Philosopher Alasdair Macintyre suggests that our modern moral landscape is like that of a dystonian future where the remnants of a civilization in a post-apocalyptic world are trying to recover lost sciences of the past. Their lead scientists are trying to piece together the technical advancements of the past, but they cannot pull together workable doctrines. That is because they cannot find all the necessary pieces of the puzzle. For example, when they try to piece together a formula for a vaccine, they find that they do not have a knowledge of microbiology. These scientists think that they are getting somewhere, but they have not a clue what they are doing.
Like so, our modern moral landscape is like trying to reasons morally with severely flawed moral doctrines. In Mactintyre's eyes, those flawed doctrines are utilitarianism, deontology, and noncognitivism. These moral doctrines are held sound by the moderns, and cannot see the nuanced and irreconcilable differences between these doctrines. In fact, they do not even know to distinguish the difference. To Macintyre, these flawed doctrines are trying to get at what the past civilizations used to determine right and wrong: virtue ethics, a system of ethics that was utilized by almost all major civilizations: Classical West, Abrahamic West, Confucian East, and Hindu India. Moderns think that they are getting somewhere in moral reasoning with these newer doctrines, but they do not realize that they do not know the moral doctrine that is truly missing.
As I am learning legal doctrines, I find myself at a loss as to how a particular doctrine can bring about a just decision. In criminal law, for example, the aim of strict liability is to deter undesirable results. In other words, to decrease unhappiness, a utilitarian aim. Strict liability is an exception to the intent requirement needed to convict someone of charges. Examining a specific intent of an individual to find a moral worth in an act is one of the central elements of virtue ethics. In order for the criminal legal system to excuse intent, one must assume the principles of utilitarianism. The majority of the law maintains principles from virtue ethics that Christian West used. And yet, at the same time, it allows utilitarian reasoning. One ethical system cannot be reconciled with another for they are by principle incompatible. But our law strangely allows this uneasy marriage. What is stranger is that many legal minds are quite content with this uneasy marriage. In fact, they barely notice the nuances of it.
Criminal law is a doctrinal representation of a society's moral sense. Perhaps we can see what Macintyre is talking about through modern law. We have conflicting moral doctrines making up the law, and yet people barely notice it or bothered by it.
Perhaps history will come around in fixing this problem. No western philosopher talked of virtue ethics except Catholics up until the 50s. Now, people seem to be seeing the flaws of newer ethical systems. Perhaps we will see a civilization centered around virtue ethics once more.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Sunday, November 13, 2016
A Case for Constitutional Catholic Monarchy
A first glance at the title may give you the impression that I am once more joking about installing Catholic Monarchy. Or perhaps you have had the thought that I have binged "The Crown" on Netflix recently. Both thoughts are true. I'm just not satisfied with this Anglican Monarchy thing.
In light of recent turbulent events encompassing modern Western governments, I decided to structure a system of thought in favor of the supposed jest and the new-found fantasy toward monarchies. After all, is it not the mark of an educated individual to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it? What I am not doing, however, is arguing that the emotivist culture itself has rendered democracy ineffective, especially among millennials, thereby we ought to build Philosopher Kingship. So you can be assured.
Main Principle
The main consideration of my thought is twofold: (1) democratic/republican governance, and (2) stability.
Through Trump's victory, we have now learned the hard way that there will be lesser propensity for secular/liberal politicians to represent potential liberal voters with some conservative values as the values of the left gets reinvented and reformulated generation after generation. As the spectrum moved further left, leftist politicians abandoned their efforts to represent the concerns of those holding on to conservative values. Through their neglects, a certain group of people came to feel that their freedom of conscience was being violated and trampled upon. I know of many people who were in strong favor of Obama and Democrats when he was first elected, but they felt as though they were being disenfranchised as the times went on. When certain groups of people are felt as if they are not represented, frustration arises as dictated by human nature. And it is this same frustration that caught the world off guard with Trump's victory: evangelicals and Catholics who voted Democratic for generations - regardless of the color - fled in droves to vote for Trump, feeling betrayed and marginalized by the left. This reality is too apparent from how Latinos/Hispanics voted for Trump at a higher rate than they did for Romney. This is true especially for Catholics. The majority have voted Democrat ever since Kennedy. But this is not so today.
