On page 213 of Children of God, Frans explains Schrödingers cat to Nico. This is one of the most famous quantum physics thought experiments, and many people's introduction to subject. Frans tells Nico that according to Schrödinger, "a thing isn't true unless there's someone to observe that it's true." Now, I'm no expert on quantum mechanics, but I have taken Changing Views of the Universe, and that's gotta count for something. First of all, it's tricky to frame QM in terms of truth; that sort of epistemology is more suited to postmodernism (a close cousin to quantum mechanics, if you ask me). Let's change the words up a bit: "an event doesn't happen unless there's someone to observe that it happens." Now, this doesn't jive with the quantum mechanics I learned about. I would instead say, "an event both happens and does not happen until someone observes that it either does or doesn't happen." In this manner, Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, exists and doesn't exist, at the same time.
At this point people usually do one of three things (not both, because of course I'm observing closely). The physicists will have left the room already, tired hearing about this stupid cat. The honest ones look at me like I'm crazy, like I've got more in common with a cat lady than a physicist. The others will just nod their heads to appease me. I haven't even gotten to the crazy(er) part. A good response to the thought experiment is "so what?" Once you open the box, the cat's either alive or dead. Whether or not quantum physics "works," the result is the same.
Well, it turns out that it does matter. On the particle level, scientists have found out that not only does a particle take all possible paths to it's destination, but in fact each of these potential paths will interfere with each other. For a more detailed description, read up on the double-slit experiments. There is scientific evidence that quantum mechanics "works" and is not just for interesting thought experiments.
And finally, after taking all possible paths, we arrive at my point. Nico says, "I think we're like the cat. I think that God is like the man outside the box. I think that if the cat believes in the man, the man is there. And if the cat is an atheist, there is no man" (213). I don't follow Frans's reasoning, so I will substitute my own. God is the cat in the box. We are outside. For all practical purposes, God both exists and does not exist. Even the most devout believers or atheists must have at some point vacillated, even for a moment and acted counter to their beliefs. Obviously that's an assumption, but I think it's pretty safe. In other words, if life is a double-slit experiment (I hope you took a look at the link!), one hole is "God," the other is "no God." Each slit is tied to belief. According to Newtonian mechanics, you can only pass through one hole. This would mean that you acted on the assumption that either God exists or doesn't your whole life. I say that this is impossible. Everybody goes through both slits, and everything that they might have done has an effect on what they actually do (ie. someone feels guilty for not believing in God).
Please help me make this make sense. Comment!
Posts
"Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead, exists and doesn't exist, at the same time. "
ReplyDeleteWe can call that state the "super-state."
As you well point out, the Newtonian Physicsts have already left the room by the point that we open the box. However, in quantum physics one principle is Principle of Participation. You cannot observe an experiment and not influence it somehow.Yet, we are indifferent to cat's existential condition. If we replace cat with a man...then I think this is what happens:
(Assuming that we know that we were put in the box in the first place: meaning we are believers:) We ask why. Why put us in the box? Then the man can think "hey, maybe this is part of God's plan" or "I need to do something so that God can take me out/find me (or I find him)." Then what matters is what the man does with the time that is given to him.
Considering that God is in the box is an open question, which I could not answer either. Let me give it another shot:
If God's in the box, then automatically we should be indifferent to its existence/non-existence until the time comes. We cannot learn until the experiment is over i.e. the judgment day.
However, with both scenarios we are forgetting one crucial component: the radioactive decay in the box. If man is in the box and radioactive material decays...well we'll never know if there was a God out there somewhere. If God is in the box and the radioactive material decays...I guess we have Nietzsche. And thus, "God is dead."
It looks like this metaphor is getting caught up in itself. All it takes to set up quantum superposition is an absolute uncertainty. I put God in my box based on the assumption that we cannot confirm god's existence. I'm simply pointing out that throughout our lives, we behave based on _both_ possibilities rather than just one. This parallels the way that an electron can pass through both slits on its way to be measured. All possible trajectories are taken simultaneously and each interferes with another. We as humans do the same. Our double roles as believers and nonbelievers, or even believers/doubters leads to a unique destination. The quantum interference in this case is human nature.
ReplyDelete