This section is based on a conversation between myself and Justin on duality and shared truth. Justin’s hypotheses is that the volume of believers of a given deity is in direct proportion to is Absolute Truth. Although I have discussed Absoluteness earlier … see section Absolute Truth in this BLOG … point that mass-belief makes an object of that belief true is an interesting theory (if only to find the Simple Truth).

To address this theory I will start with an interesting thought experiment:

Schrödinger said: In 1935 Schrödinger published an essay describing the conceptual problems in QM1. A brief paragraph in this essay described the cat paradox.One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a “blurred model” for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.We know that superposition of possible outcomes must exist simultaneously at a microscopic level because we can observe interference effects from these. We know (at least most of us know) that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared out state between the alternatives. When and how does the model of many microscopic possibilities resolve itself into a particular macroscopic state? When and how does the fog bank of microscopic possibilities transform itself to the blurred picture we have of a definite macroscopic state. That is the measurement problem and Schrödinger’s cat is a simple and elegant explanations of that problem.

In English I think!!! He is saying in the micro (quantum) world, the cat can quite easily exist in both states at the same time and there is no contradiction…In probability terms that is, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. It has a 2 in 1 chance of being alive or dead!

What he was saying is that it is not unreasonable in the micro world to consider both states true at the same time. The issue is, as you traverse from the micro (immeasurable) to the Macro (observable) we find it difficult to believe that the cat can be both dead and alive at the same time. This is the quandary with quantum physics. We observe in macro and yet theorise in micro, where both possibilities are true at the same time. In theoretical terms I have no problem with this.

As to the theory that God’s existence, probability is based on the volume of current belief; this is at odds with Shrodinger’s thought experiment. Only the physical macro is true in one or other state in our physical world i.e. the cat is either dead or alive and can not be both, independent of the volume of faith by the people. What I am alluding to is even of 99.99999 % of the population were to believe in a given deity, without objective proof, its existence is still in the balance, AND, in the Macro physical world, a duality is simply not possible.

But, the argument may be that the deity is not of the Macro world and can be a duality … the macro-macro (for want of a better term – theological super-space) can not be observed and as with the quantum micro is in both states (a superposition). In other words God is and isn’t at the same time. Ergo: 2 in 1.

Is this a contradiction? Schrödinger I think would not see any contradiction here – provided it did not offend his theological belief. I doubt he would conclude that a given state is based on the percentage of belief. If 90% of the population believe that Schrödinger’s cat is alive, they would be wrong, as would the 10% who believe it is dead; they would also be right on both sides of the divide, as the truth would be: everyone is right and wrong at the same time.

Is this true in reality under test? In other words, does the Micro ascend to the Macro. I do not know in general terms, but how does this equate to deity Macro-Macro? Well according to test – per results below – Schrödinger is correct that in the micro quantum state there is duality (superposition); and that can be observed from the macro through physical experiment by associated results. But how this equates to theology is somewhat tenuous. We need to work in the realms of philosophy: If only we could build a machine and illustrate both states are true definitively at that higher level. Who knows one day!

But even if we had a machine, we would prove that there is a superposition and that would prove that God is there and God is not. Would this help us in the real world?  For Micro there is application as the mathematics that is derived from superposition understanding, and other applications to come, will be no doubt mind blowing! But to know the Macro-Macro is a superposition will not stop man killing men for their version of truth! See test results below, and what do you conclude?

email me if you wish to add comments or challenge any points made. I will be happy to publish any comments made.

Article retrieved from the web 13^th April 2004:

