Schrodinger's cat and God (Divine force)?

[Itoero]

Something I read:

 

"The principle of the experiment is simple, a cat is put in a box with poison (or explosives) this box has no windows, it's COMPLETELY sound proof and there is no way to tell if the poison (or explosives) goes off. So during this time the cat is considered both dead, and alive.

Can this apply to God in religion? We cannot see, we cannot hear, we cannot have any physical evidence to prove he exists or doesn't exist so in the terms of physics, he both exists and doesn't exist.

And before anyone goes (We know the cat exists cause we put it in the box) Prove to me the cat exists without opening the box, the simple truth is: You do not know, without opening the box. "

 

What do you think about this?

I don't believe in a Divine force but I haven't ruled it out.

I prefer to use 'Divine force' instead of 'God'. When you talk about 'God' most people immediately assume you mean a personal God...which I have ruled out.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Itoero

[Country Boy]

What, exactly, do you mean by "divine"? For that matter what do you mean by "exists"? You start talking about whether the cat is "dead or alive" but then switch to "exists". I would say that once I put the cat in the box or saw someone put the cat in the box, I know it "exists" whether it is alive or dead.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Country Boy

[Itoero]

I did not write it.

I started the thread with: "Something I read:"

[swansont]

I think it's another poor attempt to co-opt physics into mysticism.

 

I don't think you can have a superposition of existing vs not existing. Energy conservation.

 

(You could conceivably have an entangled system like that, though)

[MonDie]

Indeed the meaning of "exist" is debated by philosophers. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

 

I know that I can only talk about things that I perceive, so it is my opinion that all meanings, including the meaning of "to exist", must hinge on the potential to perceive the effects of the thing "existing".

The answer seems obvious at first. If the cat has the potential to exist, that is the cat has the potential to produce cat-like effects, then it still exists. Perhaps things become more complicated though when you consider that the cat might remain a cat or else become a pile of ash. Do the cat and the pile of ash both exist until the quantum mechanics resolve, or should we refer to the cat/ash potential differently?

[dimreepr]

Indeed the meaning of "exist" is debated by philosophers. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

 

I know that I can only talk about things that I perceive, so it is my opinion that all meanings, including the meaning of "to exist", must hinge on the potential to perceive the effects of the thing "existing".

The answer seems obvious at first. If the cat has the potential to exist, that is the cat has the potential to produce cat-like effects, then it still exists. Perhaps things become more complicated though when you consider that the cat might remain a cat or else become a pile of ash. Do the cat and the pile of ash both exist until the quantum mechanics resolve, or should we refer to the cat/ash potential differently?

 

 

The two questions in your link is really only one question, does it matter?

What one perceives is always questionable, that's why axioms exist.

Edited January 24, 2017 by dimreepr