GENIUS FORUMS

unwise wrote: Then by all means explain how you view the Schroedinger's Cat paradox. Do you understand that the cat is only dead or alive when someone looks in the box? - that both states must be true? What logic would you say this demonstrates? Specifically, how would you notate with logic that the cat is both alive and not alive?

Just because you don't know a fact doesn't mean it isn't a fact.

The cat is either dead or alive regardless of what I believe about the cat. Schroedinger was either an idiot or has been horribly abused to mean things he doesn't really mean. And I'm not sure which. But that doesn't mean both.

The cat is either dead or alive regardless of what I believe about the cat.

No. The cat is neither dead or alive until someone looks. If the cat is alive, there is a dead cat in another universe.

Are you going to answer the questions in "Kowtaaia's" post?

Rory, unfortunately unwise is correct and Schrodinger did mean both. The cat is both alive and dead until you open the box. Schrodinger also was not an idiot: he was applying one of the observations of QM to the macroscopic level.

From What is Schrodinger's Cat?:

We know that superposition actually occurs at the subatomic level, because there are observable effects of interference, in which a single particle is demonstrated to be in multiple locations simultaneously. What that fact implies about the nature of reality on the observable level (cats, for example, as opposed to electrons) is one of the stickiest areas of quantum physics. Schrödinger himself is rumored to have said, later in life, that he wished he had never met that cat.

Unwise's problem here is that he thinks that Schrodinger's cat proves that there is a problem with logic. Such a position is completely ridiculous, since it cannot be defended logically (and hence, cannot be defended in any meaningful fashion). Schrodinger's cat does, however, prove that there are some bugs that need to be worked out in QM -- that the theory is imperfect and will eventually need to be updated or replaced. But that's to be expected from any scientific theory.


By the way, there was an awesome passage in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency where Dirk Gently uses Schrodinger's cat to explain to an old lady why he hadn't yet found her missing feline, and why it was necessary to go to the Bahamas to look for it.

Unwise's problem here is that he thinks that Schrodinger's cat proves that there is a problem with logic. Such a position is completely ridiculous

We see that it is not the poison placed in the box that kills the cat. It is the looking into the box that kills that cat, because it is equally possible that the poison does nothing to the cat. Is this a problem with causality? And, how do we notate logically the state of the cat inside the box before anyone looks into the box? Is is ok logically to say the cat is both dead and alive?

I'm just wondering. I'm not a genius.

unwise,

We see that it is not the poison placed in the box that kills the cat. It is the looking into the box that kills that cat, because it is equally possible that the poison does nothing to the cat. Is this a problem with causality?

Yes, it is a problem with a billiard-ball model of causality. It's very difficult, from a common sense approach, to reconcile the seemingly simple act of observation with the death of a cat.

However, the cat's death is still caused. In the most general metaphysical sense, then, there is no problem.

And, how do we notate logically the state of the cat inside the box before anyone looks into the box?

If a stands for "alive", and c for "cat":
a(c) && ~a(c)

Is is ok logically to say the cat is both dead and alive?

No, it is not okay logically, since one of the main assumptions of most logical systems is that something cannot be both true and false. However, it follows perfectly from the theory. That is the problem. Something needs to be revised.

Whether it is QM that needs changing, or our conception of the accuracy of our perceptions, something must be changed. The last thing we should change would be logic, because calling all logic into doubt causes the biggest problems. For instance, you can solve Zeno's Paradox in two ways: either we say his assumptions about motion are wrong, or we say logic is all wrong. Either way, we get rid of the paradox.

As an addendum, a multi-worlds hypothesis would fix this problem cleanly. The cat would be alive in one world and not alive in another (and when the box is opened, these two worlds could either continue separately or collapse back into one). Formally, that would be:

where a is "living in world 1",
b is "living in world 2", and
c is "cat":

a(c) && ~b(c)

There is now no contradiction. Problem solved. However: is this necessarily true, or a make-shift interpretation?

hummmmmm.

I wonder if E.I. still thinks I'm insane and David still wants me to cut my own throat.

unwise wrote:hummmmmm.

I wonder if E.I. still thinks I'm insane and David still wants me to cut my own throat.

Is that a "no?"

Is that a "no?

There is a very important and simple answer to the question "What is it that identifies with the personality?"

I suppose someone thinks that is a trick question. It's not. It is basic. But I have no comment on it. When I see someone is not really interested in an answer, I don't hand one out. Normally I just ask questions.

unwise wrote:

Is that a "no?

There is a very important and simple answer to the question "What is it that identifies with the personality?"

I suppose someone thinks that is a trick question. It's not. It is basic. But I have no comment on it. When I see someone is not really interested in an answer, I don't hand one out. Normally I just ask questions.

Good for you. You did make the statement that I "most certainly am not (my) personality." So what am I?

