opposite. These are mere opinions, however much we hold them to be facts. There is a very small chance that today we are wrong and that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun. Nonetheless, our opinions are irrelevant – there is a fact as to what happens, independent of our opinions and beliefs. We either believe the fact, and are correct, or we believe otherwise, and are wrong. Another example is that of so-called 'universal laws' like those of mathematics. Absolutists claim that ‘2+2=4’ is always and everywhere correct: it is hard to disagree. Some relativists have, however, attempted to counter this. They say that if one was, for example, to travel to a remote jungle tribe that does not speak English and indeed has never seen mathematical symbols before, ‘2+2= 4’ would be meaningless. One must first define what 2, = and 4 are. And herein lies the problem. These (2, 4, =) are just constructs of our society. 2 and 4 do not exist universally. We have created them and we have defined them. Our very definition of 4 could be seen as 1+1+1+1, and our definition of 2 as 1+1, with 1 just as some arbitrarily designated constant, but by no means universal and independent of human thought. Thus the whole exercise becomes rather pointless. It is like saying does P = P? By the accepted standard, 4 by its very definition must be equal to 2+2. The operative words here are ‘accepted standard’. In the domain that is mathematics, as created by humans, 2+2=4. But if I were to claim 2+2 ≠ 4, I would not be wrong. My statement would in essence read 2+2 ≠ 4 [in my domain]; and as 2 and 4 are just abstract constructs, defined by the domain they reside within, in my domain (i.e. in my opinion) they can be whatever I wish. If I define a 2 in my domain to have the same value as a 3 in the domain of societally accepted mathematics, then 2+2 ≠ 4 [in my domain]. The question of the sun revolving around the earth is a little trickier to deal with. In this case, the sun and the earth are not abstract constructs, they are objects, and it would seem that the earth revolves around the sun, regardless of whether we believe it or not. However, this can perhaps be addressed, surprisingly, by science, a discipline that widely deals in facts and absolutes. In the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment, a cat in a box with poison has a 50% chance of filling it, remains dead and alive until one opens the box and checks. It is seemingly here the very possibility of either result, and the uncertainty of those observing, that keeps the cat in a superposition between both outcomes. But what if the box is opened and the cat is dead? However, one of the observers believes it to be still alive (barely). Surely a superposition still exists until the pulse is checked and the cat pronounced dead or alive for good? But what if there is no pulse, but the man is still not convinced? Logically there must still be a superposition until an examination is made that convinces the observer, for the cat could still be one or another. And if the observer is never convinced, does the cat remain dead and alive forever? In the same vein, if some people believe the sun orbits the earth, and others vice-versa, does the sun continue to do both until one person is convinced? Thus, no one is ever wrong. Simply believing a position makes it true. To conclude, this question of relativism is very difficult, and has been debated since the days of Protagoras and still is today. In the end, it is perhaps impossible to prove, and will continue to be debated. Both sides will continue to believe themselves correct and the other side wrong. Who knows, perhaps neither side is right or wrong.
73
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker