thus, existential and ethical nihilism replaces moralism.
> ----------------------------------------
> Feel free to comment on this. Is my logic sufficiently justified? If not,
how so? Thanks
>
> --Cesar C.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
> The most personalized portal on the Web!
>
>
Received on Wed Jan 21 2004 - 00:04:02 PST