Reconciling Schrödinger's Cat with the Principle of Explosion

It not as simple as that.

Nothing can be said about 'truth' at quantum and cosmological levels of analysis, , except to argue ,like the Pragmatists do, that 'truth' is about agreement as to 'what works'. It is clear that QM 'works' in as much as it allows for prediction of behavior of some physical phenomena, and even suggests observations which otherwise would not have been made.

One essence of 'the reality debate' is captured in part by Nietzsche's point that 'we cannot separate description from reality. Some descriptions are simply more useful that others depending on context. We cannot get beyond 'description' which follows Kant's point about that all we experience are phenomena and never noumena (things in themselves). And since phenomena occur in a 'subjective realm', influenced by such context as culture, this ultimately delimits ontological enquiry.

Hey Fresco,

I have been reading Thomas Kuhn's work on Scientific Revolution. I don't agree with much of what he says... particularly about the subjective nature of the work of scientists. It is still a good read.

I have been trying to work out my own ideas about scientific "truth", which are things that can be tested under experiment and reproduced. Of course things that can be known in scientific "truth" are limited. Science is limited to answering questions that are empirically testable. Kuhn has a problem with this. I don't. I separate Scientific Truth from other types of Truth.

Richard Feynman (a personal hero) says that science accepts what the experiments say without requiring any deeper reason. Sure we want to know something deeper, but science has found that usually that level of deeper reason isn't available or maybe doesn't exist. We accept what the experiments say. Hence the counter-intuitive results of Quantum Mechanics are now accepted science.

I am curious how you reconcile this.

My 'reconciliation' is based on the concept of the inextricability of observer and observed (a well established concept for Buddhists I believe). 'Objectivity' is a projection of the focus of observers who construct what for everyday purposes is construed as 'an exterior independent world'. That works for macro projects except where 'religion' is involved, since 'thinghood' tends to persist relative to our lifespans (despite continuous flux at the atomic level). In 'science' that focus is a joint one since humans have physiology, language, and context in common (Kuhn's paradigms). From this pov, 'reality' lies at the interface of observer and observed (in line with the Copenhagen interpretation), but we can never stand outside that interraction despite attempts by some (e.g. Von Foerster) who coin the term 'second order cybernetics' for the investigation of 'the observation of observation'.

The Principle of Explosion is not silly. It is something that should be taken seriously. In logic, it is taken seriously. Contrary to what you've claimed, the Principle of Explosion is science. As I was told in my Introduction to Logic course with Professor Selmer Bringsjord for my fall 2009 college semester at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, and as was written in the syllabus for that course (syllabus accessed Oct. 20, 2017), in general, logic is the science of reasoning.

Quantum Mechanics and the Principle of Explosion should be able to coexist with each other. If Quantum Mechanics contains at least one contradiction, then by the Principle of Explosion, in Quantum Mechanics, all propositions are true.

Precisely what is that answer?

Certainly not at the level of a cat. IOW, there never was any cat who was both alive and dead at the same time.

The paradox simply proves that the wave function does not require a human observer to collapse.

I disagree. Every proposition always is true or false. That always applies to every proposition, propositions about quantum and cosmological theories included.

If at least one contradiction is accepted in Quantum Mechanics, or in any theory, then the truth of all propositions must also be accepted. There's a straightforward proof of the Principle of Explosion on its Wikipedia page, the proof located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion#Proof.

Who came up with that slogan: 'logic is the science of reasoning'. ?
If you mean classical (binary) it cannot be termed 'science' which is a set of mathematical models and procedures aimed at epistemological progress. It is merely one model based on staic set membership assigned by humans for particular purposes. The fact that 'courses in logic' involve manipulation of statements and truth functional connectives does not constitute a 'scientific activity' even if it resembles it. Your focus on the word 'science' as the basis for your question seems to be what Wittgenstein called 'language on holiday'.

What about this one?

"All statements are true" is a false statement.

If quantum superposition is true at any level, then it seems all propositions are true by the Principle of Explosion.

As a proposition, the proposition "'All statements are true' is a false statement" always is true or false.

I'm not aware that "superposition of different states" is posited by QM. What you mean is the wave-particle duality, which is different from a contradiction.

I believe logic is science myself. I agree with the definition that in general, logic is the science of reasoning.

I do not mean wave-particle duality. I mean quantum superposition. There's a whole Wikipedia article for it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition.

As I understand it, that article speaks of superposition of wave functions. It does not say that a given particle is both here and there at the same time.

So given your ideosyncratic interpretation of the word 'science', your fixation on 'logic' (giving chapter and verse about your parofhial course), and your 'weirdo' website, would you agree that we are wasting our time trying to have a reasonable conversation with you ?

It appears that according to the third sentence of the Wikipedia article for Schrödinger's Cat, located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat, the state in which the Cat may be simultaneously alive and dead is known as quantum superposition. So it appears a state of quantum superposition can be contradictory.

No, I do not agree that you are wasting your time trying to have a reasonable conversation with me. You are wasting your time going off on a tangent. The definition of science is not what we are here to discuss. The definition of logic is not what we are here to discuss. My website is not what we are here to discuss.

Schrödinger's Cat seems to imply a contradiction. A contradiction implies all propositions are true. Therefore, it seems Schrödinger's Cat implies all propositions are true. Does Schrödinger's Cat actually imply all propositions are true? Maybe you could help here.

I have explained above that the status of the word 'truth' differs according to the realm of enquiry. You are treating it as 'an absolute'. I suggest you research 'theories of truth' and reconsider whether your question is meaningful.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

This made me chuckle.