Reconciling Schrödinger's Cat with the Principle of Explosion

I already answered that question.

The photon experiment you've described doesn't involve a contradiction between two theoretical truths in Quantum Mechanics; it involves a contradiction between a prediction that was influenced by some theoretical truth in Quantum Mechanics and the state of the real world.

When I ask "Does some contradiction exist in Quantum Mechanics?", I mean "Is there a theoretical truth in Quantum Mechanics such that the truth is a conjunction of exactly two theoretical truths in Quantum Mechanics and one of the two conjuncts is the negation of the other?"

It wouldn't hurt to be redundant.

It wouldn't hurt to pay attention.

I'm sorry. It appears Schrödinger's Cat is more controversial than I thought it was.

I am just tired of talking to someone who isn't listening.

Therefore, all propositions are false, too, including the proposition: "all propositions are false"... An obvious logical contradiction.

It appears that a lot of waffle is being generated which can be resolved by one simple point: The concept of 'contradiction' is only meaningful in classical logic. Elsewhere the term 'inconsistency' would be employed.

The reason QM is deemed 'counter-intuitive' is that it departs from such classical logic. Unlike at macro-levels of observation, at the quantum level 'whatever can happen,does happen' is the consistent basis for eventual (indirect) observation. The so called Cat Paradox is a thought experiment of which artificially confuses levels of observational analysis. (An early post by centrox pointed out the significance of 'size')

Note that different levels of analysis which resist integration are the norm in 'the sciences'. For example attempts to reduce the teleonomical systems of biology to physico-chemical levels remain speculative. Similarly psychological and sociological models for 'group behavior' may not sit well together.

That is correct, but it helps to know which theory is appliacble at which level.

The only answer to that might be the Pragmatist's one..'the one which works' !
('Working' being defined in terms of prediction and control - not necessarily 'understanding'. !)

If all propositions are true, controversy will always be able to be generated because both "all propositions are true" and "not all propositions are true" will always be right sides for people to take. If all propositions are true, the thought experiment known as Schrödinger's Cat will always be controversial.

Fresco, I am ignoring the Fil and Browser Show. I want to address these two points.

The reason QM is deemed 'counter-intuitive' is that it departs from such classical logic.
[/quote]

Given that Quantum Mechanics is mathematically consistent (in that there are no mathematical contradictions given the set of set of axioms that have been developed through observation... does it really depart from classical logic. It seems that you are equating axioms with logic.

If you accept the axioms of Quantum Mechanics, and observations match the predictions that follow from logic (in the mathematical sense) based on these axioms... does this really mean a departure from "classical logic".



This is a gross misstatement of Quantum Mechanics. The semiconductors in your computer are designed based on the laws of Quantum Mechanics, "whatever can happen, does happen" would be a horrible thing in a precision machine like the one in your hands right now.

The one liner 'whastever can happen, does happen' is a direct quote from |Cox's book on Quantum Theory. Obviously probabalistic considerations come into play when this is applied to macro - systems like computational devices which give 'confidence levels' sufficient to predict macro-properties.
The 'consistency' involved in the mathematics of QM seems to be partially based on aspects of 'group theory' such as symmetry, and also in the non-rejection of 'unexepected' algebraic entities which arise in the course of analysis. (It is many years since I was personally competent with that form of analysis so I cannot give chapter and verse).

There is no point on a forum such as this trying to get involved in technical details which others have taken whole books to illustrate. Suffice to say that The OP was simplistic and seems to dissipate as a 'valid question' when the issues like the status of mathemqatical models in general, and binary logic in particular is considered with respect to the epistemological and ontological points which I and others have raised. The mere fact that browser keeps asking for a simplistic binary answer 'yes or know' indicates that he has not taken those issues on board.

The cat in the box with the trigger mechanism and the poison gas is a thought experiment showing that the result will be uncertain until you open the box. This part of the thought experiment is accepted.

The word game played that the cat is dead and alive is just an expression of playing dice, could be seven or could be eleven or, could be two or could be five... This part of the thought experiment is also accepted.

It is limited to two choices, dead and alive.

Here is the failure, it gives you solely two other choices as well, the poison gas killing the cat, the poison gas never activated and the cat is alive.

Well, I performed the experiment with physical means. The cat inside, the mechanism to release the poison gas ready, the old cat inside the box in complete darkness, the cat was quiet from the very beginning up to the end of the test.

Results:

When the box was opened, the cat was DEAD.

Causes of the decease:

Heart attack.

-------------------------------------------------------

There you have your "contradiction". Lol.

Rest assured that not all statements are true. Controversy will nevertheless remain the rule on pretty much anything. That's where I fundamentally disagree with Fresco, for whom truth is consensus. I think there's no such thing as consensus, but there's such a thing as truth.

Amusing to see a thumb monkey(s?) messing around a philosophical thread...

Did you use ZycloneB like the SS. ?

This is not really the thread to discuss it, but both 'truth' and 'consensus' exist in terms of their contextual functionality. The only difference between them seems to be that 'truth' implies 'universal consensus'.I merely question the concept of 'universality' because it implies 'an absolute' to which we have no access. Be that as it may, there are certainly propositions which all humans can agree about due to their common physiology. In that sense we can call that 'species specific,truth' but never 'absolute truth'.

People disagree all the freaking time. Consensus is a very rare event in any human group. And if truth doesn't exist, then it follows that your philosophy is necessarily false...

My problem with Fresco is not what he believes in nor the fact that we disagree, but exactly the fact that he does not even try to be self consistent from his referent pov. That's what makes me jump at him time to time.
On my part I may be right or wrong on many subjects but I am always in the least as much aware as my brain allows it to remain consistent with my own belief system.