http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/ion/qucomp/cat.htm

In 1935, Erwin Schrödinger proposed a “thought experiment” to highlight one of the ways in which quantum mechanics contradicts our experiences of reality (E. Schrödinger, Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935)). His proposal involved placing a cat (a macroscopic object) inside a closed box with a vial of cyanide and a radioactive atom initially prepared in the metastable state (a microscopic object). The radioactive atom has a probability of ½ of decaying in one hour. If it decays, then the cyanide is released and the cat dies; if it does not decay, then the cyanide is not released and the cat remains unharmed.The paradox arises because the atom, being a microscopic object, must be described by quantum mechanics. After one hour, and before it is observed, the atom is in an equal superposition of being decayed and undecayed. However, if quantum mechanics is a universal and complete theory, it must describe the whole system. And, since the state of the cat is correlated with the state of the atom, the cat must also be in a superposition of being dead and alive. This clearly contradicts our everyday experience of cats!This sort of apparent contradiction arises whenever the state of macroscopic objects is correlated with that of microscopic objects. It comes about because in our experience of our macroscopic surroundings, objects are either in one state or another, but never in a superposition of several states at the same time.Our ability to create “coherent states” of motion in our trapped atom has allowed us to create a Schrödinger cat-like situation. In our case, we can put the atom in a superposition of two electronic levels, each of which is correlated with a different state of the atom’s motion. The microscopic electronic state plays the role of the radioactive atom, whereas the coherent state of motion plays the role of the cat’s livelihood.We create our “Schrödinger cat” by creating coherent states using our “walking standing light wave” technique. The key to “cat” production is to adjust the polarization of our laser beams so that only the 2S½(F=1,mF=1) state interacts with the laser, while the 2S½(F=2,mF=2) state does not. Thus, the laser only creates a coherent state out of the part of the wavefunction in the upper electronic state. The sequence of laser pulses used is as follows.See hyperlink reference for diagram. We start out in the ground motional and electronic states after sideband cooling and optical pumping (a). We next use a carrier transition to split the wavefunction into an equal superposition of ground and excited electronic states, both parts of which are in the ground motional state (b). We then use our “walking standing wave” to create a coherent state of motion in the upper electronic state, while leaving the motion in the lower electronic state unaffected (c). Another pulse on the carrier swaps the wavefunctions (d). Another pulse of the “walking standing wave,” this time with a different phase, creates a different coherent state of motion in the part of the wavefunction that is now in the upper electronic state (e). At this point, we have one coherent state in the upper electronic state and a different coherent state of motion in the lower electronic state. Thus, a microscopic superposition within the atom has been transformed into a larger superposition of atomic motion.Recall that our only observable is the probability that the atom is in the ground electronic state after the experiment. We use this observable to show that we have, indeed, created a “cat” by applying a final laser pulse on the carrier transition (f). This recombines the parts of the wavefunction in the upper and lower electronic levels. If the two wavepackets overlap in position and momentum at the moment of recombination, then they can constructively or destructively interfere, changing the relative probabilities of finding the atom in the ground or excited electronic states. If the wavepackets do not overlap, or if the system is in a mixture rather than a superposition prior to recombination, then there is no interference and so the probability of finding the atom in the ground state is ½. Data from one of our experiments are shown in the following graph, showing the expected interference fringe.See hyperlink reference for diagram. The x-axis represents the separation of the two coherent-state wavepackets in phase space (measured by the angle between them). The y-axis is the probability that the atom is in its ground electronic state after step (f). The x-axis is the phase angle between the two coherent state creation pulses. The above figure corresponds to a situation in which the motional wavepackets are 84 nm apart at their maximum situation, which is approximately ten times the spatial extent of either motional wavepacket. Note that the contrast of the fringes is not one. In fact, the contrast is theoretically expected to degrade exponentially with the square of the physical separation when the system is coupled to the environment. This decoherence process underlies the reason quantum superpositions are not generally seen in the macroscopic world.In the future, we hope to use our “Schrödinger cat” state as a sensitive detector of decoherence. Characterizing decoherence is important for evaluating our system for possible use in larger-scale quantum computation, and represents research at the boundary between the quantum and classical worlds.

Q: What is Absolute Truth and how does it compare to basic truth?

A: To explore Absolute truth, consideration as to what constitutes truth should be understood.

We can look at this from three points of view: Past, Present, and Future in relation to legal, scientific, and theistic absolute truths.

Legally

If we look at the legal area first we may start to understand that truth, or in this case absolute truth, is based on past events. After all the courts, particularly the criminal justice system, are based on discovering the truth of a given past event i.e. did I kill Mr. Jones.To expand: I dug a hole, bought a gun, loaded it, invited Jones for dinner, took him to the hole, shot him dead, and then buried him. Or so that’s what the prosecution claim. Is this true within the criminal justice system (CJS)?

The burden of proof is the moderator of truth. That is: if it is shown to the Jury, through presented artefacts that ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ I must have done it, then I did. But this is not to say it is absolute truth. Simply that there is a high probability that it is true that I killed Jones. If the courts had to work on absolute truths then the fact would have to be true yesterday, today, and tomorrow. this can never be proven in legal terms as the future is not predictable.

However, if we look at Mr. Jones it can be argued that it is absolute truth that he is dead. He must be if his corpse is in the hole. But considering there is a probability that I may have shot another man, then nobody knows for sure Jones is dead. Even if Mrs. Jones testified and Mr. Jones’s dentist did too, this is not absolute as it can be disputed at some future date by new evidence – like Mr. Jones turning up five years later with a tan and a new wife.

