Schroedinger's God

K

Kibbles

Registered Senior Member
The natural state of the Universe is one of paradox
God Exists and Does not Exist!

Any thoughts for or against such a statement?
 
First, the proposed cat was a real cat with a superposition of probability of being alive/dead. As sarkus says, you first need to show that god exists and then determine whether he's in some probabilistic state of superposition between alive/dead or red/green, or short/tall... Exist/not exist is not a question of quantum superposition.

Right?
 
I suppose. I wouldn't know.

So it's definitely not applicable?

So, let me get this straight:
You're telling me the probablistic state of superposition cannot be applied to the condition of both existing and not existing; nor to the question of whether the "eternal sum of all things" (which certainly exists) Contains-God/Does-not-Contain God?
 
Last edited:
Kibbles said:
ISo, let me get this straight:
You're telling me the probablistic state of superposition cannot be applied to the condition of both existing and not existing; nor to the question of whether the "eternal sum of all things" (which certainly exists) Contains-God/Does-not-Contain God?
Click to expand...
My limited understanding is that quantum superposition only applies to differing states of existence of an object - not to existence/non-existence.
 
The god need to create existence in order to exist and god need to act to create. So in the quantum flux way, cold tempeture was the cause.
 
Sarkus said:
My limited understanding is that quantum superposition only applies to differing states of existence of an object - not to existence/non-existence.
Click to expand...
Right. You can apply classical probability to the existence/non-existence of something based on the evidence for/against a thing. Hence the high unlikelyhood of a god.
 
Ok. So that idea's more or less out the window. Even I can't see any application of it.

Why can't it apply though?
 
Sure, that makes sense. Reality is dependant on point of view. From a certain point of view, the universe can be considered a living being. From another, it isn't.
 
Kibbles said:
Ok. So that idea's more or less out the window. Even I can't see any application of it.

Why can't it apply though?
Click to expand...

I mean, why can't something exist and not exist? I know it's an odd question but I'm asking it anyway.
 
spidergoat said:
Sure, that makes sense. Reality is dependant on point of view. From a certain point of view, the universe can be considered a living being. From another, it isn't.
Click to expand...

That's sort of what i was thinking
 
Kibbles said:
I mean, why can't something exist and not exist? I know it's an odd question but I'm asking it anyway.
Click to expand...


well you know, tossing schroedinger and quantum physics aside, in a certain sense it could be possible for god to exist and not exist. imagine for a moment that conclusive proof came to light disproving the existence of a god. that would not eliminate the concept of god from people's minds, and since God the concept would have existed the whole time, despite the non-existence of God the entity, technically it would have existed and not existed at the same time. thats kind of a distortion of it, but other than that i cant see a way to make any sense out of it, especially not as it would be applied to Schroedinger or physics. just a thought, maybe not even a good one.
 
Kibbles said:
I mean, why can't something exist and not exist? I know it's an odd question but I'm asking it anyway.
Click to expand...

If you look at a spoon from a certain distance, say 10 cm to 10 m, you will see a spoon. The spoon exists.

If you hold the same spoon close to your eye, you'll see nothing. The spoon doesn't exist.

If you look at the same spoon under a microscope, you'll see only a scratched texture. The spoon doesn't exist.

If you take the spoon to the Moon, and then go back to Earth, you won't even see the spoon. The spoon doesn't exist.


So. A thing exists or doesn't exist, depending on how you look at it.
 
qwerty mob said:
Only coherent definition.
Click to expand...

Definitions are examples of valuing agenda over reality.
Definitions are attempts to view an object as if it existed regardless of the observer and his context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top