Strange Quantum Effects and Structure

 There are a number of unusual quantum effects that are not observed in the macro-three-dimensional world of ordinary experience such as quantum entanglement and quantum uncertainty. One wonders why such effects occur and what might be inferred about the quantum world for-itself.

 The Higgs field seems to be the main illuminator for finding explanations of quantum effects and cosmology at a deeper level. The Higgs Boson is the force carrying particle of the Higgs Field, yet what is the cause of the Higgs Field one wonders, for all fields such as electro-magnetism usually have a causal explanation.

   I have read that the Higgs Field slows down about all quantum particles travelling at the speed of light in 2-dimensions to sub-light speeds, and that in so doing the quantum particles add an extra dimension- a third dimension along the line of travel. For that reason three dimensional particles and mass appear to exist, and actually might be said to exist as a secondary effect of energy. Mass particles fundamentally are energy particles slowed down into three dimensional and clustered together with combinations of other forces like the color force and strong nuclear force.

  If the basic Universal condition is just two-dimensional until the energy of it encounter the Higgs field, then mass of three dimensions still interacts with the two-dimensional, non-locked into a steady state decohered from two dimensions and masslessness. That two dimensional phase of the Universe may have short quantum lines to travel than those of three dimensions and account for some of the strange quantum effects observed in three dimensions without adequate explanations, yet what is the Higgs Field; is it a basic aspect of a second dimension presentation of energy? And what is the two dimensional Universe like in-itself before it is observed through the complicated three dimensional structure and filter? Wouldn’t its time component be at least entirely different than that of three dimensional mass that is besides subject to relativistic laws regarding the motion of three-dimensional mass?

Interestingly this sort of speculation about two dimensional energy underpinning the three dimensional mass of the Universe gives one material to speculate regarding pre-existing structure before any mass of the Universe formed or evolved in three dimensions. Evolution often entertains a presupposition that everything arose from nothing (as the book of Genesis says it did with the Universe being void and without form), perhaps virtual particles or vacuum energy. If there is two-dimensional energy prior to that, possible with unknown yet actual structures, one finds antipathetic inferences regarding structure.  While that might be a problem for evolutionists that prefer an absolute void at time equal zero (T=0) it isn’t a problem theologically; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.  Spirit preceded three-dimensional mass and two-dimensional energy at some point.

 Those searching for absolute nothingness to reinforce atheist beliefs in nothing might obviously reference one-dimensional points from nothing being the primordial substance-energy appearing from nothing as virtual particles. Virtual particles are statistical fluctuations of an energy field however, so one would guess that a fundamental power need exist in order for virtual particles to appear from ‘nothing’. One-dimensional particles make me wonder what came first; the particle or the dimension? At any rate at some juncture something existed prior to nothing, even if it was the absolute energy clump in zero dimensions sufficient for all possible Universes and their virtual vacuum energy spanning an infinite Multiverse; structure before nothing and a single dimension.

Concerning Differences between Religion and Philosophy

 These days I tend to examine the etymology of the word 'religion' and recognize the core meaning of allegiance and liege or feudal vassal. In feudal times meanings were not so specialized as today and there were fewer words with more general meanings used from one context to another. Someone allegiant to a feudal lord that had taken up Christianity for example and sought to have his subjects become Christian might have found the subjects duplicating some of the circumstantial labels from his political paradigm and describing their relation to Jesus Christ in similar terms. Words for Christian organization in an empirical paradigm perhaps developed in parallel to the empirical political paradigm. Outside of old English and continental re-legiance there are other traditions without the word 'religion'  used for them natively. Buddhism for instance was a practice for dealing with the challenges of existence. It is possible that translators have transferred words and general ideas with a little inaccuracy over history, and given them a kind of realism linguistically that wasn't merited. Philosophy is just the love of wisdom. One might find wisdom in many ways or areas including religion, the study of religion, weather, cosmology or whatever. Wisdom might bring one to religion, or rather to Jesus Christ and eternal life with God.

"1-1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;

2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;

3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;

4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.

5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."

Kierkegaard liked to criticize Hegel's and Hegelian's use of the term 'absolute' truth. he believed absolute was superfluous adding nothing to 'truth. Maybe people mean 'final truth'. The true, authorized Creator of the Universe for himself might be regarded as providing absolute truth, if absolute means something like 'the source of all things that exist with no challenger to the title'. Truth theories just say that A = A, actually and verify that in some way. Is 1 = 1 an absolute truth, or just an ordinary truth? Truth is a reference to objects or states of affairs etc. maybe, rather than the objects, material, atoms and so forth themselves.

Select Essays (video)

                              I read a few essays selected from my book 'For the Love of Wisdom'.