I hold these truths to be self-evident: (1) ideas cannot be killed, (2) religions are collection of ideas, and (3) religion will always be practiced by great numbers for they offer solace and answers to the wretched human condition, an element no secular philosophy can fulfill. For these reasons, there will always be pesky religious groups who oppose Progressive values in great numbers. Unless Progressives are willing to commit a genocide, these pesky individuals who hold conservative values will never go away. The corollary, as portrayed above, is risking their fury in not representing them.
We find now that there needs to be a measure against those liable to be neglected in being represented in order to keep them away from voting for a candidate with a volatile character out of frustration, a measure that can still comfort them despite the lack of representation by electable politicians.
Dual Representation: the Secular and the Religious, Worldly and the Eternal
The measure, I believe, is to be a religious monarchy. The left's conscience is relativistic; it always shifts and changes (or, as some would say, "progresses"). The right's conscience is objective; is is grounded in the eternal, never to be changed. Since there is no guarantee of a relativistic secular government representing individuals with right-leaning conscience, there needs to be a permanent mode of representation for those with their conscience reaching out to the eternal, the permanent. For this reason, a religious representation with unwavering objectivity and traditionalism needs to exist. Through the Crown, we achieve this desired representation, and thereby stability.
At the same time, I see the merit behind maintaining a secular democratic governance. Imposing religious values upon all peoples would be imprudent for it is certain that a revolt would occur, and freedom of conscience would be violated, the very thing we want to prevent. For this reason, I think, it is wise to meet half-way and settle for a religious constitutional monarchy, having a monarch as the Head of the State(s), and a prime minister as the head of the secular representative government. Through a constitutional monarchy, we maintain democratic governance.
Separation of Church and State
You may have rebuked at the idea instantly for the corollary of a Catholic monarchy would be to marry the church and the state. Many constitutional monarchies around the world do not separate the church and the state. Scandinavians and British have official state religions, Lutheranism and Anglicanism respectively. Further, the officials of the religions are allowed to speak against secular and anti-religious policies.
Yet these countries hold more secular/liberal views than America. Indeed, Progressive Americans have a habit of looking over the Atlantic to receive revelations from the Nordic god of Progress. This is so for the monarchs of these countries swear to be non-partisan. We can thus rest assured that not separating the church and the state does not necessarily mean that no secular liberal policies will be passed. Further, even though Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Anglican Church, her family is adored and supported by nearly 90% of British citizens, regardless of one's religious status.
Why Not Other forms of Religion?
We want stable and eternal form of representation. Therefore, a religion that is to represent the eternal conscience will have to be the "most eternal" of them all.
Non-Catholic Christianity
There is a distinction between dogma and doctrine. Doctrine is the official stance of a religion, but not necessarily immutable. Dogmas are types of doctrines that are absolutely immutable. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is a dogmatized doctrine of Christianity. If a form of supposed Christianity deviates from this doctrine, it is no longer Christianity, e.g. Mormonism, New-age/Hipster spiritual-thing. If a supposed Christian does not follow the doctrine of the Trinity, then he is not a Christian, e.g. a Gnostic.
Anglican monarchy of United Kingdom, and Lutheran monarchy of Scandinavia embody Protestantism. The problem of Protestantism is that, in the eyes of those who are not religious, it loses credibility for their theologies are oftentimes reinvented. An atheist says: "If this doctrine was held to be true and now it isn't, having been clearly influenced by secular ideologies, how am I to believe that the Holy Spirit is in the works in human history? I only see religions being affected by secularism, therefore I do not see how this religion serves the eternal."
