Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am working on a concept for something and i want to make sure i understand something clearly before i start on everything else. Note, my project is more about the interactions of elements of complex systems rather than physics. Im just using this paragraph as an example, not doing a project on quantum mechanics. Is this paragraph accurate:

The universe is built on probabilities. In the whole scope of the universe, absolute mathematics and absolute certainty do not exist. Its incorrect to say 1 + 1 = 2, the more accurate way to say it is 1 + 1 probably equals 2, but not always. It is all based on the probability that what you expect to happen, will. Its quantum probabilities that dictate that a group of sub atomic particles, at this exact moment in time, line up precisely in a certain way that allow an atom to exist. That atom lives in an environment (dictated by other probabilities) that has a calculable probability to grab onto another atom and form an object with mass. That object was hammered into a shape by a craftsman trusting that the probabilities dictating the actions of the subatomic particles allow it to not crack, or disintegrate, or break the tool. That object is now sitting on your desk holding your soft drink in the form of a can. The subatomic particles that are almost insignificantly small form a thread of interaction that leads up to that can sitting on your desk. If that thread breaks at any point, that can ceases to exist as you know it and your soda is running all over your desk.

Thanks everyone, im not sure if this falls in the scope of this site, but i can't think of any other place to ask this question.

share|improve this question
1  
This question assumes that everything should be assinged probability, including deductive truths, like 1+1=2. This is a possible position, but it is within the scope of logic, and is a better fit on mathematics or philosophy (philosophy stackexchange is terrible, so I don't think you should go there). Is there a probability calculus for inference that is better than normal logic, and allows you to assign probability to theorems? That's a fine math question, but it's not physics. –  Ron Maimon Aug 12 '12 at 21:13
1  
As it stands the question seems to conflate concepts from math, philosophy and physics without order. I'm going to close it for the nonce, but would encourage you to edit it down to concentrate only on your physics question (and to make it clear what the question is), after which it can be re-opened. Just flag for moderator attention. –  dmckee Aug 12 '12 at 21:34
add comment

closed as not a real question by Qmechanic, Ron Maimon, dmckee Aug 12 '12 at 21:34

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1 Answer

absolute certainty do not exist.

I'm absolutely certain that I exist and more, I am absolutely certain that Existence exists and that I am aware of it.

It is no more incorrect to say that 1 + 1 = 2 than it is incorrect to say that all bachelors are unmarried men.

To say that there is some non-zero probability that there is a married bachelor is to reveal an ignorance of the concept labelled by "bachelor". Likewise, to say 1 + 1 does not always equal 2 is to reveal an ignorance of the mathematical concepts in the statement "1 + 1 = 2".

Also please note the near self-refuting nature of your entire paragraph. You start out with the statements that absolute certainty does not exist and that all is probabilities. But then, you go on to make a number of statements without any qualification (or recognition?) whatsoever that these statements, by your previous opening statements and including those, must not always be true.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.