Reconciling Schrödinger's Cat with the Principle of Explosion

Forums: Philosophy, Physics, Logic
Email this Topic • Print this Page

How is Schrödinger's Cat, which supposedly is simultaneously alive and dead, reconciled with the Principle of Explosion, by which everything follows from a contradiction?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 11,502 • Replies: 239

[+3] - centrox - 10/19/2017[quote="browser32"]Is SchrÃ¶dinger's Cat really simultaneously alive and dead?[/quote] No, it is not. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics essentially states...

0 Replies

@browser32,

What makes you think that a deliberately absurd paradox must be reconciled with an entirely distinct principle?

0 Replies

@browser32,

Amusing answers are as good as anything else !

The technical point is that binary 'classical' logic is merely a limited aspect of general semantics and cannot get beyond the axioms on which it operates. (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem).Nor does such logic , being based on fixed set membership, take account of the dynamics of observation which assigns such membership. There are other 'logics', and there are several aspects of quantum physics which are 'illogical' in the traditional sense; particle-wave duality being one of the best known.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I surely agree Godel's Incompleteness might imply a semantic problem more then anything else. For instance a set being a member of itself, say, like a triangle full of triangles...the point is size matters, and containing or being contained entail a fundamental difference. Other than that semantics obeys logic not the other way around. Just try to convey your last post without it and see the result. You will go from a half backed obscure comment to a totally incomprehensible bladder...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

At the risk of getting into our mutual quagmire, I think you were talking initially about Russell's paradox, not Godel. However general semantics is definitely not dependent on logic, since language abilities develop in advance of and in some cases without the appearance of 'logical operations'
in humans. I'm sorry you don't seem to undestand that classical logic is based on 'static' set theory, whereas semantics is a 'dynamic' realm. That point is underscored not only by 'fuzzy set theory', its rejection of the excluded middle, and its fluid set membership, but further suggests the aporia issue raised by Derrida, in which all assertions of 'what is the case' semantically allude to their negation.

1 Reply

None of your answers satisfy me.

Suppose Schrödinger's Cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Then there is a contradiction. Since there is a contradiction, by the Principle of Explosion, all propositions are true. Discharge the supposition to conclude that if Schrödinger's Cat is both alive and dead at the same time, then all propositions are true.

I have more confidence in the truth of the Principle of Explosion than I do in the truth of Schrödinger's Cat being simultaneously alive and dead. It seems that if there's a problem with Schrödinger's Cat or the Principle of Explosion, the problem lies with Schrödinger's Cat.

I'm wondering whether my conception of Schrödinger's Cat is accurate. Is Schrödinger's Cat really simultaneously alive and dead? Does Schrödinger's Cat actually show that a contradiction exists in the real world?

2 Replies

@browser32,

browser32 wrote:

Is Schrödinger's Cat really simultaneously alive and dead?

No, it is not. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics essentially states that an object in a physical system can simultaneously exist in all possible configurations, but observing the system forces the system to collapse and forces the object into just one of those possible states.

1. Schrödinger disagreed with this interpretation.

2. He invented the thought experiment with the 50-50 chance of a decaying particle triggering poison release and killing the cat, to show that the Copenhagen Interpretation was flawed, because a cat cannot both be alive and dead.

3. Many people incorrectly assume Schrödinger supported the premise behind the thought experiment. He did not. His entire point was that it was impossible.

4. Modern experiments have revealed that while quantum superposition does work for tiny things like electrons, larger objects must be regarded differently.

2 Replies

@centrox,

I agree with your general point about 'size', yet according to 'many worlds thinking', there is at least one universe where the cat is alive, and at least another where it is not. Therein we depart from bounds of classical logic.

1 Reply

@centrox,

centrox wrote:

Modern experiments have revealed that while quantum superposition does work for tiny things like electrons, larger objects must be regarded differently.

Is there quantum superposition in the real world? Does quantum superposition imply the existence of contradictions in the actual world? If the answer to both questions is yes, then it seems all propositions are true regardless of what objects quantum superposition applies to.

1 Reply

@browser32,

browser32 wrote:

None of your answers satisfy me.

Again, consider whether the problem is the question, and the desire to reconcile distinct and unrelated principles in the first place. Especially when one is a deliberately absurd paradox.

1 Reply

@browser32,

Your problem there is the phrase 'real world'. There is a 'realism/anti realism' debate in the philosophy of science regarding the question of whether the observer can be separated from 'the observed'. Logic has nothing to say about that debate.
BTW The subtitle of Brian Cox's book on Quantum Theory is 'Whatever can happen, does happen'.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

according to 'many worlds thinking', there is at least one universe where the cat is alive, and at least another where it is not.

