The Quantum Evaluation of Truth?

We tackled the Quantum Evaluation of Morality not too long ago, so seems like I ought to bring things back around to the middle about now.

The difference between Truth and Untruth is simply a function of the distance in conscious space covered during a period of time in which the consideration is manifested in ones’ awareness as they travel at some semantic velocity along a trajectory established by the a priori knowledge of actions and consequences. It is uncertain therefore where in a continuum of conscious space and time one will be, when an established point in time is selected for an evaluation of relative Truth and Untruth. And it could be supposed that until the wave form collapse of all possibilities occurs, one could be both simultaneously Truthful and Untruthful, but with no quantifiable degree of certainty.

It therefore follows that the finer the distinction between popular opinions of Truth and Untruth, the less distance would could potentially cover during a period of consideration, and therefore we might expect the certainty of being Truth or Untruth to increase as the distinctions grow finer, but the space between the two opposites is infinitely divisible, and therefore a measurement of proximity to a polarity is meaningless, because the polarities never converge. Like a snapshot of a ball in flight, which yields no information about velocity or trajectory, such is an evaluation of Truth and Untruth within a snapshot of a context in which there is no information about the before and after……   

In summary of what I said initially: unless time stops, and we have knowledge of what came before time stopped, and what will come after it begins again, then there is no potential to create a fixed anchor point against which we can test to determine if something is true or untrue. But, even in saying this, I am making the huge assumption that somewhere in the essence of Truth, is the requriement that it's evaluation as such, is shared accross a quorum of some size, and that it needs to be evaluated against a fixed point upon which, this quorum can agree.

So,

1. how many people does it take to make a truth?
2. does truth need to be evaluated against a point with a fixed certainty?
3. if we can't be entirely certain of the future, should we really just be focusing on identifying things that appeared to be "true" in the past?

Truth, Like Faith, or Right & Wrong, can be evaluated against various standards and common beliefs, but to imagine that it is possible to first find, and then define, and then articulate a universal, infallible Truth, such that even a quorum of one could agree that they have found this fixed point, and can defend its existence without making a citation to some other concept that cannot be soundly proven, certainly seems unlikely, as I don’t believe any of us remain certain about anything, with that extreme degree of solidity, at any point in time, including such trivial matters such as whether it’s True or not that I am hungry. And the pause you just took, to reflect within yourself to determine what, if anything you are that certain about, requires the observer to have to question why you need to stop to evaluate something that you claim to be so entirely certain, solid, infallible, and beyond the need to question…..because by pausing to review, you reveal doubts, or at least forgetfulness. And to forget about something, against which all other somethings can be referenced, makes it appear certain, at least at this stage, that I feel safe in saying about Truth, only that I may or may not know something to be absolutely True, but if I do, I am entirely uncertain as to what it may be. And if someone were in fact to present to me a dissertation on the existence of a fundamental Truth, I more than likely would not possess the knowledge, wisdom, experience or cleverness to decide that I am able to agree with their defense of Their Truth. But then again, since we stated earlier that a quorum of one was really good enough to determine the truthfulness of a Truth, then no one has any obligation to make sure that I come to terms with what they are saying, and ultimately become a believer. But what of the man who beyond a shadow of a doubt believes in a truth that they have found, and takes it upon himself to evangelize to anyone and everyone about this seemingly impossible discovery? There quite likely lies something truthful to be said about his zeal, but not necessarily about his subject, and I’m not entirely sure what it is. And at the risk of seeming as though I am turning away from identifying and defending by example my point about this evangelical man, I would say this to the man as he looked pleadingly at me to join him in his embrace of his Truth: Truth is a sizable thing, and it requires many, many very patient turtles to keep it aloft, and I am sure that they appreciate your support of their hard work.

Claiming a fundamental truth without a fixed set of beliefs and a certain amount of faith, would be like trying to set firm a pole in the middle of outer space, with the intent of then hosting a flag. The question thus becomes: can Truth exist in a vacuum?

Truth is not some atomic level element incapable of being further reduced. Truth is much more like the weather, a slurry of “stuff” stewing about within some climatological context, completely indifferent to its impact within the context, but constantly evaluated, second guessed, forecast and cursed.