Indeed, Anglicanism and Lutheranism are both modified versions of Catholicism. In their modifications, they have deviated from dogmas that must be accepted by a Catholic, the original Church, one among them being the doctrine of transubstantiation. Such historical deviation from a previous form of a religion fails to legitimize the claim of immutable, atemporal stature of a religion, and thereby the monarchy. By consequence, the ability of the Crown to represent the eternal conscience diminishes.
Catholicism, however, maintains dogmatized doctrines that can be followed back to the earliest form of the Church. Catholicism can thus symbolically represent the eternal more effectively.
Another critical element to consider is the marriage between a protestant monarch with a Catholic. A Catholic vows to be wed within a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest, and also vows to raise one's children Catholic. Should a British crown prince were ever to marry a Catholic bride (which is unlikely), he would have to be married somewhere away from Westminister Abbey, breaking the royals' tradition. Even more awkward, subsequent Catholic heirs would theoretically have to be the head of the Anglican Church while being Catholic should they ascend to the throne, delegitimizing the entire British Crown and Anglicanism.
Eastern Religions
Eastern religions lack the atemporal element of Catholicism. They maintain certain truths to be dogmatic, but still maintains skepticism of those dogmas. This is especially true for Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, they fail to maintain the symbolism of the eternal that a religious monarch should be.
Islam
I cannot, knowing the current state of theological variance within Islam, can see an Islamic monarchy (be it Sultanate/Caliphate) being compatible with democratic rule.
Furthermore, a Catholic Monarchy can represent more than just Catholics. Catholicism possesses moral theology that is shared in part by other religions: Islam, Orthodox/Conservative Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Taoism, etc.
A Different Kind of Constitutional Monarchy
In Britain and Scandinavia, monarchs usually play no more than a symbolic role in dealing with domestic issues, despite being heads of nations. As mentioned above, they are not to mess with partisan issues. They also have executive roles in the military, but the reality is far from it. When it comes to foreign policies, the most they do is wooing foreign officials with honorary dinners at the palace, providing a lighthearted mood where the partisan politicians can negotiate. I am of the opinion that monarchs need to have definable control over the military and influence in foreign policies.
In our volatile international landscape, predictability is key to stability. Knowing what the other side will want and would want is critical to making future moves. The great flaw of the current state of international politics is the fact that the only super power in the world - the U.S. - can potentially change its foreign temperament every four years. When we look at China and Russia, we expect predictable behaviors. This is not so with the U.S. Just days ago, we were in a tense relationship with Russia. Now, Trump and Putin are about to be in bed together. For this reason, we need a more permanent leadership of foreign policy. And this leader ought to be the monarch of a constitutional monarchy who will potentially rule until death.
One may criticize that the monarch would be cutting across party lines. I answer that international politics is beyond the common man's approach, and ought not to be treated like a partisan issue. Indeed, much of President Obama's foreign policy platform, which I think is fair to say disorderly and contradictory in principle, that further agitated the global situation was not on the ballot in 2008 and 2012. Take Iran Nuclear Deal, for example. This policy is not something citizens voted for. Most liberals simply believed what the liberal media told them, and most conservatives did the same thing; very few people I have talked with actually knew much detail about the Deal. Meaning, the deal was not exactly partisan in the sense that the democratic process was not involved. Even if we look at foreign policies that were on the ballot, pulling out of Iraq by 2014, for example, was supported by the people in great numbers. But we now know that the people simply did not have the necessary information to think through in depth. Experts, however, advised against it precisely because of possible terror regime filling the vacuum. A vast majority of foreign policies are likewise undemocratically executed by politicians. For this reason, I see no reason why the chief of the military should not meddle in foreign policy.
A Catholic Monarch's foreign policy, I believe, would be to everyone's liking. Catholic moral doctrine with regard to war is extremely stringent. It can be argued, and is true, that the moral doctrine was misapplied over the course of history. Yet history will also tell us objectively that such unjust wars brought from the misapplication of morals were much more infrequent when we compare the Catholic monarchies of the past to our own days. Further, I argue that, with the eye of the modern, educated public fixed upon the Crown, I do not think a monarch would make decisions apart from the nigh-pacifist Catholic morality of war.
