GDR’s Certainty Principle: The Edge of the Ledge
I 'd like to give you, in this new seminar, one more Tool or Philosopher’s Crystal – one that will help you to deal with many of the intellectual problems that surface in philosophical discussions. That Crystal is one I call “The Edge Of The Ledge”.
Many of you, who engage in philosophical discussions as I do, will be familiar with the response that begins with the words “But isn’t it possible that …” Very often, this phrase is used to introduce or defend a proposition that is, perhaps, possible but is almost certainly so unlikely that to consider it is a waste of intellectual time. Nevertheless, the “admission” we might make that “Yes, proposition X is possible …” is seen as proof in itself of the viability of the said proposition.
The fact of the matter is that we – meaning, we human creatures on the Newtonian, classical physics scale – live in a probability universe, not a possibility universe. Things that happen occur with an in-built order of probability. That order of probability ranges from Probability Zero, which means that it absolutely cannot ever happen, to Probability One, which means that it absolutely must happen. And the likelihood of every event in the finite, physical universe (on the macroscopic scale of people, and billiard balls, and planets) occurring falls somewhere between probability zero and probability one. Some things are so unlikely that their probability of happening is approaching probability zero. And some things are so likely that their probability of happening is approaching probability one.
So far, so uncontentious: most rational, reasonable-minded people wouldn’t have a problem with what I’ve written so far. The contentious part comes now – with how we react to those facts concerning probability distributions and probability values.
My contention is that anything that is approaching probability zero – even though there is remote possibility that it will happen – should be regarded as impossible or not-existing. And anything that approaches probability one – even though there is a possibility that it might not happen – should be regarded as a fact.
Let’s take an example. If you’re standing on the edge of a ledge on a 23-storey building, looking down at a straight drop, you will agree that if you step off the ledge, the probability of falling and suffering very serious injury or dying is approaching probability one. It’s so likely to occur, in other words, that it is almost certain to occur. Now, there is a possibility that as you step off the ledge, a quantum fluctuation could occur in every atomic and sub-atomic particle in your body, and in all of the energy states associated with those particles. Under those circumstances, it might be possible for a person who steps off the ledge to fly off into space, rather than to fall and be injured or die. This is a fantastically remote (I would say incalculably remote) possibility, but it is a possibility. But even those rational, reasonable-minded physicists who have a highly sophisticated understanding of quantum fluctuations would never risk the fall, and step of the ledge – even though they know that such a gigantic fluctuation is possible. The reason why they don’t step off the ledge is that they know we all live in a probabilistic universe, and that events which approach probability one – the almost certainty that you will fall if you step off the ledge – must be regarded as facts on the ground. In fact, to behave in any other way is simply insane: by definition, no sane, healthy person will step off the ledge because there is a possibility that they might not fall. Sane, healthy people do not step off the ledge because they treat the very high probability of falling as if it were a fact.
So, how does this help us in our philosophical discussions, and how does the Edge Of The Ledge become one of the Crystals in our Philosopher’s Toolkit? Let me show you, by referring to a discussion I had recently with a group of philosophers in Switzerland. The four men and women in the group were all, as it happens (a high order of probability in philosophical circles, these days) post-modernists. One strand of post-modernist thought deals with what is often called The Discourse. What this refers to, for the purposes of our discussion, is the notion that there is no author of any text, and no one perspective that can claim to be objective: all points of view are equally valid, in a sense, because the interpretation of a text creates the text, and because none of us can free ourselves from the bias that begins in our DNA and proceeds through our culture.
This is a useful point of view in analyzing documents or arguments, because we can use it to deconstruct the document to reveal the bias of the person who wrote it. This can help us to see how there might be flaws in the reasoning or the conclusions drawn in the document, arising from those biases native to the person. But if this point of view prevents us from accepting obvious facts on the ground – as was the case in the discussion I had with the post-modernist philosophers in Switzerland – it can become an impediment to rational and reasonable minded argument. In fact, when the post-modernist philosophers stated, during the course of the discussion, that there are no such things as facts, it was clear to me that the single useful tool of their philosophical movement had become an impediment to rational and reasonable-minded thinking. I stated, in contradiction, that there were, indeed, facts on the ground, and that I could prove it to them beyond contradiction immediately.
The philosophers began to argue, resorting to all the esoteric tricks of thought and language they use to justify such an anti-rational proposition – that there are no such things as facts, and all things are simply matters of interpretation – but I asked them to adjourn the discussion to another area of the building, which would give me the chance to prove my contention. They agreed, and we then took the elevator to the 10th floor of the building, and climbed the last flight of stairs to emerge on the roof of the building. I asked the philosophers to stand as near to the edge of the ledge as possible, They did so, one of them even standing on the edge of the ledge itself. Then, beginning with a discussion of quantum fluctuations and the possibility that they might not fall if they stepped off the ledge – a proposition with which they all agreed – I asked them if any of them were prepared to step off the ledge.
Needless to say, none of them were prepared to step off the ledge, because there are no post-modernists on the edge of the ledge. When we stand on the edge of the ledge, we know that the probability of falling, if we step off, is so high that it would be insane not to treat that high probability as a fact on the ground. This is because we (macroscopic human beings, billiard balls, and planets) exist in a probabilistic universe, and not a possibilistic universe. The fact that something is possible is not what determines our rational and reasonable-minded behaviour, it is what is probable that determines how we act and respond.
Everything we do each day, from driving a car to using the internet, from crossing a street to climbing a tree, involves probabilistic calculations, and when things are so close to probability one or zero – when they’re very, very likely to never happen or to always happen – we accept them as facts on the ground. This is how we live our lives in the real world, and any philosophy or philosophical argument that contradicts this basic aspect of how we really live in the real world should be regarded as highly suspect, and should be challenged with the Edge Of The Ledge.
So, the next time that you encounter the words “But isn’t it possible …” you will know how to respond. You will be able to use this Crystal from your Philosopher’s Toolkit, and say: “We live in a probabilistic universe, and all those things that are possible but so unlikely that they approach probability zero should be regarded as impossible, and all those things that are so likely that they approach probability one should be regarded as facts on the ground. And if you don’t agree, let’s adjourn this discussion to the Edge Of The Ledge, and I’ll prove to you that there are such things as facts.”
The deeper you go into philosophical discussions, the more useful this tool will be. And in every day terms, when you hear politicians or military commanders or economists or religious leaders talking about what is possible, rather than what is probable (Dick Cheney’s infamous “1% chance” rule comes to mind), you will now have a radar that will send out a warning sound. Policies, arguments, and campaigns that are based on possibility rather than probability are not following a rational, reasonable-minded thought process, and will often lead to counter-productive (or worse) consequences.
Heisenberg famously concluded that at the quantum level, it is simply impossible to know both the momentum and the position of a particle, for example, at the same time. We can know one characteristic, such as the momentum, with great accuracy, but not both at the same time. This is called Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle. Turning that idea on its head, I’m arguing that anything in the classical, Newtonian world of people and planets that has a probability approaching zero or one should be regarded as certainly impossible or certainly a fact. I call this GDR’s Certainty Principle, and it’s the basis of your new tool of thinking: the Edge Of The Ledge.
Remember, base your thinking on high and low orders of probability, have all your philosophical discussions on the Edge Of The Ledge (metaphorically speaking), and you will always have the reality check that will protect you against those strange and convoluted philosophical arguments that seem so intellectually rigorous, but are in fact based on possibilities so remote as to be meaningless.