The First Cause and Schrodinger’s Cat

The First Cause argument, despite what a lot of people think, is not (or at least should not be) an argument that somebody had to tip over the first domino some time in the distant past to get things started. It’s an argument about the cause of things right this second.

For example, if I’m standing next to a railroad track and see a bunch of cars going by (maintaining their speed and not slowing down from friction), and I know that none of the cars have an engine, I know there’s an engine somewhere, pushing or pulling those cars.

Or, to put it in different language, there are two kinds of things — those that exist by contingency and those that exist by necessity. It’s impossible for everything to exist by contingency, so there must be something that exists by necessity.

I’m not making this argument, I’m just explaining it. For my part, how do I know that “contingency” and “necessity” are anything more than interesting terms I mistakenly apply to the world? I don’t know how to prove that such a distinction is real.

“Oh, you see that thing over there? That’s a contingent thing. You can tell by dividing the …. ” [Whatever.]

While reflecting on that argument recently, I remembered a comment from a Christian friend who believed that the observer problem — often popularized in the Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment — is resolved by assuming God to be the omnipresent observer.

Someone (maybe my Christian friend?) might formulate an argument along these lines.

(1) If everything is in a state of indeterminacy, physics couldn’t work.
(2) Physics does work.
(3) Everything is not in a state of indeterminacy.

These two arguments — the First Cause argument and the God as the ultimate observer argument — seem similar to me. I’m curious what you all think about this. I’m not asking if you think either of the argument are right or wrong (although you can discuss that if you want). I’m wondering if you see similarities between them, and if so, if you could help me nail them down.