Therefore, I doubt the notion of absolute truth in legal terms as there is the future that remains uncertain as long as the universe is around us.

Although this sounds absurd from the point of view that Jones’s body has been tested by all the tests known to man and the testimony of the experts points to Jones’ being dead there still remains uncertainty as to the future.

We should understand that a statement may be true – I did kill Jones, but there is no absolute truth as the future is not certain.

The only truth in my opinion from a legal standpoint is there is no absolute truth in legal terms, only a reasonable probability!

This is important as the areas covered in this BLOG are not of absolute truth…but merely of observation and research of others’ observations where I have no reason to dispute the their proof.One of the key points I am making here is if we are looking for absolute truth we should consider that the legal definition is based on probability of a past event. This is unlike the scientific method as science offers truth based on a yet to be proven falsehood. So let’s look at science to find the truth:

Scientifically

If we look at this quest to seek absolute truth scientifically, which is where we may expect to find truth with directly observed proof, we may understand what constitutes truth. That is to argue that truth is a manifestation of currently observed proof, not, like law, a probability of a past event and facts. We know that the scientific principle is Hypothesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. We make a statement, we test that statement through experiment and observation within the physical world to prove the original hypothesis wrong, and if it becomes impossible to prove wrong then it must be true.In practical terms Einstein’s E=MC^2 is true by definition; that is it has been tested through experiment and observation, and currently proven not to be not true.But is this absolute truth?

It seems science may help us understand that the underlying principle for truth is proof as proof is not prone to our own subjectivity. That is, proof must be objective to be relied upon. This is the foundation of scientific fact!

We know for instance that life has five characteristics that have been observed in all living things, and as such an organism that displays all five is indeed alive. These characteristics being: Cells, Homeostasis, Reproduction, Metabolism, and DNA Heredity. I doubt people around me would suggest these tests are not objective. There would be no reason to set these tests any other way. Nothing thus far has disproved this theory nor put in to question these tests, and as such the five points applied to a human being means that it is alive and this has to be true. Until that is that person no longer exhibits one or more of the five characteristics where upon it would be true they are now dead. note, I’ve left the argument of Reproduction to one side as being infertile during any stage of life can not suggest the person is not alive; this is an absurdity…Let’s not go there!

But let’s not forget that truth is proven until it is proven no longer true – through a second truth that proves it false. And the second truth again may not reveal the absolute truth as it too can be discounted. This is correct in relation to Einstein’s argument that time is relative, where Newtonian physics stated it true that time is fixed. Newton was correct and his fixed time a truth but it was not an absolute truth as Einstein later discounted that as false. This suggests that scientific truth is relative based on current knowledge and observation that is restricted within the current observation frame. So science is not the place to find ‘Absolute Truth’. Would theology be a better place to find Absolute Truth?

Theistically

If we ask the faithful if God exists would we expect to apply the scientific method to test. The hypothesis is that God indeed exists. The antithesis is that God does not exist. The observation is what? What is the test? what can the parties seeking Absolute Truth agree is the objective test? One might argue the existence of the complex universe we live in is the test, as this could only have arrived through intelligent design. This is one of the latest theories of the theist movement that attempts to offer an alternative to independent big bang non-theistic Darwinism.    Einstein, The great theoretical scientist of our time may chip in and argue, as he did about Uncertainty Theory that “God does not play dice.” This is an indication that Einstein’s proof of the intelligent designer is such that: there is intelligence here so the universe with all its rules has to have been constructed under intelligent design. The probability of the universe creating itself as a random event is so infinitely beyond probability that it had to have been planned, Einstein may say.

But hang on! Is the fact that the universe exists and it is too complex to have arrived by chance a valid proof. After all I have just argued that truth is the result of proof and that the fact that something exists is by no means evidence of proof, merely an observed state.

Let me expand: If we theorise, test & observe, and conclude then we should be able to repeat that proof anywhere and obtain the same results. But to observe the Universe as is and suggest that this is proof of intelligent design without observing its construction, or in fact repeat its construction in a controlled environment, is absurd. Scientifically it merely states that the object exists as we know it -  and yes, at this point in our understanding it is complex. Theistically the Universe is complex and although that complexity suggests intelligent design it still requires a ‘leap of faith’ to reconcile an intelligent creator.

