Schrödinger's Cat is a bunch of BS

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: BoneSay

until you open the box you don't know whats the state inside lol

Unless you factor in the knowledge of how much food and water the existential cat is given. If the cat in the box has a finite amount of food and water, or none, or infinite, the timeline of existence of life can be postulated.

That's irrelevant. The cat will die not from hunger but from poisoning induced by the unpredictable decay of some atom of a radioactive element inside the box. According to quantum mechanics, until you look inside the box, the cat is literally both alive and dead because you don't know whether an atom has decayed or not (and it takes only one atom to kill the cat, according to this thought experiment). This did not make sense to Schrodinger, and he rejected the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics that gave rise to the absurdity. Some explain it away by arguing that a cat is NOT a quantum object and its state of being alive or dead cannot be regarded as a pure quantum state that obeys the Supposition Principle. Others are not so sure. It seems clear to me that, as a vast aggregation of atoms, the cat behaves as a classical object that is not subject to the Supposition Principle. The problem is, no one knows exactly how the transition of a complex system of particles from being a quantum object to being one that obeys classical mechanics takes place, so no one knows when it makes sense to apply the principle and when it does not. Hence, everyone either gets tied up in paradoxes they cannot escape from or has to postulate hidden quantum worlds where dead and alive cats coexist separately but which cannot interact with one another and remain forever hidden, which many think makes the theory unscientific because it seems unfalsifiable.
I see this as a pseudoproblem based upon a false (Copenhagen) interpretation of quantum mechanics, although I won't explain further my position here.

Lol... if you locked my cat up in a box, you would probably have no doubt weather she was alive or dead.. she'd be growling, hissing, banging, and scratching.... it would make a good clip for a tv show.
His cat was dead because he overdosed it with tranquilizers just so he could get it in the danged box without his arms being shredded to bits.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie
It could never be an experiment simply because it couldn't be done never mind replicated.

And if they did manage to create an environment where the cat had 50/50 chance of living through radiation poisoning..... The ethics committee wouldn't allow it, post the little Albert experiment.

a reply to: gallop

Not exactly my point
It seems “us” observing something will change that somethings actions
Think about it


Us, electrons?

a reply to: CryHavoc

Simplified: it depends on your definition of Observer/Observation.

Schrödingers Cat was meant to disprove the Copenhagen Interpretation by removing a conscious observer from the system.

In the experiment Schrodinger was saying the cat was definitely alive or dead - one or the other, and without measurement or concious observation you would not know the reality of the cat's condition but you would know the probability.

Various interpretation of the experiment of course change the various conclusions.

a reply to: Raggedyman
That one has been proven, ala double split experiment, although those with occult knowledge have known this since ancient times.

a reply to: ManyMasks

Well yes it has been suggested with science, hence my post and common sense

But, would love to see where occult knowledge has suggested it in the past

While the double slit experiment makes a suggestion it isn’t exactly unquestioned in the scientific realm
medium.com...

Maybe in the occult realm it is but who would offer credence, if what you are saying is based on fact

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: gallop

Not exactly my point
It seems “us” observing something will change that somethings actions
Think about it


Us, electrons?

So we killed the cat by opening the lid of the box and finding it dead? I don't think so. Until the lid was opened, according to quantum mechanics, the cat had some probability of being alive even though, when we later check the data about the decay of the atoms, we find it was already dead before the lid was opened. But we didn't know that until we observed the cat. Observing it consciously did not kill it - the data tells us that happened some time before.

