In Schroedinger’s Cat We Trust

In Schroedinger’s Cat We Trust

During my endless hours driving down stretches of highway in a vehicle large enough to annihilate just about anything the gets in the way I found myself daydreaming and pondering different ideas as they drifted into my mind. I remembered the topic of Schroedinger’s Cat in some of my college classes and somehow connected it to the idea of religion and ended up with a surprising dilemma. Now I must warn you, if you continue reading you will be forced to make some kind of a choice at the end. But not to worry, if you hold fast to any kind of belief then the choice will be very easy for you. Before I present the dilemma to you, I must first explain Schroedinger’s Cat.

You find a cat and a box. You put this cat inside the box. Inside this box is a vial of poison. If the glass vial is broken it will release the poison and kill the cat. Above the vial is a heavy hammer attached to a device with a string. This device will release the string at an unknown time which will allow the hammer to fall, which will break the vial and thus kill the cat. Now the device is completely random and you have no idea when it will release the string. It could be in the next minute or it may take years or it may never release the string at all. For the sake of the experiment, the cat will only die if the poison is released. In other words, ignore natural causes of death such as hunger or dehydration. This cat is supremely special, at least until it is poisoned.

Now you close the box, lock it, and you walk away. You come back an hour later and approach the box. You look at the box and wonder…Hmm…is the cat dead? Or is the cat still alive? Either one is possible but you won’t know the answer until you open the box.

You reach out to open it but you realize someone else came and locked it and you have no idea how to open it. In dismay you look for the key but you are unable to find it. Since you must know the truth about the status of the cat, you leave the box and diligently look for the key. One week later you still do not have the key and you have lost hope of ever finding it. You now realize you may never be able to open the box and discover the truth.

You return to the box in hopes that someone else has found a way to open it. Instead you are startled to see that two large groups of people have congregated at the box. There is a group on the Left and a group on the Right. Each group believes that this cat is supremely special and have each developed a belief system based on this cat.

The group on the Left believes the cat is alive and well. They celebrate the life of the cat and hold services, song, and dance in honor of the cat’s life. You ask the leader of the group, “Why do think the cat is alive??” The leader fervently replies, “Of course the cat is alive, it must be!  Come join us! Believe and have faith!!”

Not being convinced you go to the group on the Right. You find that they believe the opposite, that the cat is dead. They hold rituals, ceremonies, and sacrifices of care in honor of the death of the cat. You ask the leader of the group “Why do you think the cat is dead??” He replies that it is simply what he chooses to believe and that you should join them because his group is better.

You step back for a moment. Both groups seem to be convinced in their respective beliefs and have developed a belief system around their assumption of the cat. Neither group can prove their assumption yet both demonstrate powerful faith in their respective belief.

So here is your dilemma and I am afraid you must now make a choice:

Do you choose the Left? It is certainly possible the cat is alive and this group holds the correct belief therefore you cannot accuse them of being wrong. But since you cannot open the box you are making an assumption which means you may be wrong anyway.

Do you choose the Right? It is also possible the cat is dead and that this group holds the correct belief and therefore you also cannot accuse them of being wrong. But since you cannot open the box you are making an assumption which means you may be wrong anyway.

Do you choose neither? To choose neither is not a logical choice. Obviously the cat must be either dead or alive and to choose neither means by default you are neglecting the correct choice which means you made the wrong choice. Of course you can make the wrong choice if you’d like.

Do you choose both? This choice means you agree with Schroedinger. Schroedinger believes the cat is both dead AND alive at the same time and will remain so until the box is opened. By choosing this option you cannot join either group and must continue to hunt for the key that cannot be found.

Of course this whole example is silly. I mean, a supreme cat? Really? But if you are not a cat person, put something else in the box. Put whatever you want. If you dare, then put the axiom of your belief in the box. You might even try putting God in the box in place of the cat. Think about that….

 

The Flaming Sword

Describing an event or an object is probably one of the more difficult tasks we can encounter as we go through life. It’s not so hard if we have a good understanding of what we are attempting to explain, but on the other hand, if we cannot fully comprehend what we witness, then providing a description is most difficult. For example, try to think of how you would describe a firework to someone that has never seen one.