Schrodinger's cat - how tedious. I hope it was alive.

Just so I could turn around and kill it.

unwise wrote:

DQ: There is nothing in quantum physics which undermines causality or logic in any way. I'm afraid those populist, pseudo-scientific books ("Tao of Physics", "Dancing Wu Li Masters", etc ) have misled you.

U: Then by all means explain how you view the Schroedinger's Cat paradox. Do you understand that the cat is only dead or alive when someone looks in the box? - that both states must be true? What logic would you say this demonstrates? Specifically, how would you notate with logic that the cat is both alive and not alive?

First off, we are talking about a speculative issue generated out of a speculative interpretation of quantum theory, which only a minority of scientists adopt. So even before we even start, we are already very far removed from solid scientific fact.

Philosophically, the many-worlds interpretation is a dodgy one. Sir John Bell, one of the primary contributors of quantum theory in the 1960's, made it plain that the many-world interpretation arose out of the desire by scientists to preserve human free-will in the universe. He stated that physicists were confronting a choice between adopting a "super-deterministic" model of the universe (which essentially means plain old cause and effect), or a many-world interpretation which made room for free-will and choice. Naturally, the more flakey scientists, a minority, gravitated towards the many-worlds interpretation.

What this essentially means is that the Schroedinger cat problem is a theological conundrum which has very little significance as far as the real world is concerned. It is very much akin to counting angels on pin-heads. The theologians used to love those sorts of mind-bendingly useless problems because it distracted them from having to face the irrationality of their own philosophic understanding. You are no different.

As for the cat in the box, when no one is observing it, it has no existence at all. It is neither alive nor dead. There is literally no cat there to be either be alive or dead. It is only when a cat appears in the field of consciousness of an observer that it presents an appearance of some kind, either alive or dead.

When you tolerate endless posts on Borat, why is this post which (you now see) is about philosophy so troubling to you?

It's your modus operandi - it is so predictable. You latch onto any half-baked theory which happens to come your way and pontificate about it as though it were ultimate truth - as long as it seems magical and nonsensical, that is the main criteria. Anything that helps you escape your own everyday hum-drum existence.

DQ: Look, would you mind slitting your throat now and shuffling off to some other world, and leave us all in peace? You're such a bore.

U: Go see your doctor about your blood pressure. You're going to bust your gall bladder with bile backed up like that.

What's the problem? You reckon that there is no death, that we merely migrate to another world. It's just like going to another room, isn't it? So go on. Go to the next room. Why hang around here?

-

unwise,

This is very curious. You claim to be enlightened and you say: "There is a very important and simple answer to the question "What is it that identifies with the personality?", but refuse to answer the question, because you perceive that someone is not really interested in an answer. You are in error. kowtaaia is very interested in your answer.

Now that we have clarified the situation, could you please respond to the question (in bold), with your very important answer?
.

unwise wrote:The Copenhagen view is simply a cop out. A very very old one. It does not try to say or understand anything. It is simply saying, if we can't measure something, let's forget it.....and let's forget trying to form some philosophical understanding. We can't locate a particle or even wonder what is going on here, so let's forget it. Not very philosophically satisfying.

I'm not too fond of it either - but the Copenhagen works for practical purposes in physics, and does not attempt to be philosophically satisfying. It draws a line and says this part is physics, and we can study it, and this other stuff is too metaphysical - in the sense that we can't come up with an experiment to verify it. The interpretation of QM is generally speculative, Bell's Theorem being a nice exception.

Schrödinger's cat demonstrates nicely the collapse of the wave function and its consequences. It does, in fact, work very well in the Many Worlds theory. Schrodinger's cat is a simplified version of my original post.

Dude.

In the Copenhagen-style interpretation, when you look in the box, the wave function collapses and your indeterminate cat "collapses" into either a dead cat or an alive cat. In this view, the wave function represents your state of knowledge about the cat. This is problematic, because what does "collapse" mean exactly? Why is it that a scientist can collapse a wave function, but the cat can't?


In Many Worlds, the wave function does not collapse. The superposition of states is taken to mean that the universe has split into a universe where the cat is alive and another where it is dead. When you open the box, you discover which universe you are in, not what happened to the cat - you already know that the cat both lived and died.

The cat thought-experiment underlines that you must interpret what you take the wave function to be. The wave function really specifies a probability of what you will observe. If you take that in a statistical sense, then you are sampling from a population - and Many Worlds takes that literally, that there must then be such a population from which to sample.

There are other interpretations that take the wave function to actually specify a wave. For reasons that are unclear to me, these interpretations are less popular. You'd think it would be the logical interpretation among physicists.

All interpretations of QM have something weird about them. You can move the weirdness around to different spots, depending on which weirdness bothers you the most, and come up with different interpretations. Most interpretations reject local realism (Many Worlds being an exception, instead rejecting Counterfactual definteness).