Anyway, conscious observers have nothing to do with the issue, as observations that caused the cat's wave function to collapse into one of being either alive or dead can performed without the intervention of a conscious observer. Consciousness has nothing to do with it (sorry, Eugene Wigner, but you got it all wrong). The lid could be programmed to open at a given instant and a camera set off to record the state of the cat. Are you telling me that looking at the photograph several days later in my office as "the conscious observer" caused the cat to die several days earlier, i.e., that the future affected the past? This is the logical implication of the Copenhagen Interpretation concerning the measurement problem that so many, like Einstein, de Broglie and Schrodinger, could not stomach. In my view they are right, although their own approaches to understanding the indeterminate nature of the quantum world, e.g., the local hidden variables basis, turned out to be wrong.

a reply to: micpsi

You might want to watch the double slit experiment video I posted before trying to tell me what you think or what I think for that matter
And it is what you think, that’s the point

Just so you know, i never made a statement, you are arguing with me based on nothing I said, I offered a question and other information I readily questioned, why?
Because I don’t know, I don’t have an opinion, I am not sure
I am waiting for more information

And as a fact, some people will not do something if they are being observed

Now go watch the double slit experiment before arguing with me, I posted it, didn’t validate it

a reply to: Raggedyman

'Tulpas' 'servitors' just two names
Evergies brought together by concentrated thought and directed.
It's in most of the books I've read, from Eastern esoterics to the occult.
It's even been suggested that this was how they built the pyramids, groups of adepts staring at each brick and asking it to move with their minds, everything is conscious, hermetics, Rosicrucianism the list goes on, whether it's true or not my mind is open and exploring the idea.

a reply to: ManyMasks

Cool I understand now, didn’t get it at first, but, well, who knows

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: micpsi

You might want to watch the double slit experiment video I posted before trying to tell me what you think or what I think for that matter
And it is what you think, that’s the point

Just so you know, i never made a statement, you are arguing with me based on nothing I said, I offered a question and other information I readily questioned, why?
Because I don’t know, I don’t have an opinion, I am not sure
I am waiting for more information

And as a fact, some people will not do something if they are being observed

Now go watch the double slit experiment before arguing with me, I posted it, didn’t validate it

I was not telling you what to think. I had already seen the video long before posting and was responding to your comment. If you now say you don't agree with the comment but was merely summarizing what the video said, then fine. But you must admit it looked like it was YOUR view, and not simply one that you were reporting, otherwise I would not have commented as though you supported the view.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Schrödinger's Cat is a bunch of BS

Superposition isn't some profound concept. It just requires some selfish guy who thinks whether he observed something or not makes a bit of difference. It doesn't. The Cat is either dead or alive. It's not both.

We can apply this to eating breakfast. When I reach for my box of cereal, am I going to be able to eat or did my roommate eat it all but put the empty box back on the shelf like a slob? My observation has nothing to do with the answer. The cereal box doesn't exist in a state of superposition. Either my roommate was a slob or he didn't finish the whole box. Whether I observed it or not is irrelevant.

I think Schrödinger just hated Cats.

Change my mind.

your roommate comes to you just before breakfast, and explains how good he has been with picking up after himself, and not pissing you off. he then asks to borrow 5 bucks for a pack of smokes on his way out. You agreeing that he has changed his ways, happily hand him the 5 spot. Just after he leaves, you pick up the empty box of co-co puffs, and scream loudly but in vein.

now, you are out 5 bucks, have no co-co -pufs, and now have a sore throat. None of that was the case 2 minutes ago, yet nothing had changed over that time period. Thus, you proved that the cereal box was both full, and empty at the same time, until you decided to have some. And your roommates pet python escaped and sh!t in your pillow case. (you won't find that till tonight)

good?

Interestingly, Stack Exchange has a current discussion on this. Good reading.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Schrödinger's Cat is a bunch of BS

Superposition isn't some profound concept..

Quantum tunneling occurs in nature. Google it.

Super position is based on the math. Go take a Modern Physics course and report back.

You're welcome.

G

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: micpsi

You might want to watch the double slit experiment video I posted before trying to tell me what you think or what I think for that matter
And it is what you think, that’s the point

Just so you know, i never made a statement, you are arguing with me based on nothing I said, I offered a question and other information I readily questioned, why?
Because I don’t know, I don’t have an opinion, I am not sure
I am waiting for more information

And as a fact, some people will not do something if they are being observed

Now go watch the double slit experiment before arguing with me, I posted it, didn’t validate it

I was not telling you what to think. I had already seen the video long before posting and was responding to your comment. If you now say you don't agree with the comment but was merely summarizing what the video said, then fine. But you must admit it looked like it was YOUR view, and not simply one that you were reporting, otherwise I would not have commented as though you supported the view.