To develop this point further we should look at the hypothesis that the Universe is not by intelligent design. As before the Universe exists and there was no observation of its design or creation. As such we can not prove that the Universe was created by another independent means. In fact there is no proof either way and as such one would argue there is no Absolute Truth here that God exists by means of the proof of the Universe’s complex existence.

What I am alluding to is theism is not Absolute Truth but merely a state of mind based on faith. We could go a great deal deeper here and discuss Freud in relation to Man’s pre-disposition to faith which in itself both ratifies and bolsters the view of the believer that what they have is Absolute Truth. That debate will follow in other areas of this BLOG.

But, for millions around this Earth there is no doubt that a deity exists, has existed, and will continue to exist without any challenge. That to them is an Absolute Truth. So it may be that truth is not based on proof but something else.

These points suggest that those who accept that God exists without scientific proof, or legal probability accept that Truth needs no proof, artefacts or experiment. So what is Absolute Truth? Is it legal beyond reasonable doubt, scientific observation, or theistic faithful belief?

I believe that perception is the fulcrum that brings these forces together. What is true in my Universe may not be true in yours. Sometimes we share truth through shared objective proof and other times we don’t. But that is not to say where we don’t agree there is only one truth and one of us is wrong. We may easily both be right in relation to our perceptive frame … See Schrödinger’s Cat for more detail on duality.

So, in relation to this blog: The discovery of Absolute Truth is insurmountable since proof is only as good as the next proof that discounts the claim, AND is relative to the person who is looking for truth.

To clarify: I would argue that Absolute Truth is a state of belief that has the highest probability of Absolute Proof, that is observed and repeatable, at this time in my Universe. That does not deny others of their Absolute Truth being a faith leap through spiritual guidance within their perceptive frame. Although in general terms Absolute Truth is merely a state of shared Basic Truth with faith attached.

To conclude, the only time when absolute truth exists is when time itself ends. At this point there will be no possibility that a truth can be refuted. The problem is all energy and matter will be lost at that point. Sadly truth itself will be lost.

When does something exist and when does it not. Does the floor exist at your feet? Does your brother exist? Does your next meal exist? Does God exist? Do you exist?

This is one of the hardest philosophical questions that has posed mankind since beyond time immemorial. A debate either with one’s self or a wider debate with the world at large will no doubt result in a number of answers and in many cases yet more questions. Bearing in mind there is no absolute truth what I would like to do is offer a hypothesis from which I would expect a large amount of debate in the coming years, but since when has that stopped us publicly opining.

The ancient study of understanding and notating existence travels under the name Ontology. It has in the past revolved around an ancient notion that anything with a noun exists. This approach has tied philosophers in knots for centuries, and no doubt will continue to do so for many more.

There is an underlying problem with the view that all objects that are nouned (tagged if you like) exist. The problem to a great extent is caused by the way man utilises language; in particular the tagging of abstract forms. It’s not hard to accept that a cup exists, considering you can see it, touch it, etc.  However, consider love: Does it exist, bearing in mind it can not be touched, nor seen in the same context as a cup? This problem has more to do with the construct of man-made language than it does with the existence of objects in our universe. Its failings have resulted in compromises and work arounds to maintain the original argument that all nouns exist.

In accepting ancient doctrine I am forced to conclude the following: All nouns are objects and all objects exist, ergo all existence is noun bound. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C. This is a leap for abstract objects as the fact they have a tag automatically means they exist. This is obviously a problem when I look at transient forms such as thoughts, ideals, and transformations like matter to energy, or man’s emotions such as love, hate, pride etc.

The other problem here is if man, and only man, has the ability to tag objects then only man can acknowledge existence of objects in space. If this were true, then why do antelope run from lions, dogs greet their feeders yet cower their persecutors, or even salivate at the sound of Pavlov’s bell, and fish swim to the top of the fish tank to feed, once fed? It’s clear that the application of the human lexicon when applied to the physical world we see around us fails too many tests to be a credible way forward.

Given this I have taken a different approach. I proffer that 1.) nouns are tags, and given this I add a point that a tag comes with criteria by which to uniformly measure a given ‘nouned object’. For instance ‘grass’ has a specific light wavelength (usually in the green-brown spectrum), it has blades that have a common grass texture (before a cow eats it that is), and like other plants it is connected to the Earth by its roots. To be sure, the criteria used for identification differs it from other objects like cows for instance. 2.) There are differing classes of objects, also tagged, in probable existence that revolve around the creation of a relative reality for each individual observer, whether that be man or beast. And finally 3.) There are differing types of existences that are based on objects found in shared time-space, or individual psyches of men such as emotions.

