Chapter 1 - Why the question? - Discreet Scientific Measures

Discreet Scientific Measures

Moving outside of the consideration for race we know that humanity has long attempted to classify the physical world around us. As we attempt to pigeonhole the actions and processes of nature, we seemingly find that each new pigeonhole has more classifications within its relative grouping. The results of centuries of scientific research have shown in many fields that discreet classification of phenomenon is problematic. I choose the words “many fields” to mitigate the confusion. Consider for instance quantum theory. In this case science has shown, and it is well accepted that energy transmissions at the sub-atomic levels are conducted in discreet quanta. To the attentive reader, this example seems to suggest the notion of discreet classification is a possible solution to the processes of nature. However, the more adroit review of the collective discussion presents still a problem with discreet classification. Erwin Schrodinger provides perhaps the best resolution to the conundrum. Even though energy is transmitted in discreet quanta one can never really know the exactness of its location for any given time. The simple thought experiment presented by Schrodinger represents this concept on a level that our physical perceptions allow us to understand. The thought experiment essentially goes as follows: A cat is placed in an opaque box. Within the box is a poison that will kill the cat if it eats it. The only way to measure if the cat is alive or dead is to open the box and look in. The cat may or may not eat the pill in question. In the case that it eats it, the cat is dead. In the case that it does not eat it, the cat is alive. While the box is closed there is a probability that the cat consumed the poison. However, once the box is opened and the cat is viewed, the distributed probability no longer exists. The morbidity of the cat is determined to a discreet value. This thought experiment is an expansion on the idea of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, that you can know the momentum of an object with exactness but not for a discreet time. Or you can know the exact time of the measurement but not the discreet value of momentum for the object. Therefore, although the discreet quanta of energy transmissions suggest that we can describe nature through a method of discreet classification, what we find is that nature maintains a probability of existence. Only after the measurement has been made can the “wave form be collapsed”. This is true for sub-atomic measurements. So we must now ask what about larger manifestations of physical models. The gradation only grows as we increase in size.

First let us define discreet. When classifying something we make a determination about its physical characteristics. When the two objects appear to be different we have two objects and not one. This is a discreet measurement. Scientifically the opposite of discreet is a continuum. Within a continuum there can be discreet values. For instance visible light is seen as a continuum in a rainbow. However, there are the discreet colors of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. If you ever looked at a rainbow you will see there is no separation or void between the colors. They blend together in certain regions and the discreetness is seen somewhere between the blending. When there is no void between values such as colors in a rainbow, a value is set as to the exact location of its discreetness. Determining the location for the jump or discreetness requires significant research and understanding of the phenomena. For centuries perhaps millennia we as mankind have attempted to place values one these points of discreetness.

The first well-recorded discussions of these issues began during the Socratic philosophies of the Classical period. The word atom obtains its meaning from that great time in Greek society as meaning no longer divisible. At the time it was thought that the world consisted of four basic elements – Earth, Air, Fire and Water. Since then we have determined that there may be as many as 118 different elements. Not to mention these elements come in many different isotopic forms. With these elements alone or when in combination there are different phases of matter. A child in school as little as 20 years ago would have learned there is only three phases of this matter. Today a child may learn that there are as many as five different phases: Liquid, Solid, Gas, Plasma, and Bose Condensate. One could argue that this is a demonstration of discreetness. All we see here is that the resolution of the discreetness has not been completed. However, lets place our evaluation in the context of the topic of this paper – the human body – to consider this information we must look at the object on a macro level. On the macro level let us assume we have a contained volume of something as simple as water. In our case we may assume at 0 Celsius the water maintains a series of phases. It is gaseous, liquid and solid. Looking at the object from a distance it is easy to detect the large volume of solid phase. However, close classical inspection of the surface reveals that some liquid exists. Furthermore, additional test will demonstrate through sublimation that the water is converting to a gaseous form. This being said, at what point, spatially, can we denote the separation of vapor, liquid and solid? In the classical understanding of the water, we take an estimate and quickly determine the point of separation. In our physical world the point of separation can be qualified. However, from a pure discreetness perspective the question becomes much more difficult. To determine this seemingly innocuous question with a degree of accuracy that completely satisfies discreetness, we must look at the water on an atomic level. At that point, we must return to our understanding of Schrodinger’s wave equation. Thus we only know probability of where the particles for the liquid water exist and the vapor or solid water begins. Furthermore, we determine there is no separation. The liquid, solid and gaseous phase all occupy the same space. This demonstrates two items of concern with our topic of classification. First, science has repeatedly demonstrated that classical discreetness continues to increase. Secondly, at what level of review do we assign some objective value or criteria to separate the gradation. This is true for Physics, Chemistry, Biology or Anthropology. Yes, we can create classifications and points of separation, but can we call these differences discreet? Or are the classifications nothing more than capriciously arbitrary.

Perhaps capricious decisions are a method of policy and procedure development. Consider for a moment relatively recent changes to the drinking laws in the United States. An individual must be 21 years of age to consume alcohol. To comply with this law, identification is presented when trying to purchase an adult drink. Assume for a moment that it is 10pm the day before your 21st birthday. By the letter of the law you can not and in most establishments will not be allowed to purchase the drink. However, wait two hours and one second and you can purchase. Did some cataclysmic event occur in that two-hour period? Furthermore, what if you were born late or born premature? Consider a premature baby born at 6 months. This individual effectively gets a 3-month head start over a person that was carried to full term. This example seems ludicrous. One would assume that any court that reviewed the case aforementioned of the 2 hour discrepancy would use the judicial power to insure a fair and equitable outcome. However, one really never knows.

But, in the case of this discussion we are not considering drinking laws or molecular separation of water on a sub-atomic level. We are considering people. We are considering the sanctity of how we address, group, quantify and qualify fellow human beings. Certainly any method of classification of those people can not be left to a capriciously arbitrary method of assignment. So we turn to Science. Already we have seen that our review of science in the past has shown us the discreetness to be ever changing as we learn. More so over, as we learn more, our resolution of evaluation becomes closer. However, just as we do with Particle Physics, let us assume there is a classical, quantum and perhaps relativistic level of measurement. Let us assume, and I think with relative certainty, that the taxonomic method of biological and anthropological classification is at least functional on a macro level. Clearly, fish swimming in the ocean differ outwardly from a heard animal grazing in a pasture. Although they both may have circulatory systems, skeletal structures and so forth, there is a clear distinction between the physical morphologies of the groups. At the same time, there are differences even within the same heard animal. It is well known that no two giraffes have the same pattern on their coat. Although to the untrained eye, it may be difficult to see the distinction, the well-trained biologists can detect this nuance at a glance. These pattern differences allow biologist some insight into specific allele frequency or habits of the giraffe in question. To the common visitor at the zoo, the pattern differences mean little more than image mirages.