Schrödinger's Cat: It's Not an Excuse for Equivocation

Ever have an argument with someone, and they say something so incredibly absurd that you're not sure if you heard it right? Something that makes you pause for a moment and return with: "Wait, what?"

I'm sure you have. We all have. Hopefully most of the time it's in relation to something mundane and not particularly important, like what music that someone likes, or what food they think is best. Or, hell, even why they think Chevys are better than Fords. But I was recently reminded of more than a few conversations I've had regarding philosophy that still leave me scratching my head, thanks to a comment on my Facebook page. The short of it comes down to completely misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) a thought experiment that many of us are familiar with, at least in passing: the problem of Schrödinger's cat.

Image Credit

First, for those of you not familiar with it, a word about the thought experiment. In 1935, Erwin Schrödinger, a quantum physicist in Austria, devised a thought experiment relating to the concept of quantum superposition within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Essentially, it holds that states for a thing within a system are not known, or exist as all possible states simultaneously, until an outside observer measures that thing. At that point, the uncertainty collapses into one definite state, which is what is observed, or measured. To illustrate the absurdity of taking this interpretation literally - that everything exists in every possible state at all times until it is measured - Schrödinger devised a thought experiment in which a cat is trapped in a steel box, within which is a radioactive particle that may or may not decay. If the particle has decayed, the cat has died; if not, the cat remains alive. According to the literal reading of the Copenhagen interpretation, the cat would necessarily be both alive and dead prior to an observer opening the box and measuring whether or not it is.

Note that Schrödinger's purpose in creating this thought experiment was to illustrate the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. He did not come up with this example as some sort of validation of the idea of quantum states existing simultaneously, nor did he argue that multiple states will continue to exist simultaneously after an observation has been made. Given all of that, I don't think any reasonable person would conclude otherwise. I really don't think a reasonable person would even pretend to think that Schrödinger's thought experiment could be used to justify full-blown nihilism and this notion that nothing could be knowable, since according to the Copenhagen interpretation, all quantum states exist simultaneously within a system until it is measured and those states collapse.

And yet, that's exactly what happened in those conversations I was talking about. I've had moral relativists try to use Schrödinger's cat as some sort of validation for pretending that nothing is knowable and there is no objective truth. Nevermind what I just described about the experiment, which blows that nonsense out of the water, how the fuck do you get from the cat to "there is no objective truth"? I've never received any kind of reasonable answer, just more doubling-down on nonsense. It only ever ends up being some sort of excuse for equivocation to weasel their way out of a corner. It is absurd, and not in the good, funny, absurdist-plays-and-stories way.

So there's only two explanations for it: either they don't understand the thought experiment, or they do understand it and are intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way, it comes off as astoundingly stupid, and the fact they double down on it when they throw it out there has to qualify Schrödinger's cat for some sort of argumentation law, like Godwin's.

---

Andrei Chira is a vaper, voluntaryist, and all-around cool dude. Formerly a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, he now spends his time between working in a vape shop contributing to Seeds of Liberty on Facebook and Steemit, writing short fiction, and expanding his understanding of...well, everything, with an eye on obtaining a law degree in the future.