Home / The Davies Certainty Principle (Two-Minute Case Against The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)  
Image of The Davies Certainty Principle (Two-Minute Case Against The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)

Most of you are probably aware of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It states that it is not possible to know the precise position and momentum of subatomic particles such as electrons. (There is much debate as to whether or not this principle applies to the macroscopic world, though recently many have started to postulate that perhaps it does, despite the fact that there is no more evidence for this than there is for the assertion it can be applied to the subatomic realm.) We are going to focus on certain interpretations of this claim which assert not only that it is not possible to know both precisely due to limitations in measuring these properties, but those along the lines of the Copenhagen Interpretation which asserts that electrons (and so forth) do not have exact values for these properties.

However, position is a relational concept which relates the geometrical separation/location of entities. To exist is to exist somewhere - to have a definite location somewhere - which can be measured by some means (perhaps not with absolute precision due to practical limitations such as the fact that the measuring method is not quite precise enough for instance). This means that to exist is to have a position; the alternative is to exist nowhere - to not exist. It is one thing to claim that it is not possible to correctly measure its exact position, but quite another to claim it has no exact position. This is to claim that the entity does not exist anywhere in particular; that it does not exist in a certain place with definite boundaries. But all entities which exist, by necessity, exist somewhere and are finite, so it is possible to assign a position to them using appropriate units of measurement. To exist is to exist somewhere.

A is A. An entity is what it is and has a specific nature.

To exist is to have identity; to be something is to be something. A is A. An entity is what it is and has a specific nature. This is an axiom of cognition and of knowledge or, indeed, any statement at all. Even the claim that something defies this axiom depends on it. If that was to be true, that claim relies on the fact that the entity in question is what it is and will not magically change its nature so that the claim is no longer true that next moment. Any assertion that denies this axiom (and indeed any other axiom) is self-defeating and relies on the acceptance of the axiom. (This is a good example of how irrationality is self-defeating.)

An implication of this fact is that because an entity has a specific nature, it has specific properties and that, under certain conditions, it will always act in a certain way, according to its nature. It will have a certain mass under certain conditions dictated by its nature. Similarly, under certain conditions, it will always have a certain velocity, as governed by its nature under certain conditions. To deny that it will always have an exact mass and velocity is to deny the fact that it has exact properties which give rise to the concepts of mass and velocity. To deny that it has exact momentum is to claim that both are uncertain and hence to deny that the entity is subject to the Law of Identity. But this is not the case - to exist is to possess identity. No amount of clever math can change this fact.

To claim that electrons (or anything else for that matter) do not have exact positions or exact momentums is to deny the Law of Identity, upon which the laws of logic depend, and upon which SCIENCE depends. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. It requires that one first identify that things are what the are with definite properties. Without this identification, logic cannot proceed. The Uncertainty Principle, therefore, attempts to undermine logic and, by implication, science. No amount of math which seems to match observation can justify this, nor is any interpretation valid if it proceeds from accepting this irrational idea.

Of course, at the root of this idea is skepticism which I have discussed before. Skepticism is one of the roots of anti-scientific thinking, and this sort of nonsense is what skepticism leads to. It was skepticism that lead to the acceptance that we cannot really know reality, including the exact properties or aspects of it. That, then, developed into this nonsense.

Again, we see that scientists are shooting themselves in the head. Bad thinking leads only to worse thinking, not good thinking or the truth. If unchecked, thinking like this will be the end of science; not the start of the road to its conclusion at the ends of some Grand Unified Theory.

Embrace logic and reason and you can do science and further it. Embrace skepticism and so forth and you embrace ignorance, blindness, mysticism and ultimately death.

Your choice is reason and life, or death. I am certain which I will choose!


Original posting by DwayneDavies on Aug 14, 2011 at http://www.braincrave.com/viewblog.php?id=622

You need to be logged in to comment.
search only within braincrave

About braincrave


We all admire beauty, but the mind ultimately must be stimulated for maximum arousal. Longevity in relationships cannot occur without a meeting of the minds. And that is what Braincrave is: a dating venue where minds meet. Learn about the thoughts of your potential match on deeper topics... topics that spawn your own insights around what you think, the choices you make, and the actions you take.

We are a community of men and women who seek beauty and stimulation through our minds. We find ideas, education, and self-improvement sexy. We think intelligence is hot. But Braincrave is more than brains and I.Q. alone. We are curious. We have common sense. We value and offer wisdom. We experiment. We have great imaginations. We devour literacy. We are intellectually honest. We support and encourage each other to be better.

You might be lonely but you aren't alone.

Sep, 2017 update: Although Braincrave resulted in two confirmed marriages, the venture didn't meet financial targets. Rather than updating our outdated code base, we've removed all previous dating profiles and retained the articles that continue to generate interest. Moving to valME.io's platform supports dating profiles (which you are welcome to post) but won't allow typical date-matching functionality (e.g., location proximity, attribute similarity).

The Braincrave.com discussion group on Second Life was a twice-daily intellectual group discussions typically held at 12:00 PM SLT (PST) and 7:00 PM SLT. The discussions took place in Second Life group chat but are no longer formally scheduled or managed. The daily articles were used to encourage the discussions.

Latest Activity