On a finishing note, I must declare who is to be this monarch. Me, of course.
These are the reasons I have come up with to support a jest.
In light of recent turbulent events encompassing modern Western governments, I decided to structure a system of thought in favor of the supposed jest and the new-found fantasy toward monarchies. After all, is it not the mark of an educated individual to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it? What I am not doing, however, is arguing that the emotivist culture itself has rendered democracy ineffective, especially among millennials, thereby we ought to build Philosopher Kingship. So you can be assured.
Main Principle
The main consideration of my thought is twofold: (1) democratic/republican governance, and (2) stability.
Through Trump's victory, we have now learned the hard way that there will be lesser propensity for secular/liberal politicians to represent potential liberal voters with some conservative values as the values of the left gets reinvented and reformulated generation after generation. As the spectrum moved further left, leftist politicians abandoned their efforts to represent the concerns of those holding on to conservative values. Through their neglects, a certain group of people came to feel that their freedom of conscience was being violated and trampled upon. I know of many people who were in strong favor of Obama and Democrats when he was first elected, but they felt as though they were being disenfranchised as the times went on. When certain groups of people are felt as if they are not represented, frustration arises as dictated by human nature. And it is this same frustration that caught the world off guard with Trump's victory: evangelicals and Catholics who voted Democratic for generations - regardless of the color - fled in droves to vote for Trump, feeling betrayed and marginalized by the left. This reality is too apparent from how Latinos/Hispanics voted for Trump at a higher rate than they did for Romney. This is true especially for Catholics. The majority have voted Democrat ever since Kennedy. But this is not so today.
I hold these truths to be self-evident: (1) ideas cannot be killed, (2) religions are collection of ideas, and (3) religion will always be practiced by great numbers for they offer solace and answers to the wretched human condition, an element no secular philosophy can fulfill. For these reasons, there will always be pesky religious groups who oppose Progressive values in great numbers. Unless Progressives are willing to commit a genocide, these pesky individuals who hold conservative values will never go away. The corollary, as portrayed above, is risking their fury in not representing them.
We find now that there needs to be a measure against those liable to be neglected in being represented in order to keep them away from voting for a candidate with a volatile character out of frustration, a measure that can still comfort them despite the lack of representation by electable politicians.
Dual Representation: the Secular and the Religious, Worldly and the Eternal
The measure, I believe, is to be a religious monarchy. The left's conscience is relativistic; it always shifts and changes (or, as some would say, "progresses"). The right's conscience is objective; is is grounded in the eternal, never to be changed. Since there is no guarantee of a relativistic secular government representing individuals with right-leaning conscience, there needs to be a permanent mode of representation for those with their conscience reaching out to the eternal, the permanent. For this reason, a religious representation with unwavering objectivity and traditionalism needs to exist. Through the Crown, we achieve this desired representation, and thereby stability.
At the same time, I see the merit behind maintaining a secular democratic governance. Imposing religious values upon all peoples would be imprudent for it is certain that a revolt would occur, and freedom of conscience would be violated, the very thing we want to prevent. For this reason, I think, it is wise to meet half-way and settle for a religious constitutional monarchy, having a monarch as the Head of the State(s), and a prime minister as the head of the secular representative government. Through a constitutional monarchy, we maintain democratic governance.
Separation of Church and State
You may have rebuked at the idea instantly for the corollary of a Catholic monarchy would be to marry the church and the state. Many constitutional monarchies around the world do not separate the church and the state. Scandinavians and British have official state religions, Lutheranism and Anglicanism respectively. Further, the officials of the religions are allowed to speak against secular and anti-religious policies.
