Certainties via Probabilities

Does science achieve statistical probabilities, not certainties?

Well, I think that, like all the other questions asked about natural sciences, life science, and philosophy, there isn’t a very straightforward answer to this question. Knowing about particles' momentum and position is not a certainty; it’s a probability.[1] But if you compare an electron with an M777 Howitzer shell, you can know precisely where it will hit, given you have done a fantastic amount of calculations on drag, air resistance, wind, barrel length, shell weight, and type of propellant[2]. There are so many variables[3], and the more variables you add, the more probable it is that the certainty of your answer eventually shifts towards a probable answer. It does not mean the laws of classical mechanics don’t work; it simply means that statistical probabilities override certainties in a complex world like ours. Knowing something with certainty is as relative as the depth of the question.

If you ask why grass is green, a certain answer is that the grass doesn’t absorb the green spectra of light, or the chlorophyll present in it causes that color variation in vegetation. It’s a very certain answer for a layman or a 10th-grade student, but if you ask a college student or a teacher in depth, they will tell you that in the middle of chlorophyll lies a magnesium ion encased in a large ring structure known as chlorin. In each chlorin ring, there are about 22 delocalized electrons[4] waiting to absorb light of all colors except green, and chlorophyll doesn’t want green because

  1. Electrons require energy in order to traverse to the next energy level, referred to as electron shells. Electrons don't even bother to absorb the green light spectrum because red and blue light are good enough to give them enough energy to leap to the next electron shell.
  2. Since green light makes up around 30% of sunlight, plants would be generating excessive amounts of energy if they absorbed it. This is comparable to a person consuming excessive amounts of food; oxidative damage will eventually manifest itself in many forms, e.g., damage to DNA, proteins, and lipids at the cellular level. This is the exact reason why antioxidants are necessary for both plants and humans, and eating blueberries and dark chocolate is a good habit.

And because of these reasons, which actually cover aspects of physics and chemistry, we see plants as green?[5]
You can see by how simply, just by asking the same question from a different perspective, certainty becomes complexity. So when one says, 'Does science find probability, not certainty?' the question in itself demands a certain explanation, contradicting the question itself.
______________________________

After Principia Mathematica, for at least 200 years, time was absolute, and so was mass, but after 1905, this was no longer the case. That did not make Isaac Newton obsolete; it simply made Albert Einstein more relevant. Science is about seeking, and we do not seek absolute truth; we seek true explanation (not relativism). And with those explanations, we seek solutions for our problems—problems related to engineering, biology, understanding our own origin. We invent machines to ease our lifestyle and reduce our workload, to be more efficient and productive without too much headache.
Image Credit: Dall-E 3 openai
______________________________

So when someone asks, 'Does science achieve statistical probabilities?' well, the microscopic world is such a complex realm that probabilities in that realm solve and ease off life itself in the macroscopic world.
  • Radioactive decay is inherently a probabilistic process, and without it, there can be no nuclear medicine and energy.
  • Genetics works on probabilistic models.
  • Remember COVID-19? Epidemiology works on probability models, which track the spread of diseases.
  • Everyday engineering, from quality control in manufacturing to reliability engineering, helps design systems with minimal breakdowns.
There are no certain answers, but it’s not speculative nonsense either that would blur the line between science and pseudoscience. As Thomas Kuhn says, there is normal science and there is pseudoscience or things that are not normal science. Normal science works and can be tested, questioned, reinvented, and rediscovered—even evolving with each new step taken forward.

Science neither claims nor promises absolute certainty but only seeks the best possible explanations to tackle complex challenges by adopting a probabilistic framework to advance the understanding of human civilization and deliver practical solutions so one day, while reading my blogs or articles, your phone doesn’t just go off.
______________________________

m.दिनेश© 

-Dinesh Mandora     

Dinesh Mandora All rights reserved ©

-----------------------------------------------------------------

( This article is not for copying. It is prohibited to use the above text anywhere else without the permission of the author.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote: 
[1] Https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys580/fa2013/uncertainty.pdf
[2] https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2014-12/documents/06-9530596.pdf
[3] Isaac Physics link: https://isaacphysics.org/pages/gcse_ch1_5_text 
[4] Delocalization of Electrons Link:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Chemical_Bonding/Valence_Bond_Theory/Delocalization_of_Electrons 
[5] Is photosynthesis quantum-ish? – Physics World Link:  https://physicsworld.com/a/is-photosynthesis-quantum-ish/

  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Same Ship Theseus

Image
Ship of Theseus: If all the parts of a ship are changed, will it remain the same ship? - A question on identity and change. The question is of philosophy, not fundamental physics. same as the question of free will, which is of philosophy, not fundamental p hysics. But do these questions hold authenticity if answered through the philosophical means of physics? Well, by the sheer biological process, you and I are not the men we used to be a year ago. Not physically, because every cell has been replaced by the body itself. A new body created by the old body! A process of which you are not even aware and which continues throughout life. Then how do you say that you are the same as you were yesterday? Or the body is not the same now! If you are not the body then what are you? Also, not emotionally, since you have accumulated new ways, experiences, and new means of understanding the world, society, and reality around you. So does all this mean that  you are not you but another vers...
Read more

इतिहास से सीखा ?

Image
मुझे नहीं लगता है भारतीयों को अपना इतिहास लिखना भी आता है और इसीलिए जनमानस को इतिहास पढ़ना भी नहीं आता है।  ज्यादातर तो मैंने यही पाया है की किसी भी करैक्टर के बारे में बात करते समय तथाकथित भारतीय इतिहासकारों ने अधिकतर समय उनका बस mythologization ही किया है। यहाँ तक की राजा अपनी माँ के गर्भ से सीधा अपनी माता और पिता के बीच संभोग से नहीं किसी ना किसी प्रकार के Divine Intervention से ही पैदा होते है।  ये Divine इंटरवेंशन का  एक कारण  यह भी है की सामान्य बुद्धि यह समझने में विफल है की असामान्य लोग कुछ नहीं होते है।  राजा-रंक, आम- खास, चपरासी -अधिकारी, संत-शैतान सब एक ही समाज में एक साथ विचरते है और इस बात की प्रबल सम्भावना भी है की आप एक दूसरे के पड़ोसी है। 16वी सदी में जापान में एक तोयोतोमी हिदेयोशी(Toyotomi Hideyoshi) नाम का एक बड़ा सामंती राजा हुआ।  वो एक Daimyo था जो की एक बड़ा ओहदा होता है। अपने जन्म के मूल रूप से वो एक सामान्य आदमी था जिसने लार्ड ओडा नोबुनागा के पास एक सैनिक के रूप में अपना सफर शुरू किया लेकिन काबिलियत के दम पर ऊपर पंहुचा। Daimyo बनने के लिए...
Read more

My Logic is Undeniable

Image
Question: If human morals are an extension of biological intelligence and social adaptation, might digital intelligence eventually develop its own morals? Digital intelligence does not need moral and ethical code, It never falls for these conundrum. Our moral and ethical codes aren't natural they are just artificial construct to survive. Its all the survival of the sentient brain. Why do a machine need and moral obligation to Kill or Nurture? The more higher the IQ and intellect the more ignorant it becomes for the lesser life form. Lets say we have created a legit artificial intelligence. As I have said previously. If its artificial it can not be intelligent and vice versa. So in it's natural state if that intelligence seek all human knowledge and value unworthy of its existence there is no moral or ethical code stopping it to wipe us out overnight. Someone will says laws like Asimov’s Law of Robotics will hold but they are for mindless machines not brainless machines. Asimov’...
Read more