All of these points lead me to a new way of approaching the problem.

Existence is based on probability – the greater the shared observation the more probable an object exists.

We live in a universe that is populated with ‘stuff’ … Let’s call this universe the Global Universe. This universe has been observed by mankind culminating in a rationalization by many including scientists, philosophers and mathematicians; resulting in a set of ‘universally agreed’ laws that are clearly measurable with which we observe and conclude existence. This set of laws and measurements describe and predict the way in which the Global Universe, and all observed objects, operate, and of what these objects are made of. To keep it simple, in terms of this blog the Global Universe consists of matter, energy, and spacial location (vector (x)). I’ve used the term vector (x) to represent a four dimensional universe: t, x, y, z, where t is time. I don’t want to over complicate this treatise by discussing the complexities of the mathematics around vectors, but to say let’s assume x is relative to the observer at a given single point in time i.e. I look at the sky at 8pm from my house in New Zealand and before me is the moon at x,y,z from my position (where time is my time). To be clear: the Global Universe and all observable objects is external to our own psyche - independent of man & beast and yet observable by both at a given point in time.

One would argue that anything in the Global Universe made of matter or energy at a given x exists. Given this, the answer to my original question, ‘what is existence?’ is simply anything that is made of matter or energy at a given x in the Global Universe, right?

Alas, under test this hypothesis fails.

First, if mankind does not ‘exist’ in the Global Universe, than the Global Universe objects can not be observed, nor acknowledged, and as such that universe can not exist. This is a hard concept to deal with. To help navigate the gap let’s ask a simple question: For you … that is, in your mind did the Global Universe exist prior to your birth? If you answer yes, (in most cases I would expect, ‘what a stupid question, of course it existed!’) I would ask: How do you know if you had not been born, and why now do you accept it did exist?

Maybe you read a book that said before you were born the universe existed. But do you believe the author? Simply put, before you were born somebody observed the Global Universe and based on their observation you were told that the universe existed prior to your birth – More than likely this was your parents. Or maybe you have observed direct evidence yourself that the universe existed, again based on a historically produced x measurement that had been captured. But for you to accept either of these observations, and conclude that the universe did exist, you have to take a leap of faith. Your faith is in the person who observed and reported to you. You trust that they did not lie or make a mistake, and if it were your parents that told you why would they lie about such an important thing, in the same way why would they lie about Father Christmas. Where you observe evidence yourself you have to trust that the statistical data and result concluding past existence is not flawed, after all statistics never lie, right?

Second, unless the observer at that time is the questioner of existence, and there is no need for a leap of faith, either in historical data or the observation data of a 3^rd party, there is no guarantee that the universe under question existed at that point in time. There is simply a probability of its existence.

Therefore, all objects in the Global Universe are non-existent until both the observer and the object in space-time are in alignment, and even then there remains the probability that what is being observed actually does exist. Ergo the observer has to be in the same time axis and observable x,y,z as the object under scrutiny, and make a judgment that a given object exists. It is at this point of alignment that a realive reality is  formed with a high probability of object existance.

At this point there seems to be a second universe at hand. This I’ll call the Local Universe.

The Local Universe

Cogito ergo sum – said Socrates.

Roughly translated this means I think therefore I am. This summation of existence of the individual is extremely profound as it crystallises the notion of existence in relative terms to the individual. Per my earlier points, for an object in the Global Universe to exist it has to be observed and a conclusion drawn that is based on cognitive measurement. This process of reconciliation to existence requires two universes. It requires a Global Universe (physical universe) and a Local Universe (cognitive universe).  In highlighting the two parts that make up existence reconciliation we gain an understanding that Socrates’ quote actually says: ’I am cognitive of me as an object in the physical universe, therefore I exist’. To illustrate my point, answer this: If Socrates did not think, would he exist? The answer is – no, not in Socratesian reality. However, if I observed Socrates in the Global Universe than in my Local Universe he would have a high probability of existing, but only in my reality.

Given that the Global Universe is external to our psyche in relation to matter, energy at x, yet requires a Local Universe to bring it into existence, I will examine what I mean by the Local Universe. My definition is simplistic at this point, although under that simplicity lays numerous problems around the theory of existence. Nevert-the-less I’ll remain on this track to set some foundations for further analysis and deal with the more complex problems in a short while.

