I don’t know how many out there have heard of Quantum Theory and the concept of Schroedinger’s cat, but the topic actually came up in a facebook discussion I had and I wanted to blog about it.
Schroedinger’s cat is a representative analogy that attempts to concisely describe the concepts behind quantum theory. In quantum theory, all possibilities- even mutually exclusive ones, coexist and have a reality of their own. Schroedinger’s cat is a quantum cat, in an opaque box, with a switch in it that will either feed the cat food or feed the cat poison. The switch is triggered by the random decay of a radioactive sample – if the decay particle hits one switch, the cat is fed food. If the other, poison. The quantum science comes in in the act of observation, which in itself affects the experiment and by itself determines the state of the cat. In a quantum world, the cat is both/and alive/dead. When we observe the cat, he becomes one or the other.
This experiment has never been executed, and does not exist in either the observable or quantum worlds – but it is an example of what has been observed in quantum physics.
At the fundamental level, quantum theory is, indeed, a collection of mathematical formula used to describe the indescribable world of subatomic particles. The following is a terrific laymen’s description of the theory and its development.
http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/uncertainty.html
What is so striking about this theory is not the theory itself – it is essentially confirming what Christianity has always taught – that we cannot know the mind of God (Isaiah 55:8). Much of the subatomic world seems to change with the method or means used to observe it, however, like Einstein and several others – I just think we haven’t learned the proper way to observe its true nature – much like we cannot think exactly like God.
That being said, our current culture’s love of relativistic morality has taken cues from quantum theory and attempted to apply that theory to concepts of truth and what is right and wrong. What I saw on facebook was a person taking the concepts of quantum theory and applying it to the concepts of moral truth and tolerance. Unfortunately, he contradicted himself within his own discussion and effectively abrogated his own argument, however, his initial foray into the topic is worth repeating simply for its shock value.
The assertion goes something like this: since Reality exists only in our observation of it, concepts of right and wrong only exist in relation to our observation and assertion of what is right and wrong. In the dialog I had, the person in question then explained this by saying that he believes a certain type of gas is good, and his wife believes a certain type of gas is bad. He says that both ideas are true, because no matter what he says to the contrary, his wife sees the gasoline and its effect on her vehicle as bad.
I have to point out that this is a summarized view of his argument – but it captures the gist.
Most of what is wrong with this starts with extrapolating our inability to effectively observe atoms into the world of morality and ethics. There is no correlary, as our world of morality is not measurable in the physical sense at any level – I cannot say my right thought is 3 inches long. This might seem to be a ridiculous statement until you dig deeper into what quantum theory’s goals and pursuits are – they are not attempting at any level to do anything other than describe the different states of matter. Morality doesn’t come into their realm of discussion. Applying quantum theory to discussion of right and wrong is like trying say ‘love is about as big as a grapefruit, but smaller than a watermelon’. Its ridiculous. You cannot measure moral values with physical measurements. Again, as I write this it seems ridiculous, but this is exactly what the relativistic fringe is attempting to do.
When pressed, we all have moral absolutes. We all have a strong grasp of what is right and wrong in our realms of endeavor. We also have conflicts in our views of what is right and wrong. We must stand on that ground – it is intellectually dishonest and eminently desctructive to allow diametrically opposing viewpoints to go unchallenged – this is relativism. Additionally, it is immoral to reject other people’s ideas simply because they conflict with your own – this is bigotry. True and lasting peace comes with a dialog driven by intellectual honesty and principle, and backed with a plan for resolution if the opposing viewpoints cannot be resolved. We must defend our lives from people whose goal is to destroy us. Any idea about ‘tolerance’ that rejects right and wrong is intolerant of solutions, community, and lasting peace – it allows for bigotry, hatred and inflexible thinking to continue to exist and to breed destruction.
Leave a Reply