Yet these countries hold more secular/liberal views than America. Indeed, Progressive Americans have a habit of looking over the Atlantic to receive revelations from the Nordic god of Progress. This is so for the monarchs of these countries swear to be non-partisan. We can thus rest assured that not separating the church and the state does not necessarily mean that no secular liberal policies will be passed. Further, even though Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Anglican Church, her family is adored and supported by nearly 90% of British citizens, regardless of one's religious status.
Why Not Other forms of Religion?
We want stable and eternal form of representation. Therefore, a religion that is to represent the eternal conscience will have to be the "most eternal" of them all.
Non-Catholic Christianity
There is a distinction between dogma and doctrine. Doctrine is the official stance of a religion, but not necessarily immutable. Dogmas are types of doctrines that are absolutely immutable. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is a dogmatized doctrine of Christianity. If a form of supposed Christianity deviates from this doctrine, it is no longer Christianity, e.g. Mormonism, New-age/Hipster spiritual-thing. If a supposed Christian does not follow the doctrine of the Trinity, then he is not a Christian, e.g. a Gnostic.
Anglican monarchy of United Kingdom, and Lutheran monarchy of Scandinavia embody Protestantism. The problem of Protestantism is that, in the eyes of those who are not religious, it loses credibility for their theologies are oftentimes reinvented. An atheist says: "If this doctrine was held to be true and now it isn't, having been clearly influenced by secular ideologies, how am I to believe that the Holy Spirit is in the works in human history? I only see religions being affected by secularism, therefore I do not see how this religion serves the eternal."
Indeed, Anglicanism and Lutheranism are both modified versions of Catholicism. In their modifications, they have deviated from dogmas that must be accepted by a Catholic, the original Church, one among them being the doctrine of transubstantiation. Such historical deviation from a previous form of a religion fails to legitimize the claim of immutable, atemporal stature of a religion, and thereby the monarchy. By consequence, the ability of the Crown to represent the eternal conscience diminishes.
Catholicism, however, maintains dogmatized doctrines that can be followed back to the earliest form of the Church. Catholicism can thus symbolically represent the eternal more effectively.
Another critical element to consider is the marriage between a protestant monarch with a Catholic. A Catholic vows to be wed within a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest, and also vows to raise one's children Catholic. Should a British crown prince were ever to marry a Catholic bride (which is unlikely), he would have to be married somewhere away from Westminister Abbey, breaking the royals' tradition. Even more awkward, subsequent Catholic heirs would theoretically have to be the head of the Anglican Church while being Catholic should they ascend to the throne, delegitimizing the entire British Crown and Anglicanism.
Eastern Religions
Eastern religions lack the atemporal element of Catholicism. They maintain certain truths to be dogmatic, but still maintains skepticism of those dogmas. This is especially true for Hinduism and Buddhism. Therefore, they fail to maintain the symbolism of the eternal that a religious monarch should be.
Islam
I cannot, knowing the current state of theological variance within Islam, can see an Islamic monarchy (be it Sultanate/Caliphate) being compatible with democratic rule.
Furthermore, a Catholic Monarchy can represent more than just Catholics. Catholicism possesses moral theology that is shared in part by other religions: Islam, Orthodox/Conservative Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Taoism, etc.
In Britain and Scandinavia, monarchs usually play no more than a symbolic role in dealing with domestic issues, despite being heads of nations. As mentioned above, they are not to mess with partisan issues. They also have executive roles in the military, but the reality is far from it. When it comes to foreign policies, the most they do is wooing foreign officials with honorary dinners at the palace, providing a lighthearted mood where the partisan politicians can negotiate. I am of the opinion that monarchs need to have definable control over the military and influence in foreign policies.
In our volatile international landscape, predictability is key to stability. Knowing what the other side will want and would want is critical to making future moves. The great flaw of the current state of international politics is the fact that the only super power in the world - the U.S. - can potentially change its foreign temperament every four years. When we look at China and Russia, we expect predictable behaviors. This is not so with the U.S. Just days ago, we were in a tense relationship with Russia. Now, Trump and Putin are about to be in bed together. For this reason, we need a more permanent leadership of foreign policy. And this leader ought to be the monarch of a constitutional monarchy who will potentially rule until death.