Each of us is born with an individual psyche. This psyche, independent of all others, observes the Global Universe and all its objects within its own bounds based on its observation. You might consider the term ‘observe’ in this context to be a feed-forward sensation that is formed in the brain from physical contact, such as seeing or touching objects in the Global Universe. To be clear … each psyche is a self-contained universe (Local Universe) where imagined objects can exist independent of other objects. I am using the term ‘objects’ in a different way than conventional use. Objects are in the imagination of the subject only.

A point of note here is that objects that may exist in the Local Universe are formed either from direct interaction with the Global Universe at that second in time (this is point-in-time observation) or thoughts and memories of objects that were once formed and now recalled in the mind based on past observation (this is past-point-in-time object memory recall). The latter point is made in relation to the Freudian view that no object in the psyche can be recalled without the subject having first been exposed to that object from an external perspective; this need not be directly observed! An idea shared through story for instance can be an object exposed and may be enough for the psyche to construct a given object within its Local Universe without point-in-time observation. I have no reason to doubt Freudian doctrine on this point.

To explain the Local Universe a little more let’s form a reality for you: Think of a banana. If you can imagine the banana then the banana exists as a past-point-in-time object in your Local Universe. Let’s say that this thought is exclusive of all other objects that you may also be imagining right now, as well as any physical objects that you are currently observing around you at this point in time such as the VDU or paper that this treatise is rendered on. At this point in time in your reality some objects exist in the Global Universe and others, such as the banana, only exist in the Local Universe (provided you don’t have a Global Universe banana in front of you). If you reach out to the Global Universe you will find that in space-time there is no banana. The two Universes have not been reconciled and as such the banana has a low probability of existence – although in your reality the banana does exist to a relatively high probability, but only as an object in your mind.

In this instance I can clarify my earlier hypothesis: Existence is based on probability – the greater the shared observation the more probable an object exists. Only objects that are Global Universe bound and reconciled to a Local Universe have a high probability of existence, all other objects such as ideas, feelings and even transient Global Universe objects such as matter that has been destroyed don’t exist.

A simple test to prove this conclusion: You are walking up a flight of stairs that you have traversed many times before. It is dark. In your mind you have one stair to go. You raise your foot and as you lower it you discover the stair you imagined is not there. Here there is a mismatch between your Local Universe, where a stair existed, and the Global Universe where one did not. If we rewind this situation, where you are on the Global Universe’s last stair, and ask you: ‘Does another stair exist?’ your answer would be, yes. Here we can see that there is a mismatch between your Local Universe and the shared Global Universe. It is only when the two collide at a given point in time and create a reality that you can come to a firm conclusion on the existence of objects external to your psyche, and yet that conclusion remains probability bound.

If we go to a room with a vase upon a table and bring in two people with one of them blind-folded. Here let’s assume the only means of observation for each subject is by way of sight. If the blind-folded observer were asked if a vase exists, they would say no. In their Local Universe the vase simply does not exist. If we asked the other subject they will say yes. The vase to them remains globally and their Local Universe is in agreement as they are observing it. Here we see clearly that existence is related to relative reality – which ultimately is based on probability. For the blind-folded subject there is a low probability of the existence of the vase, but for the non-blind-folded subject there is a high probability of the vase’s existence.

However, as an external observer of both parties we can see that the vase does exist globally as our universe coincides with one of the test subject’s. Furthermore, if we were to test the vase against globally agreed universal laws we would conclude that the object was made of matter at our shared time coordinate. We see at this point that the Global Universe has objects in it that we can observe collectively based on our interaction with the world around us.

So the question is: Out of these two states which objects exist and how are they related?

The reconciliation of existence is based on the formation of a reality. In Socrates’ mind he only exists when he knows he does. In my mind even if I imagine him the probability of his existence is low as I can not observe him in the Global Universe (given he is dead), nor can anyone else.

So with each step I take along the stairwell there is a probability that my Local Universe will not agree with the Global Universe. This is to say that when I take my next step, there is always a probability that in the Global Universe of space-time the ground will not be under my foot and I may fall into something that is not within my comprehension.

Given the points so far, I would sum up with the following:

• Where Local and Global Universes meet and match a reletive reality is formed that is high in probability.
• Objects that are not ‘universal’ i.e. matter or energy at x are by default ‘local’ objects. These objects have low probability existance.

A planet in the heavens that is yet to be discovered does not exist, but if imagined there remains a low probability of its existence. Once discovered and reconciled by the individual the object then enjoys a high probability of existence in the Global Universe for future reconciliation into each of our own realities. However, if there is no observation of the object it remains out of existence (or rather in low probability).

