a personal take on Absolute Truths and and relativism.
After reading Stephen Hawkins' "A Brief History of Time", two things got stuck in my mind: the first one was the hypothesis of a cyclic universe (since Hawkins just treats the material part of the Cosmos), in which matter expands to a point and then contracts to a singularity point, from which a new Big Bang creates a new cycle of the Universe (which, as a leisure fact, could allow something like a Galactus if a being is able to survive such explosion).
The second fact I got from this book is presented in its final chapters, in which Hawkins start talking about the culmination of the determination of the Unified Field Theory and its physical, psychological and universal implications. For a quick definition here's something I got from wikipedia:
"In physics, unified field theory is an attempt to unify all the fundamental forces and the interactions between elementary particles into a single theoretical framework. The term was coined by Einstein who attempted to reconcile the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism in a single field theory. His quest proved elusive and a unified field theory, sometimes grandiosely referred to as the Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), has remained the holy grail for physicists, the long-sought theory which would explain the nature and behavior of all matter. "
Hawkins states that the determination of this framework would also allow us to determine not only the nature and behavior of all matter, but as the physical theory of particles basically reduces all interactions and forces to matter in sub-particle level, it would allow us to determine the nature and behavior of everything, thus allowing an Absolute Truth.
Scary thing, isn't it?.
Now, assuming that this is possible (and I do have faith in the guy), there are two little problems with this statement, one of them is Free Will. Imagine this framework is used by its discoverer to determine how his life will be, or how will he react to a certain situation. Now he knows how he would act, but it's conscious that he can have other reactions, thus, the Unified Field Theory becomes relative to him and his circumstance, turning this "absolute" truth in just another option in his life.
Picture Neo and the Architech in Matrix Reloaded.
The other problem is Definition. The final determination of the universe, and thus the Cosmos if we mantain our assumptions, brings the old discussion of the name of god. You see, if you take the Creator role of God as an equivalent of the Unified Field Theory, since this framework would explain how the universe was created, how it works, and how it will work in the future (although time will be of no relevance when you're able to "edit" the universe at will with the implementation of this framework); then this framework would not only Define the Cosmos, but also Define God.
No one would have expected that the name of God would be a formula? It's just a matter of language codes.
Now, the Definition (and I'm using the capital letter on purpose) is the total conceptualization of something, the final Knowledge of this "thing" (being "thing" anything in the Cosmos), of how it is, how it was and how it will be, thus allowing control over it. So, the Unified Field Theory brings control over the Cosmos (as E=mc2 brougth control over nuclear energy), and thus, control over God. Since we take God as an absolute Truth, the Unified Field Theory would bring control over him, making him relative to those how posses the discussed framework.
tetragrammaton anyone? (don't be lazy, google it!)
Kaiser Xavier.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment