No, quantum states are transmutable, for the purpose of the experiment. The cat can be used in superposition. But the point is to deny that there's superposition.Superposition is different than p & ~p. It requires the two states to interfere with each other, which has been demonstrated with macroscopic objects, but not a cat. The cat scenario isn't realistic, and it reduces to simply not knowing the state of the cat in the box. — noAxioms
Oh it's still plenty weird, enough to have Everett need to change his thesis to something wrong, but more believable, like 'splitting' happens only occasionally.I've always been suspicious of claims of so-called quantum weirdness — Agent Smith
I don't think it was born of the cat. The cat is simply something that everybody knows and showing how each interpretation deals with the scenario is quite useful in illustrating the differences. No, the root was the mathematics of quantum mechanics theory.an interpretation that can trace it roots to the Schrödinger's cat gedankenexperiment
Again, in an unmeasurable superposition of being dead and alive, for the purpose of illustrating an absurd state. He also put the cat in a mere iron box, which reduced the cat to a single but unknown state. Remember that the wave equation back then was considered an epistemological thing: It described what we knew about a system. It was only later that people suspected that it described the system.However, as great a mind as Schrödinger's was of the view that the best translation of his equations was, macroscopically rendered, that a cat is both dead and alive.
I would not agree to that. I see no paradox in quantum mechanics unless you introduce premises of classical law, which would be a mistake.In other words, given the stature of the man who made the claim, quantum paradoxes should be taken seriously (as true paradoxes).
OK, so you're not reading, comprehending, or caring about my posts. There's no mention of other universes in the theory. The theory posits only that an isolated system evolves according to Schrodinger's equation. The cat being dead is a valid solution. It being alive is another. The equation being linear, the sum of two solutions is also a solution, so the cat being alive/dead is also a valid solution, but a system measuring a live cat and the cat not being alive is not a valid solution to the equation.by proposing that the cat is alive in one universe and dead in the other.
It can't be, since it says it is false. It isn't talking about a statement in another world.How do I use Everett's technique on an actual paradox like the Liar sentence? Well, assume it is true - this is one universe.
I'd reject the Many Worlds Interpretation on the basis that it adds ontic baggage without solving anything. — Hallucinogen
If I say p & ~p, p goes "this town ain't big enough for both of us" to ~p and vice versa - one has to go! However if p in one town and ~p in another, there's no issue at all. — Agent Smith
Yes, but it adds the explanatory burden of new universes being created with every superposition collapse. — Hallucinogen
There's no mention of other universes in the theory. The theory posits only that an isolated system evolves according to Schrodinger's equation. The cat being dead is a valid solution. It being alive is another. — noAxioms
For example, drop an object from a height of 100 feet. How long before it hits the ground (ignore air resistance)? Answer from acceleration due to gravity is t=2.5 and -2.5. Obviously the answer is t=2.5 seconds. — jgill
Most interesting. — Ms. Marple
Those solutions are true for parabolas and yet the line this object traces is a straight line. — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.