rufio wrote:Lol, JL, you know what I'm saying.
You can't apply that analogy to the cat because then you have to define the state of the cat after the experiment as fundamentally different from the state of the cat before the experiment, whatever happens, and if the cat doesn't die during the course of the experiment, that's just wrong. If the cat is still alive, it will be in the same state it was in at the beginning and during the experiment. If the cat is dead, than it will be in the same state it was in during the experiment after the point at which it was killed, and it would have been in the same state before it was killed as it was at the beginning of the experiment. When you flip a coin, it is at one state at the beginning of the experiment, another during the experiment, and a third unique state at the end of the experiment, regardless of the outcome. The reason that you don't know what the coin is until you see it is that you are continually watching it until it reaches the final state. Of course it reaches that state when you're watching it - when else would it?
apparently, you are trapped in the rigidity of the macro-universe cartesian and dualistic logic from which you can not escape. and you seem to lack a certain background in quantum mechanics to guide you thru the quagmire.
there is no experiment involved as you define it. there is no a priori state of existence preceding the act of observation, nor can it be measured posteriori by observation. all there is prior to observation is the potential for existence, or non-existence
at the quantum level, without observation there is no definable existence, nor a state of non-existence. there is no "time zero," dead cat, or baseline state to measure against the properties one sees when one observes and there is no definable a priori state to compare against posteriori by observation, all that there is is merely potentiality as defined by the probability wave functions.
the theoretical object is in between two states, of existence or non-existence until the observation is carried out.
this bizarre revelation is a result of the application of mathematics derived from the logic and reason arising from the sensate macro-universe, and it appears absurd because it can not happen in the macro-universe you live in.
but it does happen at the quantum mechanical level. that is the absurdity which you struggle against.
the theoretical object, a quantum particle, or schroedinger's cat either exists or not if one uses the duality inherent in the logic and reason of the macro-universe sentient beings occupy. however, at the quantum mechanical level, from your remarks you apparently think that the state a priori to observation is a state of non-existence, and means the cat is dead until observed. but this is a view which uses the duality inherent in the macro-universe . there is no comparison between before and during the observation. the exercise is not to determine whether the cat exists or not based upon attempting to observe it, but recognizing that before the observation it has the potential for either state.
you are spinning your wheels because you apparently think that if there is no definable property before observation, therefore the cat doesn't exist, and believe that such a state is the same as the state where the cat doesn't exist based upon observation.
the two are not the same.
its bizarre, its absurd, but it is.
Well, Joe, it would have been a shame if we had disbanded before receiving your hilarious post. Thanks we needed that. BTW, the "need to get laid" argument is false because we all need to get laid.