Jump to content

The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment proves there is no God


VenusPrincess
 Share

Recommended Posts

According to the Copenhagen interpretation a quantum system remains in superposition until it is observed. If God was omnipotent he would be all knowing, implying that he observes all. However since the cat's state remains in superposition we can infer that it has not been observed, and therefore God is has no knowledge of the cat's state. That contradicts the initial assumption that God is omnipotent, but if God is not Omnipotent then he is not God at all, and therefore God does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is basically a reformulation of the problem of evil 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Quote

Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus,[21] the logical argument from evil is as follows:

P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.

P2. There is evil in the world.

C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid: If its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example:[2]

P1a. God exists.

P1b. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

P1c. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.

P1d. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.

P1e. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.

P1f. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.

P1. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.

P2. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Both of these arguments are understood to be presenting two forms of the 'logical' problem of evil. 

<...>

A version by William L. Rowe:

  1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
  2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
  3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.[2]

Another by Paul Draper:

  1. Gratuitous evils exist.
  2. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
  3. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought experiment proves that fire engines are red:

1+3=4

4x3=12

12 inches is the length of a ruler

A great ruler is Queen Elizabeth

The RMS Queen Elizabeth sailed the seas

Seas have fishes

Fishes have fins

The Finns fought the Russians

The Russians are Red

And therefore fire engines are red, because they are always rushing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

However since the cat's state remains in superposition we can infer that it has not been observed

Presumably an omnipotent being would have no need to observe the quantum system, he could have knowledge of its entire history without having to collapse it first. Since that knowledge is not accessible to us, this case would be indistinguishable from God not existing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VenusPrincess said:

According to the Copenhagen interpretation a quantum system remains in superposition until it is observed. If God was omnipotent he would be all knowing, implying that he observes all.

You just said it yourself. Thanks to the superposiiton ; we could say that God tests all the possibilities and know all the possible paths.
It is only for the man who observes, which results in only one way, and only one possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even the revered activity of observation has recently been proven unreliable. Not only in our justice system relying on line-ups and witnesses to a crime, testimonials on having witnessed a crime, but the famous Gorilla Experiment done at Univ of Illinois. Observation now is even considered not essential in scientific method by some scientists.  

Quote

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, noquacks said:

even the revered activity of observation has recently been proven unreliable. Not only in our justice system relying on line-ups and witnesses to a crime, testimonials on having witnessed a crime, but the famous Gorilla Experiment done at Univ of Illinois. Observation now is even considered not essential in scientific method by some scientists.  

You're mistakenly conflating the act of taking a measurement (either with equipment or human senses) with the accuracy of eye-witness testimony (itself obviously flawed due to the plastic nature of memory and how they get rewritten slightly every single time we access them).

They're not the same. They are different in important ways. Your comment does not apply here.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, iNow said:

You're mistakenly conflating the act of taking a measurement (either with equipment or human senses) with the accuracy of eye-witness testimony (itself obviously flawed due to the plastic nature of memory and how they get rewritten slightly every single time we access them).They

e. They are different in important ways. Your comment does not apply her

I goofed on the entire reply/edit, sorry people. I even accidentally erased inows words.  Just wanted to post Inow, thats your opinion, and you are entitled to it. 

Edited by noquacks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to be careful how I say this, but...

I do not believe God exists-- but, if a God of unlimited power did exist, could not that God have triggered the existence of the Universe in such a manner that everything we can measure with science remains true?  If so, then, while there is no experiment or observation that proves such a God exists, there would also be no experiment or observation to prove such a God does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

God is that which brought the universe into existence, God can be rationally inferred from that observation, it is a definition of God.

We cannot logically, ever have a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe ("universe" being all matter/energy/laws/fields etc. that exist) it is beyond the ability of science to explain it's presence.

All theories in physics refer to pre-existing material quantities, refer to laws that underpin material interactions, therefore in the absence of material quantities and laws no theory could be developed, the true "theory of everything" would be a blank sheet of paper.

The explanation for the presence of the universe (matter, energy, fields, laws) must be non-scientific, therefore scientific explanations are not the only form of legitimate explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting premise ...

Using a subjective interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in a subjective thought experiment, to prove, or disprove, a figment of subjective beliefs.

Yeah, that's gonna work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Holmes said:

God is that which brought the universe into existence

What is the evidence of that?

46 minutes ago, Holmes said:

We cannot logically, ever have a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe ("universe" being all matter/energy/laws/fields etc. that exist) it is beyond the ability of science to explain it's presence.

I don't think that is self evident

 

47 minutes ago, Holmes said:

The explanation for the presence of the universe (matter, energy, fields, laws) must be non-scientific, therefore scientific explanations are not the only form of legitimate explanation.

So if we don't have an answer to something, the answer must be supernatural?  I definitely disagree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

What is the evidence of that?

 

The universe is evidence of something it cannot be evidence of itself and it cannot be evidence of anything subject to laws so it must be evidence for something else, something different, something that is not itself a law. Thus it is an inference, a rational inference.