I know. After I posted that, I started thinking about Wheeler and Everett. There is, coincidentally, an interesting article about Wheeler (Hugh Everett's mentor) and Feynman at Physicsworld:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/2017/oct/19/tale-of-two-physicists

0 Replies

@fresco,

You are correct I confused one for another since they are related. Godel's incompleteness is an amplification of Russell's paradox. Anyway my point stands, the idea that logic depends on semantics is absolutely nonsensical!
Let X be anything at all in semantics in relation to Y (something other then X, both being place holders) in any given pattern. What they mean is irrelevant so long the pattern of relation, in your words, the relational phenomena between the two is fixed in any given universe at Z point. By the way, it is not required the pattern to not change. So long the archetype of the pattern is possible it exists!

PS - I am sure for a mosquito air feels like water to me. There, the pattern of relation is the same!

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

You refer to Schrödinger's Cat as a "deliberately absurd paradox." Schrödinger's Cat is intended to show some absurdity regarding the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.(1) For some reason, it seems the Copenhagen Interpretation receives much attention. Apparently it is a respectable, noteworthy, and arguably true interpretation. For example, the Science News article located at https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/tom%E2%80%99s-top-10-interpretations-quantum-mechanics places the Copenhagen Interpretation at number five out of the top ten interpretations of quantum mechanics. Since it seems the absurdity of Schrödinger's Cat is a consequence of the respectable, noteworthy, and arguably true Copenhagen Interpretation, it seems the absurdity is itself respectable, noteworthy, and arguably true. So, although Schrödinger may have intended his Cat to present an absurdity, it seems others may very well consider his Cat to present a truth. For any such people that view the absurdity of Schrödinger's Cat as a truth, it seems those people must further accept the consequence that all propositions are true.

I disagree with you that Schrödinger's Cat and the Principle of Explosion are "distinct and unrelated." As I have shown, the principles are connected and related on a rather elementary level.

Works Cited:
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Your problem there is the phrase 'real world'.

Whether quantum superposition is true or false is a simple matter. Is quantum superposition true?

2 Replies

@browser32,

browser32 wrote:

Since it seems the absurdity of Schrödinger's Cat is a consequence of the respectable, noteworthy, and arguably true Copenhagen Interpretation, it seems the absurdity is itself respectable, noteworthy, and arguably true.

Quote:

For any such people that view the absurdity of Schrödinger's Cat as a truth, it seems those people must further accept the consequence that all propositions are true.

This kind of silly semantic non sequitur can be summed up as “if A is true B is true”.

Quote:

I disagree with you that Schrödinger's Cat and the Principle of Explosion are "distinct and unrelated." As I have shown, the principles are connected and related on a rather elementary level.

Works Cited:
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

You did nothing of the sort, you engaged in very silly linguistic gymnastics but in any case that was enough to make intentions clear and let me know all I needed to about this thread's future.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

This kind of silly semantic non sequitur can be summed up as “if A is true B is true”.

You're not being clear enough.

Robert Gentel wrote:

You did nothing of the sort, you engaged in very silly linguistic gymnastics but in any case that was enough to make intentions clear and let me know all I needed to about this thread's future.

An application of the Principle of Explosion to the supposed contradiction of Schrödinger's Cat is not just "linguistic gymnastics."

1 Reply

@browser32,

Here is your problem.

Quantum superposition is a scientific concept. It is expressed in mathematics and has been confirmed by experiment. The "principle of explosion" is a silly philosophical principle. I had to look it up... it isn't science.

It is impossible for someone to understand Quantum Superposition without having a mastery of Differential Equations as well as a time to read about the experiments that prove it. I am sorry... but this stuff is difficult. You could understand it, but it takes a lot of time.

You don't understand Quantum Mechanics by reading the internet.

To try to attach a proven scientific principle (ironically without which your computer would not work) to matchbook philosophy is a fools game.

1 Reply

@browser32,

Quote:

How is Schrödinger's Cat, which supposedly is simultaneously alive and dead, reconciled with the Principle of Explosion, by which everything follows from a contradiction?

Without quibbling with the diction or giving short shrift to the contention, the answer you seek is contained in your :

Theory of Free Will and Determinism on your website.

1 Reply

Reconciling Schrödinger's Cat with the Principle of Explosion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know