Welcome to our annual game night! Today, we sit back, relax, and think about how quantum and existential physics inform our perception of existence and play into the beliefs that shape modern religions by juxtaposing it with an abstract and far-fetched metaphor that will require you to suspend disbelief and possibly adopt an optimistically nihilistic attitude on the absurdity of it all.
Would you care for some Planck fries before we get started? Or maybe a Bohr Slurpee? Surely an Einstein Burger?
Before an age of organized religion that absconds scrutiny on ‘righteous’ grounds dawned on the human race, we have always been curious creatures whom Prometheus carved from his clay. Maybe he forgot to bake into us the knowledge of the true nature of reality, for we have always persisted to traverse beyond the stars, to peel back the jet-black curtain of the cosmos and see who is holding the strings. Because on some level, we feel, that by understanding the nature of our reality and those that shape it, we can be more comfortable with the sweet pleasures and pains of our existence and the undeniable fact that we will all die.
If that is so, believing in something, or someone, makes it easier. It helps us process life in a palatable manner, especially things beyond our control.
Before we commercialized and weaponized our deities, early cavemen worshipped their animals and the earth around them, giving birth to the first animalistic, pagan, and pantheistic beliefs that would later influence religion as we see it today.
But the skeptics have always been there right at the side of the believers.
So how do we know that Gods exist? How do we know that they do not? Some of us rely on our scriptures, while some rely on the concept of energy and entropy. Some think of it spiritually while some do not think about it at all.
Man’s Search for Ultimate Meaning as well as other writings examine the notions of God and existence in relation to each other. Frankl’s conception of existence drops out the deterministic Freudian triad of ego, id, and superego with their attendant conflicts. Frankl goes beyond the deterministic Freudian doctrine of the equilibrium (the homeostasis) of these conflicting elements—at best a fractious psychological armistice—to assert the existence of the unique antecedent which he calls the ‘unconscious God.’
William F. Ryan, The Notion of God
In his book, Ein Psychologe erlebt das Konzentrationslager (“A Psychologist Experiences the Concentration Camp”), translated in English as Man’s Search for Ultimate Meaning, Viktor Frankl says that the deterministic view of observing a human mind as a supreme battle between Freudian principles of ego, id, and superego is reductive. He believes in a deeper guiding force within us that helps us find purpose and meaning in life. This Unconscious God looks at existence from a spiritual level. A far cry from simpler times when we worshipped the rabbit we were about to eat.
We evolved and so did our beliefs. Or maybe we just branched out. Some people feel kinship to their idols while some believe in God and his child come to save us all. There are those who believe in spiritual immortality, proclaiming the balance of birth and death as a transaction of energy within the universe and some just do as their parents tell them to and leave the rumination of existence for the tortured philosophers.
The Cat’s Out of the Box, Baby!
Since we are all settled in, we can possibly actually relax now. What is that you hear? Oh no, it’s just Schrödinger’s box. He left it here in my care for he claimed it held hostage- wait for it- God. He said he captured the maker and the destroyer of all worlds within the confines of his wooden box.
I rolled my eyes “God does not exist, Schrödy.”
“Are you sure?” he smirked.
“I mean… he could.” I am confused at this point. “No, no. There is no God. But maybe…”
He just smiled. “Don’t wreck your brain. Look, just open the box. You will know! If God exists, you will find them inside. Also, might I add, it is heteronormative of you to assume that the supposed God would be a dude. Do better.”
“Okay, but what happened to the cat?!”
He was already gone by then.
For the unversed, Schrödinger, all the way back in 1935 developed a thought experiment. He had a love for felines and a healthy distrust in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, usually associated with Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg (who postulated that a quantum system could exist in a superposition of multiple states until observed, at which point it collapses into one of those states).
Schrödy wondered if that would apply on a macroscopic level: to bigger objects. Simply put, if you put a cat in a box and release a radioactive atom, it could decay or not decay. If it decays, it will release a poison and kill the cat.
Now, until you open the box and make an observation, the cat exists in a superposition: it is both alive and dead simultaneously. I know I know, this is a bit abstract for our less scientifically inclined readers, but bear with me for a moment, for Schrödy has now trapped God.
So? Does God Exist? (Psst, You Might Not Like the Answer)
For those of us still on the fence as to where we stand in the grand scheme of the cosmos, while wanting to adhere to principles and dogmas of science that promote inquiry, opening the box Schrödy has left for us might not be the wisest idea. We are a product of our preconceived beliefs, and our life experiences shape us to influence the way we see the world and react to it. Has Schrödy really trapped the God? Does God even exist?
Until we open the box and observe, God exists in a ‘superposed’ state. They are either in the box or they are not.
They exist or they do not.
The act of observation collapses the superposition into a single state. In the context of religion and belief in God, one’s personal beliefs, experiences, and interpretations can also influence their perception of God’s presence or absence. It also evolves our questioning. Do we even want to open the box? What would become of the world if we do know, especially if it is an answer you do not like?
The existence of God and the nature of divinity are deeply complex and subjective questions that transcend the scope of empirical science, and in an extension, this thought experiment. It just serves as an aperitif, a vaguely clouded metaphor reflective of the real-world state, posed just to highlight the complexities in the nature of these inquiries and how (and if) science and faith can shake hands before the coin toss.
Encore
Now that the night has sighed its way away and dawn breaks out from beneath the mountains in gentle, lapping strides, I leave you with this quote from Kierkegaard, one of the most influential thinkers in existentialism, who believed that God comes into the single individual, and that’s where the place of God is. It’s not “out there” somewhere.
I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations — one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it — you will regret both.
Soren Kierkegaard, Either/Or: A Fragment of Life
At the end of the day, perhaps a solution is to open Schrödy’s box and if you decide to believe what your eyes see, do so. Make your existence easier.
If not anything else, thought experiments like these prove that there is a way for science and religion to coexist in a begrudging harmony. That they can pave a path forged in inquiry, faith, and most of all tolerance.
Perhaps that is how we discover, and uncover, the greatest secrets of this maddeningly beautiful universe.
Oh, and if you see Schrödy, tell him to take his damn box back.