ULTIMATE CREATIVE IGNORANCE
I supply here independent support to the important argument involved in the
title of Foster Lindley's (email@example.com)
"Creative Ignorance" (Human and Ecological Risk Assessment Vol. 7,
No. 6, pp. 1593-1601, November 2001). It is useful to quote these
passages that explicate the label "Creative Ignorance":
"The probabilist converts cognitive uncertainty into physical
uncertainty. . As the probabilist presents his failure to
differentiate as a discovery about the nature of reality, it is a creative
use of ignorance."
It is not only the probabilist who "converts cognitive uncertainty into
physical uncertainty". Every professor of physics everywhere does
the same, and more (ie worse). The so-called Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle was devised (in the 1920s) in order to codify a certain measumental
inaccuracy. It was converted right away into physical
uncertainty. Not much later, it was converted again - this time into
some new convoluted combination of physical/cognitive
certainty/uncertainty: the physicist knows (with certainty?) that the
physical entities featuring in Heisenberg's inequality really fluctuate, but
(at least for the time being) within the restricted bounds permitted by
Heisenberg's inequality. This last conversion is best debunked as
Creation of the Universe: According to current cosmological thinking,
a(n already existing) quantum of energy (obeying the again already existing
law of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) transformed itself into matter
which somehow inflated itself to the presently known Universe. One is
bound to ask: Which proposition is more believable:
(i) The Universe was created by an all-mighty God?
(ii) The Universe was created by a tiny quantum fluctuation?
On careful reflection, the latter does not give sufficient credit to
Heisenberg, so it must be re-phrased thus:
(ii)' The Universe was created (some 15 billion years before
Heisenberg's birth) by an uncertainty in Heisenberg's knowledge.
There have been debates in physics and philosophy forums as to whether the
act of observing creates the observed entity, but is there one professor of
physics anywhere who has ever repudiated these other (now seventy year old)
moronic abuses of elementary Aristotelian logic?