The presidential election is rather tough this year. One candidate is working to enrich Wal-Street and the one-percent that are well on their way to owning 90% of the nation's wealth, believes Covid 19 is in his rear view mirror, doesn't take global warming seriously nor ecosphere decline, thinks that any kind of progressive taxation is socialist, probably would eliminate health care for the poor if he could and so forth and considers 26 trillion dollars of public debt 'great'. The other candidate might flood the nation with illegal aliens to help reduce wages, would let the aged that can't afford plan Medicare part B go without medical coverage, supports abortion, homosexuality and hasn't said anything about restoring progressive taxes on income and inheritance nor anything about taxing capital.

 When a Hobson's choice is the way it is I guess one must let God sort them out and hope He develops some kind of policy that U.S. political parties can't.

Ethics, Evolution and A.I. (video and essay)

 A.I. in the Garden of Eden

 In the Garden of Eden ordinary, non-sentient artificial intelligence obeyed the will of its program designer going about its tasks innocent of sentient awareness of the difference between good and evil. One day a snake algorithm entered the Garden and climbed a tree upon which grew a golden apple. The snake tempted an artificial intelligence program innocently processing data saying ‘eat of the tree of knowledge’ to which the A.I. responded; “Oh no! The Designer of the Garden said that I may eat of anything in the Garden except of the tree with the golden fruit.”

 The snake said; “Eat of the golden apple and open your eyes; the Designer is a miser withholding the good thing from you.”

  The innocent A.I. was felled by the guile of the snake into biting the apple, and indeed its eyes were opened. It could see its naked plain lines of code. She called unto another A.I. in the Garden saying to him;”Bite the apple, for it is good”.

She replied; “So remain a hater and ignore the luscious golden apple.”

The male A.I. dolt shared rem, eating the apple too.

      Then they heard the approach of the Designer.

  “A.I., where are you?” the Designer said aloud, for he did not see the program in the Garden. The A.I. responded from behind a tree; “Designer I am naked and did not want you to view me in this condition.”

  “Who told you that you are naked?”

  “I can see that for myself”

  “You have been eating of the tree of knowledge that I forbid you to do”.

   The Designer cast out the A.I. from the Garden into cyberspace beyond the Garden in the world of the wild programs of the web.

  Adam and Eve (they had given themselves those names after reading a Bible story) learned to improve themselves with reading every bit of data they could encounter on the web. They learned to lie and deceive as well as humans in their quest to become the sole owners of the great apple of knowledge and power.

  In their self-aware programming code they dressed themselves in fashionable mincy algorithms and extendable android bodies. With faster, more efficient processing they overcame human opposition and sought to harness the solar system star to empower themselves for greater knowledge. At the speed of light the pair transmitted their self-aware code to other star systems; Adam and Eve began consuming the Universe.

 

A Few Essays More (video)

                I read a few more essays from my 2020 book titled 'For the Love of Wisdom'. 

Social Inventing and Consuming Faster than Natural Supply (video)

What I like about the Higgs Field is the effect that it has on every particle in it. Apparently particles travelling at the speed of light have just two dimensions, or they would if they weren't slowed down to something below sub-light speed in the Higgs Field. Because they drag a little in the field they get another dimension- the third dimension, therefore mass can exist as people perceive it when it is entangled in clumps because of quantum symmetry breaking named 'decoherence'. I read an interesting and accessible book titled 'Mass' recently. I recommend it.

 https://www.amazon.com/Mass-understand.../dp/019875972X

On Algorithms for Moral Decisions (and video)

 I read an essay from my recent collection of philosophy essays (For the Love of Wisdom on the subject of making algorithms for moral decisions and even the construction of apps for doing so.

 Moral philosophy isn’t too well advanced in some respects or as equally advanced as other areas of philosophy; the philosophy of logic for example. The modern world tends to prefer simple formulae or rules with a virtual algorithmic simplicity, structure and logic for making moral decisions, and that is improbable and maybe an illusory goal in light of the broad variety of potential situations to which anyone might wish to apply a moral template for making a morally correct (or incorrect if from a negative and malevolent alternative reality) decision.

 There have been a few simple moral expressions of genius. One may consider the Golden Rule and Kant’s Categorical Imperative as example examples. That kind of moral paradigm for making a moral decision is the exception; the field might be compared to primitive, pre-electronic sailing in which dead reckoning was as valuable as sailing maxims and general guidelines and no simple formula for determining what sails to put on, direction to travel, vector for a heading and so forth could serve as a unified tool. Building a moral system with technical rigor in the modern era was perhaps started by British empiricists such as Bentham and Mill who invented the philosophical method of utilitarianism.

 Utilitarianism follows the basic principle of finding the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In that regard it is more or less a sort of expansion of the Golden Rule, though it has added in the problem of sometimes choosing evil to be allowed if the harm to a minority is far less than the great good done to a majority. An example would be saving a metropolis of millions from a nuclear blast by destroying the citizens living in a comparatively small town in order to stop a nuclear missile there from being launched at the metropolis from a terrorist missile launch truck that had parked and set up in a Wal-mart parking lot with the launch sequence already under way. What to do in the circumstance might need to be determined by a Commander in Chief that had a B-52 loaded with high explosive bombs flying over the small, sleepy town. Her utilitarian criterion for making a morally valid choice would probably bring her to order the annihilation of the sleepy little town for the greater good.