How would you take the image of a bursting firework and then, in words, create that same image in another individual’s mind who has never seen a firework? What words would you use? How could you be sure you have accurately delivered the right information? For anything short of a picture you would need colorful metaphors, descriptors and comparisons. Even after lengthy descriptions, the chances are the image in the other person’s mind is not completely accurate.

Now take this task of describing an event or object and compound it with the primitive knowledge of ancient man. Back then, mankind had only a few basic elements in their arsenal of description. These were primarily Earth, Water, Wind, and Fire or a combination of these four. If ancient man saw something incredible, then these elements were all they had in their vain attempt to describe what they see.

However, in the Bible we see countless records where man witnesses absolutely phenomenal things that demand a description. One does not need to read into the Bible too far to notice this. Things like chariots of fire, pillars of cloud, giant wheels in the sky, and Angels themselves are all primitive descriptions given by men who have a limited vocabulary and limited scientific knowledge. Yet these events and objects are still recorded in the Bible to the best of their ability. As the dutiful Bible readers we are, we read these descriptions thousands of years later and create an image in our minds in an attempt to visualize what the ancient man had the privilege of seeing firsthand. As we can see, the difficulty of transmitting the complex information through primitive means is next to impossible. Despite this, I’ve noticed many people still interpret Biblical sightings either one of two ways.

First, the Biblical sighting is taken at face value. Meaning what is described is precisely what it really was with no deviation. A pillar of cloud is an actual pillar of cloud, nothing more, nothing less. A chariot of fire is a real chariot that is actually on fire as it blazes into the sky with Elijah. I believe a literal interpretation with no analysis is a most unfortunate method of interpreting phenomenal events in the Bible, yet it is surprisingly common.

Second, the phenomenal event is symbolic. What is seen is not actually real, but a vision meant to describe a situation or the future. This is highly possible in many cases. In some places it is even explicitly stated as such. However, I believe people make the mistake of automatically assuming an event is symbolic simply because a literal definition is impossible or unexplainable.

I propose a third method of interpretation. This one may require opening our minds beyond the limits of religion which may be difficult, if not impossible, for some. This method will use analysis of the object that is described by ancient man. The goal is to understand why ancient man used certain descriptive language.

If you are unfamiliar with the Earth, Water, Wind and Fire concept, then you should do some quick reading on it. In order to understand the perspective of ancient man, you will need to become familiar with how he saw his environment.

The example I will use comes from Genesis 3:24

 “So He drove out the man; and He placed Cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.”

In this passage, God wanted to protect the tree of life from the hand of man. The Cherubim and the flaming sword were the tools God used to carry this out. I will focus on the flaming sword.

So in an analysis of the flaming sword, let us first consider the entire unit to be an object of some kind. This is a safe assumption because everything whether material or immaterial, is an object. Furthermore this object has means of defense which indicates it can kill if need be.

Secondly, this object is comprised of three characteristics: a flaming property, a sword, and an ability to rotate independently. We can now analyze each characteristic.

Flaming. The adjective “flaming” indicates a sense of intensity in the form of brilliance, heat, shape, or a combination of all three. The “flaming” could be either intermittent or continuous. If this “flaming” is the result of Fire, then the object may have the ability to consume through the means of heat in the form of burning, searing, incinerating, or other various forms of radiation.

The Sword. A sword is another object whose purpose is to kill someone or prevent oneself from being killed. In ancient days it was the common means of carrying out the act of killing. In other words, it is a tool with the purpose of killing. A conventional sword kills by lacerating or piercing its victim.

Independent Rotation. If an object can turn every way, then it can rotate a full 360 degrees. It is a safe assumption to claim that this object will orient itself towards an intruder or in a manner that will address an intruder. There are Cherubim present but there is no indication that they control this object, although it is possible. If the Cherubim do not control it, then this object is capable of automatically orienting itself towards an intruder.

With further knowledge of the Bible and science, you could continue with the analysis and come up with more possibilities. From the simple analysis I have done we can come up with a basic definition:

Possible explanation: A device capable of independently orienting itself towards an intruder with the intent to kill possibly by lacerating or piercing and possibly with the use of heat in the form of burning, searing, incinerating, or other various forms of radiation. The device has a visible indication of intensity in the form of brilliance, heat, shape or a combination of all three.

Now, along with an actual sword that is visibly on fire, use your imagination to think of other devices God could conjure up that would fit this description. I know today, with modern inventions, mankind could easily create many devices that ancient man would describe as a “flaming sword”. But I’m sure God could do much better. He is a bit more advanced I’d say…

Faith for Ignorance

I have often wondered a lot about the concept of faith and how it actually works. Is there a mechanism for faith? Is it completely random? Is it logical or illogical? Subjective or objective? Certainly if anyone knew how to tap into the tiny little faith that moves mountains, then our world would be a far different place. Since this is not the case, am I safe to say that true faith is exceptionally rare and only a few individuals on Earth actually possess true faith? Honestly, I’m not sure. It is very confusing because I hear many people who profess they have faith.

The idea of faith can be applied in many different ways. After all, most of us have faith in many things, such as a roof that will not leak, a car that will start, a sun that will rise, food in the grocery store, and pretty much everything we take for granted. There really is no guarantee that any of these things will work the way we want them too. Not even the sun, really. But since the chances of these things working are high enough, we assume they will work every time.

The next application of faith is directed towards those who hit the end of their rope in some way such as an individual who has nothing to lose and is ready to take on an incredible feat in the face of slim chances. Consider the classic story of a man who has lost everything in his life. Maybe he lost all his belongings, or loved ones, or perhaps he is in a situation where he will not make it out alive. All he has left is his life and maybe a purpose to go along with it. There is a saying, “never contend with a man who has nothing to lose”. Why is that? Because he can leverage everything, namely his life, against a single purpose without remorse, without hesitation, and without a doubt. This is a powerful situation and can often create heroes.

In both these situations, doubt is the key element. When Peter walked on water in front of Jesus, it was the first thing he did when he realized he was doing the impossible. He doubted his ability, whereas a few minutes before he simply stepped right out of that boat without hesitation. Perhaps the elimination of any and all doubt is the first step towards true faith.

There is another application of faith that disturbs me somewhat. It is the faith that people claim when defending their religious beliefs. Those that follow a particular religion are usually very loyal to it. There can be many reasons for this loyalty, the most common being the nature in which they were raised. Conversion is another. But rarely, if ever, are people loyal to a religion because it filled them with the divine knowledge to answer the great mysteries of God and spirituality.

Religions can be deep and extensive knowledge of an entire religious doctrine can take a lifetime. Most people do not take knowledge of their religion to that extreme. However, there will most likely come a time when their belief is challenged. When this happens the person is obligated to defend their belief. If the challenger is witty or knowledgeable enough to break through the defense of the loyal defender, then the defender of the religion, in a plight to save his belief, must throw up his hands and say, “That’s where you need faith!”

This demonstration of faith is about as common as there are followers of a religion. This is not a demonstration of true faith; it is a mask for ignorance. It is, however, effective against a challenger because there is no argument against it. People who do not question and investigate their own beliefs must mask their ignorance with this so called, “faith”. Faith in this sense is none other than a fallacy.

My favorite example of faith comes from 1 Samuel in the Bible. King Saul was in a tough spot against the Philistines who were encamped against him. On top of that Saul’s company of troops had no formidable weapons of war. The only swords were on Saul and his son, Jonathan. Furthermore, Saul had angered God by presenting an unlawful sacrifice. Saul’s doom was pronounced by Samuel himself. Samuel was God’s prophet who basically carried the actual word of God as directed.

However, one day, Jonathan decided to get closer to the Philistines. He took his armor bearer and when he arrived, he said, “Come let us go over to the camp. Maybe God will work for us. For nothing restrains the Lord from saving by many or by few.”