I have two problems with my summation above; both based on the fact that I have disconnected the Local Universe from the Global Universe when in reality this is not feasible. Where there is agreement in the Local and Global Universes I conclude a notion of high probability existence for a given object. However, the measurements of existence for objects within the Global Universe are manmade. This forces an extension of the Local into the Global. At this point I am left with a measurement problem. The second problem is related to the first, and Secretes’ quote: I think therefore I am. If I accept this as the basis for proof I have a problem for other sentient animals. That is: animals can not reconcile the Global to the Local because they are not cognitive and as such animals without a local reality are animals that live in a world where nothing exists. This begs absurdity!

The measurement problem – I ask a believer of God (lets say the Christian God for example): ‘Does God exist?’ A resounding, yes, is said by the Christian. I modify: ‘Given the discussion of existence where Local and Global meet in space-time to create a relative reality in which global objects have a high probability of existence and local objects are merely psychological objects with low probabilities, on what basis do you base your argument on God’s existence? To be sure, how do you measure God’s existence in the Global Universe?’ The believer may respond: ‘I am told God exists by others,’ or; ‘I observe God’s presence myself by the world around me,’ or; ‘I feel God. That is how I measure God in the Global Universe and that is how I imagine God in my own.’ The observer in this instance is using either: The observations of others that confirm to them God’s existence, or; the observations they themselves make of the Global Universe, or; the feelings they feel as a result of interacting (observing) with the Global Universe, described by many as physical as much as they are emotional. Once the believer has reconciled their Local Universe to the Global Universe, a relative reality is set in place.

Many scientists find the resulting reality of the Christian difficult to accommodate, mainly as the measurements used are immeasurable in current independent terms using today’s scientific doctrine and therefore limit global universe existence. Currently we can only conclude the Global Universe to be made of matter, energy, at x. The current laws and measurements that determine the Global Universe are based on the adherence to these laws and measurements. If we imagine a ghost and tell Frank (our neighbour) that there is a ghost in front of us both. Since Frank can not see the spirit, he would ask for proof of its global universe existence beyond my psyche. That proof would have to be supplied in scientific terms based on the measurement of matter or energy at a given x. So for objects to exist in the Global Universe the Local of Frank and others has to coincide with currently agreed measurements. In the case of the ghost there is no measurement and as such the ghost remains a local object in my individual reality and does not enjoy high probability existence. But what if an alien were watching who, like all other aliens, had the ability to observe spiritual energy and could reconcile the global with the local. At that point the ghost would enjoy existence in high probability terms in relation to all other aliens.

So by employing man as both the provider of the global universal measurement and the observer of that measurement we end up without the ability to definitively agree on the high probability existence of many objects in the Global Universe as there are artifacts that can not be measured under agreement. For some people however measurements such as emotional spirituality, and ‘feelings’ are acceptable proof, although not scientifically agreed upon, where energy, matter and x have a different interpretation than that of current scientific doctrine. Given this my summation stands that: Existence is based on probability – the greater the shared observation the more probable an object exists. I say this at the risk of suggesting ghosts, and even God, can not exist in Global Universe terms until there is an agreed common measurement for ‘spiritual energy’.

Although I have to acknowledge that this summation is related directly to a scientific view that the Global Universe is made of observable energy, matter at x. The net result is emotions, thoughts and spiritual energy can not exist in these terms. This is not to dismiss belief; merely to say that in physical terms through globally agreed measurement I can not accommodate these views today, but may be able at some point in the future. Therefore, ultimately the existence of God, other spriritual objects and even feelings remains low in probability terms.

The Descartes problem in relation to noun based existence – René Descartes discussed in detail the Socrates ‘I think therefore I am’ summation. His broad conclusions were to place mankind at the centre of the existence universe which at the time of Descartes was within the doctrine of the Christian Church (a substantial influencer of his day). The argument is relatively simple according to Descartes: Animals do not think; not in the same way as Socrates described himself in thought and therefore, an animal’s inability to think removes its ability to enjoy a reality. In short, to all but humans there is no reality; ergo there is no perception of existence by the animal. No doubt the animals we speak of do not care, they simply survive, replicate and continue to adapt. But in philosophical consideration I have to acknowledge Descartes’ point and ask: Is it only mankind that can create a reality with local and global objects within it i.e. do animals simply undertake the duties of living based on simple reflex, genetic memory, or mimicry without the creation of a reality? If the answer is yes, I conclude that animals follow a predetermined program the way a motor vehicle does. If I do not accept this view I must acknowledge that animals are closer to man in relation to them forming a relative reality the same way man does. One can state clearly that a motor vehicle’s engine does not live. In specific terms motor engines do not have a sense of consciousness (A soul if you like) which itself spawns a sense of self survival. There is no empirical evidence that machines can sense or feel their environment and as such mechanical devices do not autonomously interact with the universe so as to sustain their own ‘life’. At this point I stray close to mechanical artificial intelligence (AI) and the construct of machines that can pass the organism and maybe even the Turing test … These are not the machines we are talking of in this context and as such I remain on the track of non-AI machines for the remainder of this treatise. For me, it is clear that a machine is not imbued with a soul based on consciousness.