Very good posts, DH.

In Many Worlds, the wave function does not collapse. The superposition of states is taken to mean that the universe has split into a universe where the cat is alive and another where it is dead. When you open the box, you discover which universe you are in, not what happened to the cat - you already know that the cat both lived and died.

Yes, When I said that my original post was an example of the S. cat, what I mean by that is that the Many Worlds theory is a nice solution to the S. cat. It solves everything. It is weird, but not illogical. Not even as weird as the 'weirdness' inside of QM.

In fact, I believe they will be testing the Many Worlds idea at Cern. They have been watching very small particles pop in and out of existence there and one idea is that under certain circumstances, a particle can simply enter into a hidden dimension. They think this because the 'destroyed' or 'missing' particle does not add to the energy of the system - so, E=MC2 and all, where did it go? I don't know the particulars of this yet, but it is something like that. Many scientists are taking Many Worlds very seriously. Their may even be 'leakage' from adjacent worlds which may even have something to do with dark energy and dark matter. They don't know, but are interested.

I simply say right out front that this is how it is and it also explains many 'paranormal' phenomena. That is my experience.

What's the problem? You reckon that there is no death, that we merely migrate to another world. It's just like going to another room, isn't it? So go on. Go to the next room. Why hang around here?

David my son, you don't understand. Even if I go to a parallel world, you and your board will still be there. This post will be there.

I wouldn't go around saying that QM and Shrodey's cat is like angels on a pin. Don't say it around scientists. These are aspects of the REAL world. Tests confirm it; technology is based on it. Show me some technology based on angels on a pin.

Don't be frightened, David, LOOK! BEHOLD!

unwise wrote: It is precisely your identification with the personality that is the definition of ignorance and bondage.

unwise wrote:There is a very important and simple answer to the question What is it that identifies with the personality?

The question remains unanswered. Surely, you realize that because your premise is nonsense, anything you respond with, must also be nonsense. Thusly, your silence. :)

Guru's don't like critics. It's bad for their mojo. What a joker.

He's got a mojo? It must be broken.

It's a mojo rising.

Unwise wrote:

DQ: What's the problem? You reckon that there is no death, that we merely migrate to another world. It's just like going to another room, isn't it? So go on. Go to the next room. Why hang around here?

U: David my son, you don't understand. Even if I go to a parallel world, you and your board will still be there. This post will be there.

That's okay, I'll let that David Quinn over there deal with it. So go on, be off with you. Leave this dimension and go elsewhere. What's stopping you? (Answer: "I don't have any faith in this half-baked drivel myself").

I wouldn't go around saying that QM and Shrodey's cat is like angels on a pin. Don't say it around scientists. These are aspects of the REAL world. Tests confirm it; technology is based on it. Show me some technology based on angels on a pin.

The only thing in QM that is connected to the real world is the mathematics. The various conflicting "philosophic" interpretations which are draped over these equations are pure fantasy. They are created out of whatever arbitrary assumptions scientists choose to make. Each particular interpretation is a product of a different set of assumptions; each interpretation is as groundless and arbitrary as the others. This is theology, not science.

You've taken a hold of one these interpretations and are now pretending to everyone, and to yourself, that it is ultimate truth. But you don't really believe in it, as evidenced by the way you recoil at the idea of doing yourself in and migrating to some other world. Instead, you choose to foist this nonsense upon the rest of us here at this board. And we are supposed to be grateful for that?

-

David Hodges wrote:

All interpretations of QM have something weird about them. You can move the weirdness around to different spots, depending on which weirdness bothers you the most, and come up with different interpretations.

It's a false weirdness, though, isn't it. The weirdness is generated out of own incomplete understanding of the quantum realm. It isn't actually a part of the realm itself.

It's a bit like how people used to think that automobiles were weird because they could move around by themselves without the help of horses. Some of those people might have speculated that invisible horses dragged the automobiles around. Others might have thought that little horses were placed underneath the cars. The more lazy types would have simply concluded that it was magic.

This is essentially the nature of our current "interpretations" of quantum mechanics.

-

unwise wrote:hummmmmm.

I wonder if E.I. still thinks I'm insane and David still wants me to cut my own throat.

Why do you care? Who am I to you? Who is David?

As for the cat in the box, when no one is observing it, it has no existence at all. It is neither alive nor dead. There is literally no cat there to be either be alive or dead. It is only when a cat appears in the field of consciousness of an observer that it presents an appearance of some kind, either alive or dead.

So I think we can agree that there is nothing without an observation. We can agree that the cat does not exist until you look in the box. What, then, determines whether the cat will be alive or dead in your view? The causes of the cat's aliveness or deadness is within you - in your observation. What caused the effect of the dead cat?

Similarly, why does one scientist see a photon as a particle while another scientist sees a wave? What caused the photon to be a wave to one observer but not the other?