Uncertainty

un•cer•tain•ty (noun)
(scientific) the margin of error associated with every measurement made.
Origin: Medieval English uncerteynte


~~~~~~~~~~

Scientific uncertainty, as it is defined above for the physical and analytical sciences, deals with the size of error that is associated with all measurements. I'm sure you remember the concept of error from Physics 11 and 12, yes?

If not, scientific error can be defined as the amount by which a measurement differs from the true value of what is being measured. This arises from the concept that we, as imperfect beings, can never measure or create anything that can measure anything precisely: our measurement never completely reflect the true value. This itself is connected to significant figures (sigfigs), bringing us back to the uncertainty of measurement.

For example, let's say we want to measure the length of a hippo's foot using a ruler: we put the foot on the ruler, and all is well until we look very closely, and see that the tip of its toe lies somewhere between the line for 10.47cm and the line for 10.48cm. What is the actual length of the foot? Our instrument is not precise enough to tell us exactly where between 10.47 - 10.48 the real length of the foot lies, and so we must make our best estimate. Let's say we decide that the foot's length is 10.473cm. This is all very well, but that can't be the exact, definite length of the foot because we had to guess the value of the last decimal place, the "3". This makes the "3" our first uncertain digit, because we are uncertain about the accuracy of this digit in the measurement.

Now we must determine our uncertainty, so we examine out ruler and assess our ability to use the ruler properly, and decide that our measurement probably contains 0.002cm error: this is our estimated error. That means that we are reasonably confident that the true value of the foot's length is 10.473 +/- 0.002 cm long (read as: "10.473 plus or minus 0.002 cm," meaning that we are reasonably confident that the true length of the foot lies between 10.471cm and 10.475cm). The +/- 0.002 is also called the uncertainty associated with our measurement.

For the sake of our example, let's say that the foot's actual, real, definite length is 10.474cm. Our measurement is off by 0.001cm: this is our absolute error. Error is thus associated with every single measurement. The more accurate we make our measuring instruments, the more accurate we can be. Measurements can be made in the lab that are accurate to 0.0001 grams, or 0.000000001 m, but the point is that no matter how accurate it gets, it is still not quite the true value.

~~~~~~~~~~

Uncertainty is our vonerdword today because I've been thinking about uncertainty in the non-scientific sense, as well as definitions, which connects me to my thoughts from my last post (sorry I didn't post last week, btw, I didn't want to post twice in a row, plus I had to do a lot of data crunching for my AnaChem lab). A number of things that have come to my attention/happened recently to stimulate thought on the subject of the validity of rules and definitions.

John Green made a vlog last week that echoed the sentiments of something Mr. Moorhead brought up in Eng12: reality and truth resist simplicity.

I realized that this is true for everything, whether it be religion, law, politics, science, english, and everything else in the world. Mr. Moorhead talked about how there will always be a gap between language and reality because no matter how hard one strives, language and words can never fully capture the real world. You can use all the words in every language in existence to try and describe something like the blistering hot sun shining down on a Costa Rican coffee plantation, or the warm glow of the sunrise on new years morn; the grandeur and spectacular presence of an ancient Japanese castle, or the sense of peace that comes with being with the most amazing friends on earth; even describing something as simple as the art on a card, but that description will never exactly be able to capture the reality; reality resists the simplicity of language.

In the sciences, reality resists our ability to describe it with words, scientific definitions, theories, mathematics, or even something as plain as measurement.

And so it is with religion. I've described to you on many occasions about how I'm trying to define my religion with two simple truths, and deriving the morals and laws I support or reject based on these truths, but I've recently realized that all of these rules I've been evaluating should not be treated as black and white rules, but sort of as guidelines, because the reality of the world resists my attempt to simplify it into "agrees with my truths" and "disagrees with my truths." The reality of the world resists my attemps to categorize and separate into groups, and urges me to consider each situation fully and independantly.