One may criticize that the monarch would be cutting across party lines. I answer that international politics is beyond the common man's approach, and ought not to be treated like a partisan issue. Indeed, much of President Obama's foreign policy platform, which I think is fair to say disorderly and contradictory in principle, that further agitated the global situation was not on the ballot in 2008 and 2012. Take Iran Nuclear Deal, for example. This policy is not something citizens voted for. Most liberals simply believed what the liberal media told them, and most conservatives did the same thing; very few people I have talked with actually knew much detail about the Deal. Meaning, the deal was not exactly partisan in the sense that the democratic process was not involved. Even if we look at foreign policies that were on the ballot, pulling out of Iraq by 2014, for example, was supported by the people in great numbers. But we now know that the people simply did not have the necessary information to think through in depth. Experts, however, advised against it precisely because of possible terror regime filling the vacuum. A vast majority of foreign policies are likewise undemocratically executed by politicians. For this reason, I see no reason why the chief of the military should not meddle in foreign policy.
A Catholic Monarch's foreign policy, I believe, would be to everyone's liking. Catholic moral doctrine with regard to war is extremely stringent. It can be argued, and is true, that the moral doctrine was misapplied over the course of history. Yet history will also tell us objectively that such unjust wars brought from the misapplication of morals were much more infrequent when we compare the Catholic monarchies of the past to our own days. Further, I argue that, with the eye of the modern, educated public fixed upon the Crown, I do not think a monarch would make decisions apart from the nigh-pacifist Catholic morality of war.
On a finishing note, I must declare who is to be this monarch. Me, of course.
These are the reasons I have come up with to support a jest.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
Impossibility of Travelling the Multiverse: QM & Scholastic Metaphysics
I noticed how characters can travel the multiverse in Doctor Strange. This sort of sci-fi is material is common in the literature. Yet I question the plausibility. I examine the issue with a Thomistic lens assisted by what scant knowledge of quantum mechanics I have. Due to my scant knowledge, I reserve the right to be miserably wrong.
The current most prevalent theory of quantum mechanics mirrors a part of Thomism, a branch of philosophy/theology developed by St. Thomas Aquinas. In Thomistic metaphysical system, there exists a notion of prime matter, a matter that is pure materiality itself. "Prime matter is the ultimate subject of form, and in itself indefinable." Prime matter thus needs a form to be definable. To illustrate, imagine yourself a girl named Suzie. Suzie is composed of matter. When the matter with which she is composed is broken down to its most elementary unit, we get prime matter. The clump of matter that is Suzie is indefinable until you apply the idea of Suzie you imagined previously. The idea you applied to the clump of matter is similar to the "form" mentioned. Prime matter thus exists in a state of pure potency unless brought into actuality by a form; whatever prime matter could be or become disappears the moment it becomes subject under a form.
We can see why this system of metaphysics mirrors quantum mechanics, especially in light of string theory. String theory proposes that the fundamental objects are strings, objects that compose all particles that make up matter. We know that these fundamental objects exist in superposition of states.
Superposition of states is what makes multiverse possible. A supposed infinite amount of universes can exist, each universe being a single state within a superposition of states. In likeness to Thomistic metaphysics, the theory of superposition of states mirrors how prime matter is pure materiality itself, existing in pure potency.
Let us then consider the idea of traveling the multiverse. For an individual to travel to another universe, traveling through a portal of some sort, the necessary condition is that the two universes the portal is connecting must actually exist simultaneously, and that the matter composing an object passing through the portal must be transferable to one universe to another.
But how can this be? We theoretically live in a multiverse with an infinite number of universes. And yet we still live in a single multiverse, within a single superposition of states. It means that all universes are composed of equal amount of fundamental objects (strings or prime matter).
