The Myths of Modern Culture

Presenting a New Paradigm of Thought.

Schrödinger Agnosticism

Schrödinger’s Cat.

You place a cat in a box. Inside the box you place a flask of hydrocyanic acid, that when broken, will release a gas killing the cat. (This flask would of course be protected from the cat breaking it, but not vice versa). Also with this flask is a device with a Geiger Counter hooked to a hammer. Inside the Geiger counter is an atom with an undetermined half life, which may or may not begin decaying in an hour. If the atom decays, it will set off the Geiger Counter and release a hammer that will shatter the flask, release the gas, and kill the cat. Now assume you leave for an hour. You come back. Before you open the box, is the cat alive or dead? (Schrödinger, 1935)

I would imagine that more than one person reading this thinks that this is a madman experiment. Now before you wonder what my problem is, and why I want to kill a poor kitty,

Help Me! (Wikimedia, 2005)

Understand that this is not a real experiment. It is simply a thought experiment proposed by Erwin Schrödinger to explain undeterminable variables in quantum physics (it should be noted that Erwin Schrödinger refers to this example as a “ridiculous case,” (Schrödinger, 1935) and only to be taken as a metaphor).

In this case, Schrödinger is attempting to explain that if the state of an atom is indeterminable, than all possible states must be correct. In the case of the cat, the cat is both alive and dead.  (Schrödinger, 1935) For those of you who, understandably, have issues understanding this experiment, I have drafted a simulation sketch to the experiment:

Yeah, that’s kind of what it’s like.

Now, for those of you who object to this result, I must explain that this does not necessarily mean that the cat is both alive and dead (though on a quantum physics scale, that is quite possible, but that’s another article), it simply means that both possibilities are just as likely. Because both possibilities are just as likely they can both be assumed as true, until we of course open the box. Before this point, the cat, for all intents and purposes must be assumed as alive and dead, and calculations must be made as such until we determine either.

The Agnostic Premise.

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary Agnostic comes from the Greek words: A (Without) + Gn­ōstos (Knowledge). Agnosticism is described as an admission of ignorance; one who believes that the existence of God is unknowable (paraph.)(Merriam-Webster, 2010). This answer has been, thus far, the best answer I could come across for the God Question.

Considering that the idea of God has no concrete evidence (despite what ardent Theists would say), and the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative, it seems easy to assume that God is unknowable. However, what good scientist stops there?

So how do we solve this? Well my solution is to make it into a math problem of course. Below, I have included a formula for probability:

Pr(f)=f(Favorable Outcome)/p (Possible Outcomes)

(Galvin, 2004)

In the example of Schrödinger’s cat we have two possible variables, alive or dead. That gives us a favorable outcome of 1 and possible outcomes of 2. That would mean:

Pr(Cat Alive)=1/2=.5=50%

Which yields us a result of chances of the cat being alive or dead are equal, 50%, therefore it is impossible to determine accurately (though one has a good chance of guessing right). Now, considering that the parameters of God remain unknown, and therefore could be anything, we can (and must) consider all possible ideas of God in a probability equation. Considering that there are a possible infinite amount of ideas about god, that makes our Favorable outcomes ∞ (infinity). And then we must consider that if the idea of God has infinite amount of possibilities than the possible outcome must be ∞ as well. This makes our equation:

if Pr(God) → ∞ than Pr(God) = ∞/∞ ≠ 1 = Undetermined

Schrodinger Agnosticism

We have officially placed God in the box. My probability equation has shown, if Pr(God) → ∞ than Pr(God)= Undetermined. Considering this information, the probability (the state) of God is mathematically (and logically), indeterminable. Applying the Thought Experiment, Schrodinger’s Cat, to the results of the equation, we find that God both Exists and Does Not Exist. Using mathematics and quantum physics as an explanation to the Universe, the choice of Agnosticism is the only method in which one can perceive God.

You place God in a box, inside the box is a paradox in which God both exists and does not exist. With out opening the box (or having the ability to open said box), does God exist?

______________________

Works Cited
Galvin, A. (2004, Nov. 04). probability equations. Retrieved Jan. 04, 2010, from Connexions: http://cnx.org/content/m10244/latest/

Merriam-Webster. (2010). Merriam Webster Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts : Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Schrödinger, E. (1935). The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics. Die Naturwissenschaften , 124, 323-38.

Wikimedia. (2005, Oct. 17). File:Schrödinger cat.png. Retrieved Jan. 04, 2010, from Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schr%C3%B6dinger_cat.png

Advertisement

January 5, 2010 - Posted by | Atheism and Agnosticism

3 Comments »

  1. I like the mathematical way of solving(understanding) the first,that will lead to a second,that will lead to….and explaining each as you go. It is also great exercise for the mind(brain),I think personally.

    The existence of God=Undetermined. The ability to open the box=Indeterminable….at this time. Perceiving=Personal choice. Wars that have been and still are from the beginning of recorded historical facts=Believing without the indisputable facts of the existence of God. Does God exist?=The first and most important question that has been asked in this world. I don’t state that a fact, but do my thoughts make make any sense? If they do it dosen’t matter or answer the question. But it may help me to understand my reasons for the inner conflict I have.

    Comment by Scott Hutson | February 22, 2010 | Reply

  2. Scott,

    Thank you for your comment on what I believe. I like hearing other people’s reply. Understand, the idea of God is something NOBODY can wrap their head around, so I can understand the inner conflict when it comes to God. (This is probably why the subject of God interest’s me so much).

    God is one of those tricky subjects that has it’s subjects running around in loops. That is probably because the very idea of God (And God himself if he exists) might be too much for our understanding. We only have a certain amount of axons and dendrites in our brain, and well it would be particularly amazing if we had the EXACT number of neurological possibilities as their are possible thoughts in the universe. So it’s not outside logic to assume we can’t understand, and that is my supposition anyway.

    Again, thank you for responding, please continue to read my blog, I find your input quite useful.

    Comment by Paradigm Of Thought | February 23, 2010 | Reply

  3. Kudos Paradigm, I will continue reading, and look foward to more posts you have on these unanswered questions that I think can help us understand why they cannot be answered at this time. That in itself is an answer to the question of why it is important to continue to educate ourselves on these subjects.

    Comment by Scott Hutson | February 24, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.