However, animals show evidence of self-survival that is drawn from a self-contained mental consciousness that interact with the Global Universe. Historically, animals that have failed to interact with the Global Universe have failed to survive as they have had no way of sustaining three primary functions of life – food, reproduction, and avoidance of life threatening danger. Given this, animals in some way must reconcile, through mental cognition, their Local Universe with the Global Universe as this is a means to survive via the primary functions of life. In contrast, consider plants in relation to their interaction with the Global Universe and uncover how closely related plants are to machines, when compared to animals. Empirical evidence suggests that plants don’t exhibit the traits of consciousness. One can therefore surmise that plants are closer to machines than they are animals; albeit biological ones. Plants interact with the Global Universe at a passive level and don’t form a combined global and local reality of their own. In doing so, they trust their fate to nature alone. Their continuing survival is based on evolved ability to reproduce in vast numbers and applying traits that offer them the best passive survival such as size, spines, toxins, arid tolerance, etc. But this I suggest is not enough for them to perceive a reality and as such are more like the passive organisms described by Descartes.

Considering Descartes’ philosophy was drawn up back in the early 17th Century and the knowledge of man is now distinctly improved, as well as the development of secular free thinking, the time is right to question his view that only humans can form a reality. My points listed earlier outline enough to raise doubt to Descartes conclusions.

There is a point here that lays a distinction between Socrates and my own thoughts that animals must recognise the existence of objects in the Global Universe to survive. That is: is it a requirement to be both sentient (have a conscious (soul if you like) and self-cognitive (be aware of one’s self) before any objects in the Global Universe can be reconciled? To be sure, Socrates was both sentient and self-cognitive and as such reconciled his own global existence within his relative reality. This point Descartes focused on and in doing so dismissed an animal’s ability to reconcile the existence of objects in their own reality. Descartes argued: To be devoid of self-awareness is enough to disbar the beast from forming a reality. Descartes in this way aligns the beast with plants and machines, rather than acknowledging its status closer to man. No doubt the doctrine of Descartes’ day was such that man existed on a plane well and above that of animals. This I would consider not true, given current knowledge.

The evidence today is such that cattle, fish, bees and most other animals, including man, do not interact with the universe in a purely passive manner, unlike rocks, plants and machines. Animals sustain life by interacting with the universe at three levels: The pursuit of food; sexual reproduction, and; the avoidance of life threatening Global Universe objects such as predators. Given this fact, animals MUST form a reality that within it includes Global Universe objects with which they interact for their individual and species’ survival. To fail to do so would prevent the animal surviving in its current form. This last point certainly includes man’s survival as much as other animals.

Conclusion

1. For objects to exist they must be reconciled into a reality. That reality is a function of Local and Global Universe objects and a formed probability view.

2. For man, only objects in the Global Universe are measurable within the context of generally agreed measurement. By observing Global Universe objects we can conclude true existence (high probability) and that probability increases with point-in-time observation by many; all other objects are imagined objects with low probability of true existence.

3. For other animals, there is evidence that a reality is formed that includes Global Universe objects being reconciled via Local Universe reconciliation. This formed reality enables the animal to interact and survive in the Global Universe in an ‘active’ manor.

4. Plants and none-cognitive organisms rely on autonomous biological mechanics for passive survival and as such do not enjoy any kind of recognised existence. In essence for them nothing exists.

5. Inanimate objects do not form a reality and as such interact with the Global Universe in an absolute ’passive’ manor.

To be clear: for an object to truly exist (have a high probability of existence), it has to be of matter or energy at point x in the Global Universe and via observation be reconciled with a Local Universe to bring it in to an agreed common existence (at this point these objects usually become noun bound (tagged). Man has the ability to do this, and to a lesser extend so does the beast; plants, machines and inanimate objects do not have this ability and as such do not percieve existence (either of self or of others).