Let us imagine Bran. He wants to travel through a portal into another universe. But how can Bran pass into another universe when he himself, that its, the clump of matter that he is composed of, is already within the universe he wants to travel to by way of alternate state within the superposition of states? Traveling to another universe is like asking me to travel to the exact place I am currently sitting: it cannot be done because it's already being done.
Furthermore, the notion of observer effect makes travelling more unlikely. Let's add an actualizing effect, the observer effect to choose one. Through experiments, we can confidently say that human beings are observers, the actualizing effect. The matter that exists in random, all possible states suddenly becomes objective and comes to possess a singular state. How can there be more than one universe where observers reside? It seems to me impossible for, when matter existing in randomness has already gained objectivity, then that matter stays in an observed position of state instead of persisting in existing in a superposition.
(Another side of the argument can say that the inhabitants of this universe, the observers in particular, are collectively shifting different position of states, technically travelling the multiverse continuously like flipping through a book)
If we consider the observer effect, much like Thomism, only one state among the superposition of states becomes actualized. In other words, only one universe of supposed infinite universes exists in a state of actuality and the rest exist in a state of potency.
These are the inferences I have made.
The current most prevalent theory of quantum mechanics mirrors a part of Thomism, a branch of philosophy/theology developed by St. Thomas Aquinas. In Thomistic metaphysical system, there exists a notion of prime matter, a matter that is pure materiality itself. "Prime matter is the ultimate subject of form, and in itself indefinable." Prime matter thus needs a form to be definable. To illustrate, imagine yourself a girl named Suzie. Suzie is composed of matter. When the matter with which she is composed is broken down to its most elementary unit, we get prime matter. The clump of matter that is Suzie is indefinable until you apply the idea of Suzie you imagined previously. The idea you applied to the clump of matter is similar to the "form" mentioned. Prime matter thus exists in a state of pure potency unless brought into actuality by a form; whatever prime matter could be or become disappears the moment it becomes subject under a form.
We can see why this system of metaphysics mirrors quantum mechanics, especially in light of string theory. String theory proposes that the fundamental objects are strings, objects that compose all particles that make up matter. We know that these fundamental objects exist in superposition of states.
Superposition of states is what makes multiverse possible. A supposed infinite amount of universes can exist, each universe being a single state within a superposition of states. In likeness to Thomistic metaphysics, the theory of superposition of states mirrors how prime matter is pure materiality itself, existing in pure potency.
Let us then consider the idea of traveling the multiverse. For an individual to travel to another universe, traveling through a portal of some sort, the necessary condition is that the two universes the portal is connecting must actually exist simultaneously, and that the matter composing an object passing through the portal must be transferable to one universe to another.
But how can this be? We theoretically live in a multiverse with an infinite number of universes. And yet we still live in a single multiverse, within a single superposition of states. It means that all universes are composed of equal amount of fundamental objects (strings or prime matter).
Let us imagine Bran. He wants to travel through a portal into another universe. But how can Bran pass into another universe when he himself, that its, the clump of matter that he is composed of, is already within the universe he wants to travel to by way of alternate state within the superposition of states? Traveling to another universe is like asking me to travel to the exact place I am currently sitting: it cannot be done because it's already being done.
Furthermore, the notion of observer effect makes travelling more unlikely. Let's add an actualizing effect, the observer effect to choose one. Through experiments, we can confidently say that human beings are observers, the actualizing effect. The matter that exists in random, all possible states suddenly becomes objective and comes to possess a singular state. How can there be more than one universe where observers reside? It seems to me impossible for, when matter existing in randomness has already gained objectivity, then that matter stays in an observed position of state instead of persisting in existing in a superposition.
(Another side of the argument can say that the inhabitants of this universe, the observers in particular, are collectively shifting different position of states, technically travelling the multiverse continuously like flipping through a book)
If we consider the observer effect, much like Thomism, only one state among the superposition of states becomes actualized. In other words, only one universe of supposed infinite universes exists in a state of actuality and the rest exist in a state of potency.
These are the inferences I have made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)