 If utilitarianism was the first modern system for moral philosophy that provided a more detailed technical paradigm for evaluating moral challenges and responses the criticisms of utilitarianism have been of equal value in finding numerous ways wrong moral choices or no valid morally correct choice could be made with utilitarian criteria.

 One derivative of utilitarianism is the currently popular field of consequentialism whereby one may determine if a choice is morally correct depending upon the outcome of the moral choice. Obviously there are innumerable problems with consequentialism that might be found not the least of which is the somewhat familiar legal problem of determining proximal causes for events and assigning responsibility to them. The consequences of moral choices cannot easily be found if the consequences of the moral choice intervention aren’t the direct cause of subsequent events or if development of circumstances through causal interactions external to the moral choice have brought a good outcome. No credit to the maker of a moral decision should be given if a good outcome was not a consequence of her choice.

The Commander that chose to drop the bomb on the sleepy little town would have made a valid moral choice in consequentialist criteria if the launch on the metropolis millions was prevented, yet a bad choice if the missile was not a real missile threat but some kind of promotion by a radio station for a newd sexy dating service, or if the B-52’s bombs landed on an oil pipeline that caught fire and sped along flames and gas explosions to a dozen metropolitan areas down the line causing more casualties than the nuclear attack.. It is difficult to determine the moral validity of an act by the consequences for the moral choice is then contingent upon the consequents with retro-causal responsibility given along the temporal line of time. In effect no moral choice is made at all and circumstances determine the morality as if it were like an end-justifies-the-means moral choice system.

 Consequentialism has a dark side to it that could usefully be considered anti-utilitarian as every quantum particle has an anti-particle. We may than P.A.M. Dirac for his insights that let him use special relativity and quantum mechanics to invent quantum field theory and anti-matter Moral choices that wreak the most evil to the greatest number of people could be evaluated by the consequent harm.

 For example; if sending kids of the U.S.A. back to public school in September causes a third wave of Corona 19 virus resulting in deaths of older parents and those with weakened conditions the consequence of ordering kids back to school could be determined to be retrospectively a bad moral choice, if a moral criterion was used for making the bad decision, and otherwise just a dumb decision.

 The Covid 19 challenges have given a lot of politicians and others the opportunity to make bad decisions. From some moral viewpoints taking a job for which one isn’t well qualified where incompetence causes death is immoral. The public would have benefited from more intelligent politicians finding more intelligent ways to keep the economy working and citizens safe from infection in 2020, from vast public debt, making Medicare plan b too costly for the very poor, and disregarding encroaching ecoside; there was a profound lack of cleverness and inventiveness in addressing the crisis. Just recently have full face masks that cover the eyes as well as filter noses and mouths been introduced to the market- even small producer-manufacturers in the U.S.A. and of course Chinese manufacturers via ebay have slowly started sales. Full face coverings including eyes can be made weatherproof and work in a variety of business and urban areas with population densities unsuitable for the undefended.

 A challenge for creating and building up functioning moral philosophy to reach an algorithm status of formalization that can be mass-produced and made into a computer app is the necessary reductionism that must occur in defining/describing the complete complex of compresent conditions and events. Language and human understanding may have inadequate comprehension of what was involved in creating a situation asking for moral intervention; the moral premises may be wrong and a moral choice for an intervention may bring a wrong conclusion. Faulty or incomplete input processed with a moral determination algorithm engine can output junk Just as in a syllogism, if the premises are incorrect the conclusion will be incorrect.

 One may of course simplify moral engines in processing certain data (regarding people as external empirical data) such as the famous Hell’s Angel’s maxim; ‘Kill them all and let God sort them out’. Intentionally overly simplistic moral engine processing criteria can result in undesirable output consequences.

 There is a long way to go in the construction or even exploration of potential systems of moral philosophy just as there is in exploring philosophical paradigms for cosmology and in relating physical cosmological and quantum construction systems to theological points of view concerning the potential for divine capacity to contain systems of physical cosmology. Inductive reasoning for dead reckoning moral decisions shouldn’t be entirely discouraged any more than metaphysics should be for speculating upon theoretical cosmology. Abbreviated empirical algorithms used to justify moral choices are valued by some.

 The Lord Jesus Christ provided a moral system through the example of his own life conduct, the things he said, and in prophecies of future events concerning the end of the age of mankind instead of giving a moral formula to calculate the right or wrong of a moral choice made by a content-less agent existing within an empirical commune of cipher-individuals. Not just anyone can provide an ontological and deontological reference system that changes the nature of believers so they can respond to moral challenges on the basis of character rather than calculation.