I can see that this discussion is going into one of those semantic Bowser loops again.

Once more, I suggest examining the motives of those who want to "define" evil out of existence by semantic bullhockey.

I warn everyone that if the first thing someone does in a discussion is attempt to fog up the terms and definitions, they are up to no good. Particularly if they are trying to destroy concepts that would tend to reveal their motives. Good. Evil. Crime. Totalitarianism. Justice. Earn.

Apply this warning in everyday life. You won't regret it.

If you want to get "cute" about it, you probably can't come up with a precise technical definition of "up" and "down" that holds up under all conditions, but most of us can figure it out well enough to get by in everyday life. We don't factor in Relativity when setting our watches before and after an airplane flight, either.

Same goes with the idea of "evil." Most of us know it when we see it, although sometimes it can be hard to spot in some cases.

Read this again.

And for the record, Schrodinger's Cat has no real-life validity either, as anyone who actually did the experiment would immediately see. Even Schrodinger called it a "ridiculous case."

...One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The first atomic decay would have poisoned it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.



It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

We know that superposition of possible outcomes must exist simultaneously at a microscopic level because we can observe interference effects from these. We know (at least most of us know) that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared out state between the alternatives. When and how does the model of many microscopic possibilities resolve itself into a particular macroscopic state? When and how does the fog bank of microscopic possibilities transform itself to the blurred picture we have of a definite macroscopic state. That is the measurement problem and Schrödinger's cat is a simple and elegant explanations of that problem.

--Schrödinger, 1935



Schrödinger's cat and other quantum physics theories are often used by unscrupulous types to try and convince their opponents that nothing is actually "real" in an attempt to defuse rational arguments and eventually impose whatever corrupted "reality" serves their purposes.

Dropping a rock on their foot is a good retort for this. The attempt to generate a picture of reality by using mathematics devoid of observation results in idiocies like Xeno's Paradox.