This sort of argument has been raised many times over the centuries, both by
rationalists and by their opponents, but it is based the fundamental error
of conflating science with ethics. Science deals with matters of fact; it
does not comment on whether these facts are good or bad, beautiful or ugly,
desirable or undesirable. These latter qualities - values - are necessarily
subjective, and lie in the domain of ethics and aesthetics. So of course,
we're all going to die, and so will everyone we care about, and so will the
world itself, eventually; but if you can convince yourself that life is
worth living up until that moment, then life is worth living. Saying that
life is worth living, or that you believe it is bad to kill, are simply
statements of your values and feelings, and as such are valid independently
of any scientific theory.
>From: "cesar314.domain.name.hidden" <cesar314.domain.name.hidden.com>
>Reply-To: cesar314.domain.name.hidden
>To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>Subject: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential
>Nihilism
>Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:04:14 -0500 (EST)
>
>
>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!
>
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
Received on Wed Jan 21 2004 - 07:31:46 PST