...
From the Literal Road Signs challenge. See all 665 entries (closed)
( , Thu 26 Jun 2008, 0:59, archived)
From the Literal Road Signs challenge. See all 665 entries (closed)
( , Thu 26 Jun 2008, 0:59, archived)
It's not half dead.
It's theoretically both dead and alive.
:)woot
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:00,
archived)
:)woot
technically it's a problem that cannot be logically solved
and was a joke that has been taken too seriously by philosophers.
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:04,
archived)
I'd love to think that Schrodinger was some innocent party in all of this
while philosophers and physicists were just constantly threatening to put his cat in a box and poison it.
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:06,
archived)
both states are equally probable
because both states are unprovable.
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:19,
archived)
No,
it is one or the other. The act of observing it changes it though.
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:11,
archived)
not this. no
if you're saying that 'dead' and 'alive' are the eigenstates, then if it really were one of these already, the act of observing it (or quantum decoherence, or whatever else causes it to end up in one or the other rather than a superposition of states) wouldn't cause it to change that state, however much you did it
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:23,
archived)
but if a tree falls on a cat in a box in the woods and no-one is there to hear it
will the cat live or survive?
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:28,
archived)
You find me something not observed first. LOL
That's where it gets wierd for me. Just because
YOU are not locked onto its frame doesn't mean
something else is already. Or even will be later...
My brain gets mushy right about there...
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:30,
archived)
YOU are not locked onto its frame doesn't mean
something else is already. Or even will be later...
My brain gets mushy right about there...
it's quite simply
if something is unprovable, it is equally true and false.
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:35,
archived)
Fine enough.
Yet, applying that to the physical realm is
much more difficult. Criteria of "state" is
where I get lost in the idea.
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:43,
archived)
much more difficult. Criteria of "state" is
where I get lost in the idea.
yes.
that's where the problem comes in. he devised the problem to attack that hypothesis.
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:57,
archived)
this is why a lot of people are doubtful about the whole 'something observing it is the special thing' business
besides, even if it was that, the idea is that it's not been observed from outside since you set up the 'thing that kills it that depends on a decay event' apparatus. those observations beforehand wouldn't matter
anyway, enough of this. he only thought it up as a 'wouldn't it be an odd situation if this happened?' kind of musing, didn't he
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:38,
archived)
anyway, enough of this. he only thought it up as a 'wouldn't it be an odd situation if this happened?' kind of musing, didn't he
it was an unsolvable mathematical joke played on his mate
oh, those mathematicians, fucking hilarious lot.
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:41,
archived)
It depends really, on a quantum level it can be in both states.
But the probability of it being so is remote if not near impossible. Not to mention it being both dead and alive simultaneously for however short a time period would be immeasurable.
( ,
Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:18,
archived)