For example, something seemingly as simple as "One must not murder" can turn out to be something more complex than at first glance. My initial reaction to the statement "one must not murder" is to agree with it: murder disrepects the lives of others and violates their right to live their own lives. But imagine someone alone in their home, and a burglar breaks in and attacks the homeowner, and in an attempt to protect themself from being stabbed to death, s/he its the burglar over the head with a large heavy object (lamp, frying pan, baseball bat, miniature house hippo, etc), and the burglar ends up dying because of the injuries sustained from the blow to the head. Technically, the homeowner has murdered the burglar, but it was completely non-intentional. If one is to stand by their rule that "one must not murder," then the homeowner would be considered a murder.

However, I don't think that it is fair to put the homeowner in the same category as a person who intentionally goes out into the world and murders people for his/her own twisted pleasure. There are big differences between the two situations, and although they both technically performed the same act (the taking of another person's life), I am inclined to believe that the two are by no means the same.

In this way, even the most simplest of religious rules can only be a guideline to help us dictate how we live our lives, and in truth, we must consider each and every situation independently; we should try to avoid making large, general statements and then cement those statements as binding, because in truth there is no "yes" and "no," but varying degrees of agreement and disagreement.

~~~~~~~~~~

LOL k Clay, TOTALLY had to read your post like 3 times in order to understand what you were trying to say XD Good looooooord there were so manyh syntax, usage, and grammar confusions. Like, I completely didn't get that you'd changed the subject to Twilight when I first read that part, and I was becoming increasingly frantic because I thought you were bashing Harry Potter (which I cannot stand for; I LOVE HP!) TEEHEE I totally agree with you on that series; it will not last. There are very, very big differences between the Twilight and HP phenomena.

For one thing, Twilight is/was only really popular with females. Second of all, it doesn't even come close to the influence that HP held over the world.

Harry Potter is much more than a book, or a movement. It has become a part of the lives that it has touched. I first read Harry Potter in grade 3/4; I still remember buying Goblet of Fire at the Scholastic Book Fair in grade 4, and then following the rest of the books through high school. I grew up alongside Harry and everyone at Hogwarts. It was also a series for all ages: young kids and old wrinkly people alike could read Harry Potter and still enjoy it. The series was action, mystery, fantasy, and children's literature all rolled into one. It entertained while provoking (at least in me) thought about many things (for example, social structures and social perception during adolescence). This is something that Stephanie Meyer could never hope to achieve: her books are way too empty, the style is way to deprived, and they were written/published way to fast.

I will admit to having read all four of the books, and while they were entertaining, I really don't feel the same emotional attachment to it than I do to Harry Potter. There's just no comparison.

SO YEA... the week i made my last post, I went to see Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows pt1 with Asia and Kelsey, and I've been re-obsessed with it ever since: seeing as I read the 7th book over the winter break, I started the 6th book and rented the 6th movie last weekend; I finished the 6th book on Wednesday night and I'm 1/5th the way through the 5th book. Going through the series in reverse order is interesting; I'm finding a lot more stuff because the details of what happen next are fresh in my mind.

My obsession with the Fire Emblem series has also been rekindled over the winter break, so I'm in the midst of purchasing a lot of the old GBA games I can find b/c I'd love to play them; the plot and character development in this series is phenomenal!

Also: HOW IS TERM GOING FOR YOU? School's been rather dull this term so far. I'm enjoying some of my classes, but others are just such a bore. Midterm season starts soon, and it couldn't have been timed worse: the weekend of Feb 4-6 is Chinese New Years, but I have four midterms during the week Feb 7-12, which has got me rather alarmed. Oh well, at least reading break is the week after! Is that the same week you have reading break too? I hope so. I remember you mentioned that TWU likes to try to make reading break line up with Easter, but this year Easter is very late in April, so... If our reading breaks coincide, I totally thing we should go for a road trip! It'd be so much fun!!!

Anyways, I hope classes are going well for you!
Chat soon,
~Tim~