Yeaahhhh I did agree with it because it was the best evidence, but

Not sure, not arguing, just offering
I don’t know, open to learning

Thanks, learned a bit since
Appreciate you pushing me

But you are missing a lot of what is being discussed

A tree falls in the Forrest...

Putting the concept of a point of view into mathematics has always been difficult, whether it's special relativity or quantum mechanics because a math problem or equation is supposed to mean the same thing or have the same outcome regardless who is looking at it from where. A kind of objective guide post. And it works pretty good in limited instances for building stuff and determining where a planet is going to be at a particular time.

But the fact is we all have slightly different realities and none of them are purely objective. Language, either spoken or written is maybe a more accurate way of describing our realities, exactly because it is filled with subjective differences regarding meanings, which is why translation is hard. The exact meaning of a word or phrase can vary a lot between individuals and cultures. It's as if for you one plus one would obviously equal two, but to someone else one plus one would equal one, or sadness, or a fish. But both of you would be correct.

The failure happens because you have to use fuzzy, inaccurate language to describe the math. It's adding subjectivity to something that is supposed to be objective. When Albert Einstein talked about acceleration, for instance, it probably didn't mean exactly the same thing to him as is does to you, even with it clearly "defined," because definitions are self-referential. When you look up a word in a dictionary it refers you to other words in the dictionary. Einstein, being who he was and how he was raised gave him a different reality than you. Unless you're a German physicist, you're not going to be on the same wavelength as Einstein or Pauli or Schrodinger.

This is where our AI will surpass us. It won't have the translation problem. They won't have a point of view. They'll take the raw data and organize it to come up with the key to it all that they would transmit to each other without errors. The nature of time. Instantaneous travel anywhere in the universe. Energy flow between dimensions.

Unfortunately, it probably won't be able to explain it to us in a way we can understand. And we can try to explain how we can have such a rousing debate over a frickin hypothetical cat.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
The Cat is either dead or alive. It's not both.

That was also Schrodinger's point of view, about the cat.

Apparently some people misinterpret the thought experiment and think Schrodinger thought the cat would be in a superposition of states, but he didn't think that, he thought that was a ridiculous idea for the cat.

But quantum mechanics says a subatomic particle or an atom can be such a superposition of states, like decayed or not decayed, according to the Copenhagen interpretation.

So the burning question is, why could that apply to a subatomic particle, but not the cat? The current thinking seems to be something called "decoherence", which is hard to explain in a few words but it's the idea that large complex systems (like living organisms) have so much interaction with the environment that they can't stay in a superposition of states very long, and all the interactions are like many observations in effect. Look up decoherence if you want to know more but that's the thinking on how it could apply to a particle but why it doesn't work out the same way for the cat. The cat is always in effect being "observed" by all its interactions with its environment so nobody really needs to open the box to "observe" the cat, it's already being "observed" in a decoherence sense inside the box before it's opened.

originally posted by: dawnstar
Lol... if you locked my cat up in a box, you would probably have no doubt weather she was alive or dead.. she'd be growling, hissing, banging, and scratching.... it would make a good clip for a tv show.

If Schrödinger actually owned a Cat, he would have known this. Yet another reason why Schrödinger's Cat is BS.

originally posted by: network dude
your roommate comes to you just before breakfast, and explains how good he has been with picking up after himself, and not pissing you off. he then asks to borrow 5 bucks for a pack of smokes on his way out. You agreeing that he has changed his ways, happily hand him the 5 spot. Just after he leaves, you pick up the empty box of co-co puffs, and scream loudly but in vein.

now, you are out 5 bucks, have no co-co -pufs, and now have a sore throat. None of that was the case 2 minutes ago, yet nothing had changed over that time period. Thus, you proved that the cereal box was both full, and empty at the same time, until you decided to have some. And your roommates pet python escaped and sh!t in your pillow case. (you won't find that till tonight)

good?

"Dang you, Roommate!" I scream loudly but in vain.