The armor bearer agreed. They then proceeded to kill twenty enemy combatants by themselves. After this there were earthquakes and various other signs of God allowing the rest of Saul’s company to achieve victory.

I believe Jonathan demonstrated true faith in this story. Did Jonathan consult God? Did he pray? Was he certain of victory? The answer is no to all these. He went into a situation where the outcome was completely unknown. On top of this he was laying his life, and his armor bearer’s life, on the line. Single handedly attacking an encampment was suicide without divine intervention. Nevertheless, Jonathan believed he was doing God’s will.

Jonathan wasn’t certain God would help him. After all, he was Saul’s son and Saul was not favored by God. Since Jonathan believed that defeating the Philistines was God’s will, he decided to carry it out and let God decide the outcome. If he died, it was God’s will. If he defeated the Philistines, then that was also God’s will. Jonathan was willing to accept either outcome provided it was God’s decision. As a result Jonathan, literally, moved mountains. This story can be found in 1 Samuel 14.

The main point I’d like to make in this article is to point out the misconception of faith as it applies to all the individual religions. Sure, religious beliefs are important and they satisfy many people. But religion is not justified because someone, or even many people, have this so called, “faith”. As far as I’m concerned it is a fallacy whose only purpose is to control the many followers who don’t know any better. The truth cannot be found by a faith that masks ignorance.

Morality and Perspective

By Richard Miller  

     I was asked by my most avid supporter, Leanne, to write some of my thoughts on the issue of situational morality and whether it is changing or unchanging.  Situational Morality, also known as Situational Ethics, is the issue choosing what you consider to be a lesser evil. You are given a couple options and both of them are bad, but one may be more positive than the other. Perhaps you are giving someone advice on a hard decision they have to make. In any case you are weighing things like life and virtue and the cost of sacrificing either one for the greater good.

    When one is faced with such a dilemma, it is natural to reach out to something outside of you and ask for guidance. When asking for guidance you will probably reach out to someone you believe is an authority on morality. This is probably someone you believe is a soundly moral person. This could be a respected friend, a parent or relative, or even God Himself. In any case you are seeking a moral standard to assist you in your decision. You do this to alleviate the burden that has been placed on you to make such a decision. When we are asked whether morality is changing, we are really asking if the standards of morality are changing.

    Here is an example of a dilemma involving Situational Morality also known as Situational Ethics. I’m going to use a military reference because it is familiar to me.

    The Situation: You are the commander of a company of troops and you are ordered to overtake an enemy stronghold. You have 200 men. You are told that you will most likely lose 30 men in your attempt to capture the stronghold. However, if you send 10 men to their imminent death in a diversion, the remaining 190 men can take advantage of the diversion and capture the stronghold unchecked. On one hand you stand to lose a lot of troops. On the other hand you are guaranteed minimal troop loss, but must knowingly sacrifice those 10 men to die. You are the commander, what do you do.

     If you are the commander you might be seeking advice on this situation. You might even be praying about it. Or maybe you don’t care at all. As long as you get the job done, then you are a success and the number of men you lose is irrelevant to you.

    The choice you make in this situation is going to depend on the one thing that has created an enormous amount of diversity throughout history. This thing is called Perspective. Perspective is always changing when you go from person to person, or from culture to culture. Take for example a piece of art, such as a picture or statue. When several people look at this piece of art, they may all have different interpretations of it. One person may think a painting has a sad and dark message, while another may interpret the painting as having happy and hopeful attributes. It’s still the same painting regardless of who looks at it. But it’s interpreted in a wide variety of ways by different people and cultures.

    Morality is viewed the same way as art in this sense with different cultures, different views, and all of them changing with time and place. It is in this sense that morality does, in fact, change. For example, back in the days of the Israelites, it was considered normal for a man to have more than one wife. This was accepted in the culture of that time and even accepted by God. Today the views on this issue are much different in America. Polygamy is looked down on and considered immoral. Those that partake of it are considered on the extreme ends of society. Our American society has dictated the morality of this idea as opposed to the ancient Israelites. Is one wrong and not the other? Are both societies wrong? It all depends on your Perspective.

