As has been said, the cat still exists (for it suddenly not to exist would violate conservation of energy), but it is in a superposition of states. In QM, systems in superposition exist and are fully described by their wavefunction.We have a case in quantum mechanics where a thing can have both a property X and a property not-X at the same time.
The classic case would be Schrodinger's cat where the cat can theoretically have the property of being alive and not alive simultaneously until observation.
You might argue this is the case for a god-concept that has the traditional tri-omni (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) properties, as these are logically incompatible with each other, and - arguably - logically inconsistent in themselves.If we have come up with an ontological framework such as this for QM, then why would/should a god-concept be limited to a binary yes/no with regards to this god's properties?
I think Kant knocked this one on the head in his criticism of the ontological argument (Anselm, et al.) arguing that existence is not a predicate, but the reification of a concept. Although having existence as a property would mean your original query about God both existing and not existing would be logical (e.g. if you said "God doesn't exist", you'd be saying that there is something called God that has the property of not existing).And I guess a secondary question here is whether 'existence' is a property of a thing.
Upvote
0