21
   

when is Schroedinger's cat dead, and when is it not?

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Jun, 2011 10:16 pm
@maxdancona,
That's a far different proposal from stating that the cat "does not exist" while not being observed, though.
zt09
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 01:49 am
@DrewDad,
the same cat exists or not depending on whether or not it's being observed.

Just imagine a black box (the same as in the S-cat example) that completely isolates the cat from the outside world. That's all. The cat has only one state - "not exists". Please notice that no animals were hurt during the expiriment.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 07:18 am
@zt09,
"The same cat?" Please define "same."

The state of the cat, indeterminate or dead, depends on whether it has been observed.

The cat, the physical matter that makes up the cat, exists independent of whether it is being observed or not, though.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 07:37 am
@DrewDad,
Can you prove that i.e. can you prove that the so-called external world exists independently of the observer?
zt09
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 07:46 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
The cat, the physical matter that makes up the cat, exists independent of whether it is being observed or not, though.


How do you know if there is no way to determine if the cat exists from outside the box?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 08:06 am
@maxdancona,
I agree this was the reported intent i.e. to show the absurdity.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 08:59 am
@igm,
I have faith that the world is not a solipsist fantasy.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 09:01 am
@zt09,
See above.

Assuming that the world is not a solipsist fantasy, I believe in the mass/energy conservation law. Things that exist continue to exist.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 09:55 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
I have faith that the world is not a solipsist fantasy.


Are you sure that solipsism is the only conclusion to be drawn from my post? I would say that observers can't be said to be independent of that which is observed but surely that is not the same as the accepted definition of solipsism because the subject and object when the subject is not an observer is nevertheless not independent of the object since independent existence cannot be found. The subject when not observing will still not be independent of the object that may in due course be observed.
0 Replies
 
zt09
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 10:21 am
@DrewDad,
Solipsism is the idea that only one observer (myself) is sure to exist. I do not claim that there is the only observer dependant reality. I just say that reality is observer dependant.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 10:27 am
Both of you seem to be proposing that only the part of the universe you're observing can be "proven" to exist. Seems like solipsistic B.S. to me.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 10:46 am
Let’s not forget that what 'maxdoncona' said many posts ago: “Actually it was the opposite. Schroedinger's cat was not invented to explain anything. It was invented to show the apparent absurdity of the implications of the mathematics behind Quantum mechanics. It is an obvious paradox.” is historically correct.
zt09
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 10:57 am
@DrewDad,
Observing, influencing, interacting, knowing - whatever you call it. Gravitation is a kind of interaction too. So each particle or combination of particles including human bodies may be regarded as an observer with its unique reality.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 11:12 am
@igm,
Yes, that's was its intended purpose, but it turned out that reality is as absurd as the example.

Not sure what you think that adds to the conversation....
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 11:13 am
@zt09,
zt09 wrote:

Observing, influencing, interacting, knowing - whatever you call it. Gravitation is a kind of interaction too. So each particle or combination of particles including human bodies may be regarded as an observer with its unique reality.

No, it's all the same reality with each observer having a unique perspective (or frame of reference).
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 11:56 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Yes, that's was its intended purpose, but it turned out that reality is as absurd as the example.

Not sure what you think that adds to the conversation....


Isn’t the example an example of a paradox? Do we get any further debating a paradox as if it wasn't one?
zt09
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 12:54 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
each observer having a unique perspective

Ok. And if each observer occupies its own frame of reference and sees things from its own unique perspective then how can one know for sure there is a reality out there that
Quote:
exists independent of whether it is being observed or not
, the same reality?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 02:23 pm
@zt09,
Lol.

You're free to travel down that rabbit hole if you wish, but I'm just going to assume we all exist in the same universe.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 02:23 pm
@igm,
Er... what paradox?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jun, 2011 04:20 pm
@DrewDad,
maxdoncona wrote:

Schroedinger's cat was not invented to explain anything. It was invented to show the apparent absurdity of the implications of the mathematics behind Quantum mechanics. It is an obvious paradox.

I agree with maxdoncona that 'Schroedinger's cat' is a paradox if I use this common definition: a figure of speech in which a statement appears to contradict itself e.g. a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time. The result of the thought experiment is more likely to be faulty mathematics based on unprovable axioms i.e. axioms are not self-evident truths in any sort of rational system, they are unprovable assumptions.

We aren't debating if a given state is 1 or 0 or both at the same time but if a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time...I think it's more likely to be faulty mathematics.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/24/2019 at 05:08:47