    So at this point I have declared that morality is constantly changing with the different Perspectives of people and cultures of mankind. As societies come and go, so do the moral guidelines. As the values of life and virtue change, so do the answers to the problems of Situational Ethics.

    However, some people will object to this say that there is, in fact, an unchanging moral standard of which to base all of morality. These people are also correct. There is indeed a perfect and unchanging moral standard, but this standard cannot not be created by mankind.

    An unchanging moral standard can only be created by God. By definition God is perfect, eternal, unchanging, and thus his moral standard is also perfect and unchanging. So naturally, God’s authority and Perspective will survive the test of time and thus create a perfect unchanging moral standard.  If you want to achieve God’s moral standard, then you must achieve God’s Perspective. This is a hard thing to do. Perhaps it is impossible.

   In conclusion, the task of achieving God’s Perspective is often rejected or simply ignored because of what it implies. In order to see unchanging morality, we must see God’s Perspective, in order to see God’s Perspective we must become Godly, in order to become Godly we must turn from any and all sin. The idea of giving up any and all sin gives the vast amount of people reason enough to reject the pursuit of unchanging morality and settle for a slightly more comfortable standard made by the hand of man. Because of this, morality will be forever changing as mankind’s Perspective sways from one place to another.  

The Mastermind

   In my last post I talked about how Satan and God were at odds with each other and how both of them are trying to capture the loyalty of mankind in their own ways. From reading the Bible, we can see that God has gone to great lengths to get people to follow him, namely with the Israelites. Reading the first 5 books of the Bible will show you some incredible and almost unbelievable things God has done in his attempt to gain the loyalty of his chosen people.

    So what about Satan? What is he doing on his end? Surely his task can be no easier then God’s. There must be something he is doing in his own attempt to gain control over humanity. It is true, that Satan has a very difficult task to perform. He must rival God after all. So how is he carrying out his work?

    First of all, Satan is incredibly smart. He is The Mastermind and the best one there is. I have to laugh when I hear people say  “Satan is tempting me!” or “I must depend on God to defeat Satan!” . I’m sorry folks, Satan has WAY bigger fish to fry then likes of me or anyone that might be reading this. He is quite possibly the second most powerful being in existence. The mere thought of Satan standing behind you and whispering tempting thoughts into your ear should send dire chills down anyone’s back. Satan is not tempting you and probably never has and never will. He has his minions to handle that if need be.

   Like any Mastermind, Satan goes to very great lengths to keep his activities secret. If you read the Bible you will see that he is very rarely mentioned. A Mastermind works under cover, he manipulates people of influence, confuses others while convincing other people to do certain things. All this is done in the name of his grand master scheme and also while keeping a very non-threatening outward appearance. This is exactly what Satan is doing to influential people in the world. Satan wants power and he will influence and deceive people that have power.  

     Governments, Money, Militaries, Religions are all institutions that have power over people. Most people answer to at least one of these. This is where Satan will go in his effort to control the world. If he controls the masters of one of these institutions, then he controls all who follow along. For example if Satan can influence the King of a nation, then he can control all who follow the King. Same thing applies with our President and also with prominent religious leaders.  

   In Satan’s free time, he is out looking to utterly consume and destroy the people that do not have God’s protection. The last thing Satan will ever do, is go to you and tempt you to sin. He has much more important things to do then dabble with the likes of us. It would simply be a waste of time for him.



-----------

Thanks Leanne. I found it pretty interesting how little Satan is mentioned in the Bible, being as significant as he is.

The Great Competition

    You ever stop, wonder  and ask yourself, what is the meaning of life? Why are we here? What does it all mean? If we were created, then why? This question has puzzled philosophers  for millennia upon millennia as they carried logical trains of thought as far as they could go only to end up with no answer to our glorious existence on Earth and the universe. Such a pursuit of this ultimate truth can drive you mad, should you choose to set out and attempt it’s discovery.

