Reconciling Schrödinger's Cat with the Principle of Explosion

@Olivier5,

The significant point about logic and number systems is that they both depend on the human communicative activity involved in counting one, i.e. what constitutes set membership, as illustrated by the celebrated philosopher Crocodile Dundee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POJtaO2xB_o

Notice how the semantic dynamics of the situation cannot be captured axiomatic static logic

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Mathematicians chose a particular set of axioms rather than another because they share a common interest and intellectual pursuit, so it is in their best interest to use the same axiomatic system to share their results and information. Mathematicians chose the particular set of axioms rather than another through obtaining a general consensus over what they want to analyze and how.

2 Replies

@browser32,

The above post should torpedo your contrived question about logic and the life of a hypothetical cat.

1 Reply

@browser32,

Wrong answer.

1 Reply

@fresco,

That above post of yours doesn't make much sense to me. I suspect it contains typographical errors, which makes your post hard to fully understand and makes me skeptical of your supposed position. You wasted over a minute of my time by citing a video clip that I do not see the relevance of. You are talking too abstractly and too irrelevantly.

I'm just being honest.

Perhaps you should attack the issue more directly.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Where are we going with this?

1 Reply

@browser32,

Lighten up a bit.
The clip illustrates the issue of assigning an object to the set 'knife'. Is the kid's 'knife' still 'a knife' ...implying a potential logical contradiction on the part of Dundee ....or does 'knifehood' in this instance refer to a shifting the social context which fixed set theory aka 'logic' cannot cope with. ? My contention is that 'real life' is like that, and not about hypthetical cats and observers.

'Man is the measure of all things' Anaximander...and thinghood changes as man changes.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quantum Mechanics should have one and only one interpretation. The fact that there are all these different interpretations of it suggests Quantum Mechanics is flawed.

If Schrödinger found a contradiction in the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Copenhagen Interpretation should have immediately been dismissed. But for some reason, it remains one of the most prominent and popular interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Why?

1 Reply

@browser32,

The key phrases there are 'popular interpretations' and 'should'. If we paraphrae the nature of QM as 'counter intuitive but effective at prediction and control' that would remove QM in its current state from the inapropriate confines of classical logic.
You are flogging a dead horse with a feather ! Smile

2 Replies

@fresco,

Does Quantum Mechanics follow classical logic? If it does, why? If it doesn't, why not?

1 Reply

@browser32,

Nowhere evidently. It just downed on me you have no clue what you're talking about.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I'm here for an answer.

1 Reply

@browser32,

I seriously doubt you'll be able to understand the answer, but anyway.

Any mathematician is free to use any set of axioms as his starting point. This leads to the exploration of different types of geometries or arithmetics. Different types of "mathematical spaces" if you wish, each defined by its specific set of axioms. For instance, the axiom "there exists a solution to the equation (square root of -1)" leads to an exploration of the space called "imaginary numbers".

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

each defined by its specific set of axioms.

Spaces, mathematical or whatever, do not have to be defined by a set of axioms; they can be defined by the undefined terms and concepts. The axioms describe the space, but they do not have to define it.

1 Reply

@browser32,

To define anything by "undefined terms" is a contradiction.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

No, it is not.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The key phrases there are 'popular interpretations' and 'should'. If we paraphrae the nature of QM as 'counter intuitive but effective at prediction and control' that would remove QM in its current state from the inapropriate confines of classical logic.
You are flogging a dead horse with a feather !

...and yet QM experts still look for a classical explanation, eg pilot-wave theory...

..on their own words if you think you understand QM than you don't understand anything at all about it.

Finally I would like you to take the next step in your languaging and start to express yourself with fuzzy logic. Be coherent ffs!

0 Replies

@browser32,

You can't define anything with undefined words. Just try and define an "euclidian space" without using axioms, if you don't believe me.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Sure I can. In mathematics, many terms are defined using undefined terms.

For example: Suppose bridge is an undefined term. I define a nonbridge as a thing that is not a bridge.

1 Reply

@browser32,

That's not very helpful though.

Try with "euclidian space".

1 Reply

Reconciling Schrödinger's Cat with the Principle of Explosion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know