 

Quote

I don't think that is self evident

 

If one is steeped in philosophical materialism, mechanistic reductionism then I understand, such a view insists that all explanations be mechanistic, reductionist, "physical" yet we have no right to insist that this is true, it is a belief and must be abandoned if it leads to paradoxes and believing laws are the origin of laws is such a paradox.

 

Quote

So if we don't have an answer to something, the answer must be supernatural?  I definitely disagree with that.

Well that's no surprise, again if one believes that the material realm can be explained only in terms of the material realm then you will hold the view you do, but it is paradoxical and we must reject any belief that leads to a paradox if we want to make sense of reality.

When a mathematician discovers a paradox, contradiction in his/her reasoning they understand that the reasoning is flawed or that one or more of the axioms is flawed.

Putting all this together we can infer that the universe was created in a way that cannot be described scientifically, that was not the result of laws acting on things, so we can also infer that there is a thing we can call "will" an innate ability to act not in accordance with deterministic laws.

Edited by Holmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can infer anything you want. It’ll never rise above the specious foundation of being just your opinion, supported by nothing more than personal faith and personal preference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can infer anything you want. It’ll never rise above the specious foundation of being just your opinion, supported by nothing more than personal faith and personal preference. 

 

Is that a rebuttal? what specifically did I write that you take issue with and why?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Holmes said:

what specifically did I write that you take issue with and why?

Wild stab in the dark: all the unevidenced assertions you made in the post previous to iNow's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Holmes said:

The universe is evidence of something it cannot be evidence of itself and it cannot be evidence of anything subject to laws

This is just an unevidenced conjuncture.  If we say at this point that we don't know that simply means we don't know at this time, it does not mean we will never know, or something is unknowable.

 

34 minutes ago, Holmes said:

If one is steeped in philosophical materialism, mechanistic reductionism then I understand, such a view insists that all explanations be mechanistic, reductionist, "physical" yet we have no right to insist that this is true

Ok, so you think supernatural stuff is real, well when you get some great evidence of supernatural stuff let me know.

 

37 minutes ago, Holmes said:

Putting all this together we can infer that the universe was created in a way that cannot be described scientifically,

That is simply bovine feces.  You can infer whatever you like, don't include me in your little inferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Holmes said:

Really? you really want to descend into such pettiness so soon.

You were the one who asked him to be more specific when he was fairly specific to begin with.

Just now, Bufofrog said:

This is just an unevidenced conjuncture.

And this is just wrong. 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Holmes said:

 

Is that a rebuttal? what specifically did I write that you take issue with and why?

 

You made an assertion without evidence, namely that the the universe must be evidence "of" something other than itself. This seems to be a disguised way of stating the old canard about everything needing to have a cause. But why should this be true, when we have evidence that some events occur randomly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bufofrog said:

This is just an unevidenced conjuncture.  If we say at this point that we don't know that simply means we don't know at this time, it does not mean we will never know, or something is unknowable.

So you claim a thing can be evidence for itself? 

 

Just now, Bufofrog said:

Ok, so you think supernatural stuff is real, well when you get some great evidence of supernatural stuff let me know.

The natural, the fact that that is here and we can observe it is evidence of the supernatural, that is a definition in fact of supernatural in fact - some thing that cannot be explained naturalistically (scientifically, laws etc).

 

Just now, Bufofrog said:

That is simply bovine feces.  You can infer whatever you like, don't include me in your little inferences.

As you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Holmes said:

The natural, the fact that that is here and we can observe it is evidence of the supernatural, that is a definition in fact of supernatural in fact - some thing that cannot be explained naturalistically (scientifically, laws etc).

Whoa there. Science attempts to explain natural phenomena. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of anything that violates that. EVERYTHING is observed to function within the parameters of the natural universe. If you're claiming something is outside that, or SUPERnatural, then you aren't doing science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

You made an assertion without evidence, namely that the the universe must be evidence "of" something other than itself. 

Well I say that because to attribute the presence of something to its self is paradoxical, I tend to reject paradoxical explanations personally, all the science I've studied takes that same view too.

If someone in this forum said the reason there's a moon is because there's a moon or magnetic fields exist because of magnetic fields I very much doubt you'd agree or regard that as sound scientific reasoning.

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

This seems to be a disguised way of stating the old canard about everything needing to have a cause. But why should this be true, when we have evidence that some events occur randomly?

I "disguised" nothing, I expressed my view as I expressed my view.

If you reject the view that things have a cause then on what basis do we even do science? what is a theory if not a mapping of causes/effects?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Holmes said:

The natural, the fact that that is here and we can observe it is evidence of the supernatural

LOL, your a hoot!  If you assume something is supernatural, then since this thing exists that is evidence of the supernatural?  Really? 

Let me play this game.  There is no exact mechanism that explains red sprites, so I think they are supernatural.  Red sprits exist, therefore they are evidence of the supernatural!  Cool.🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.