   But perhaps the answer is not as complicated as it seems. Albert Einstein once said, “When the answer is simple, God is speaking”. It’s a simple answer we should be looking for, not one that is buried under thousands of years of complex logical analysis performed by master philosophers. So here is a possible solution to mankind’s existence.

    First of all, we need to refresh our idea of God. God is perfect, omnipotent, all-powerful, and perfect. He must be all of these and more, in order to be called “God”. There is only one position available for the ultimate perfect being, and God has it filled.

    Let’s go back in time, before Man was created and before the Earth and the heavens were formed. God sits in a position of authority and the angels worship him without question. Except for Lucifer (Satan). He does not agree with God’s omnipotence. So he stands before God and points to him, and states to God, “You claim to have complete power and control over everything, do you?”

    God says, “Yes I do”.

    Satan replies, “I believe you cannot control a being that has free will, therefore you cannot control everything, therefore you are not worthy to be called “God”

    Now God has a dilemma. He must either prove Satan wrong, or have His authority forever in question. So naturally, God accepts Satan’s challenge. God and Satan come to terms over this challenge and lines are drawn, rules are set. God will create mankind and neither God nor Satan will tamper with Man’s freewill. Man will either choose God, or choose Satan. If Man chooses Satan, then Satan is proved correct that God does not actually have control over all things. If Man chooses God, then the authority of God remains in place.

   In this contest, neither God nor Satan has the upper hand. It is an even match with the outcome still to be decided. Since the dawn of the Earth, mankind has been the key element in a competition between God’s glory and Satan’s ability to deceive. Now that’s simple, isn’t it?

Introduction

    Well here I am, its Summer break from college. It's only been 4 days since classes ended, and I'm bored already. The time between classes always seems to give me a feeling of "Limbo". It's the sense that time is passing and nothing is being accomplished. It's a terrible place to be when you are trying to reach a goal. Some people may think that doing nothing is awesome, and secretly, I think it is kinda awesome. However, it gets old fast. I guess that's why I decided to start a blog. I've always thought about blogging but could never think of a topic that I felt like writing about time and time again.

   I am currently studying Software Engineering and will transfer to PSU this coming Fall. I have spent 2 years at Portland Community College taking all the Software Eng'g. classes I can as well as math and some other general education classes. I'm at the point now where I'm wondering if I have what it takes to get myself all the way. Its about this point that you begin to wonder if just getting a job and making money is the best way to go. It's quicker and simpler, and it just might pay the bills.

   Even though I find myself busy with school, and spending time with my wife, in the background I find my mind is continuously mulling over philosophical ideas as I drive from one place to another, lie in bed, or while listening to the radio. You might call this strange behavior "daydreaming". If that's what it is, I do it a lot. But I think daydreaming is too general. I prefer to think that I am processing, or sorting different ideas about the way things are and why different people see the world in the ways they do.

   So one day (today actually) I thought, wouldn't it be cool to put these thoughts on paper? E-paper if you like. Sometimes that's the best way to really get a grasp of different ideas. I do not claim to be a philosopher, an expert on religion, or a psychology genius, or any expert at all for that matter. But just because one does not have a doctorate does not mean that your ideas are pointless.

   So this is pretty much why I have decided to start a blog. My goal is to bring up ideas that cause people to think. My hope is to try to help myself and others realize that having an open mind will lead you to the truth about things like God, creation vs evolution, spirituality, metaphysics vs physics, rationality vs irrationality. There are many more and all of them involve venturing into areas that contain no evidence. No proof.  Nothing concrete that we can grasp. Science and Religion try desperately to gain footholds in an attempt to become an authority over these ideas, but I believe they fail.

    I plan on presenting ideas that may cause people to react in negative ways. My goal is not to convince anyone of anything. Anything can be argued by anyone to the n’th degree. People have their viewpoints that shall not be shaken. That is ok. My goal is, however, to challenge everyone to open their minds. Consider other possibilities even if it is just for the sake of momentary consideration. To close your mind to one idea will, in effect, cause you to shut out thousands of other valid possibilities.