You’re absolutely right. But whatever gave you the idea that I was making serious conjectures about Schroedinger’s thought experiment?
I’m only half–serious.
I wonder could it work on some other level of uncertainty. Let’s say the cat was put in a box with a North Korean peasant with a sharp knife and a hotplate.
Schrödinger used the cat as an example of why quantum mechanics is wrong.
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/schrödinger’s-cat-explained
That most people think it explains anything is hilarious.
The phrase “if there is objective reality” should be a red flag. Both “objective” and “reality” are words, with perhaps meanings. But since we decide the meaning, in essence what the term means is up to us. so it isn’t objective. It’s a Catch 22, or something.
the statement “a state of being both alive and dead” is meaningless. It’s like claiming something is in “a state of being both real and not real”. When you use words like that, logical people create cat thought experiments to mock you.
why? Cats like boxes
No, and the fact that this is still even an argument (and it certainly is), is hilarious at a quantum level.
It shows the power of “belief” in matters of science.
Your practical person, who owns a cat or two, knows if the cat is dead or not. Based on the noise coming from the goddamn box.
Perhaps, but if mine is any indication, cats don’t like boxers. The cat simply ignores the boxer, who just wants to be friends, and causes said boxer to whine. Or not.
Still unsettled by modern science, however, is whether cats like boxsters.
Yes – you say so yourself
Being in boxes, yes. Being shoved in boxes with vials of poison, less so.
One must, in discussions like this, post a link to one of Cecil’s best columns.
“No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.”
so, cats want to be in and out of the box at the same time ?
Thanks for that.
(spoiler following, go read the poem first)