Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #21
    Legendary! vindicatorx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bloomington, Indiana
    Posts
    6,364
    The thought process behind Schrödinger's cat is to think of the cat as being in 2 states alive and dead. This idea doesn't really fit that unless being thought of by outside observers because he obviously is aware he is alive and not dead.

  2. #22
    But if Many worlds intepretation is correct, does it mean this would also be correct?

  3. #23
    See this kind of highlights the thing I always thought was wrong with Schrodinger's Cat. Isn't the cat an observer?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by AcrobaticMegalodon View Post
    But if Many worlds intepretation is correct, does it mean this would also be correct?
    I had a post about this on the previous page.
    Yes; it would be correct. But only in a strictly non-real way, in realities that do not actually exist.
    I understand it might be a bit tricky to understand that something can exist in potentia even while it doesn't exist in actuality... But once you've got the trick, a lot more things will become easier to understand.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    I had a post about this on the previous page.
    Yes; it would be correct. But only in a strictly non-real way, in realities that do not actually exist.
    I understand it might be a bit tricky to understand that something can exist in potentia even while it doesn't exist in actuality... But once you've got the trick, a lot more things will become easier to understand.
    From wikipedia:

    Also Everett was reported to believe "his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality".
    Was he just wrong, didn't he think it through? Or?

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by vindicatorx View Post
    The thought process behind Schrödinger's cat is to think of the cat as being in 2 states alive and dead. This idea doesn't really fit that unless being thought of by outside observers because he obviously is aware he is alive and not dead.
    Yeah this basically just makes you the cat. The cat still dies at some point you just dont know when because you dont know when a quantum event will happen.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by AcrobaticMegalodon View Post
    Was he just wrong, didn't he think it through? Or?
    I could say he was wrong, but that is mostly because of faith due to perceived meaning through bias of desire.
    The thought experiment exists partially to disprove the many worlds theory in generally understandable terms. The same thing happened with Shrödinger's Cat. And the tree that fell where there was nobody to observe.
    The cat is sure to die, but we don't know when and can therefore not determine whether or not the cat is dead or alive at the same point. Therefore, logically, the cat must be both dead and alive at the same time... Which means the cat is dead and alive only in potentia, while the cat assumes only a single state in reality. The tree does and does not make a sound in potentia because there is no way to verify it either way... Yet in reality, it does only one of the two.
    In potentia, you the quantum suicide both kills you and keeps you alive... But in reality, it can only take a single shape. So in potentia you become immortal, but in reality, you become dead.

    That is how it works.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    I could say he was wrong, but that is mostly because of faith due to perceived meaning through bias of desire.
    The thought experiment exists partially to disprove the many worlds theory in generally understandable terms. The same thing happened with Shrödinger's Cat. And the tree that fell where there was nobody to observe.
    The cat is sure to die, but we don't know when and can therefore not determine whether or not the cat is dead or alive at the same point. Therefore, logically, the cat must be both dead and alive at the same time... Which means the cat is dead and alive only in potentia, while the cat assumes only a single state in reality. The tree does and does not make a sound in potentia because there is no way to verify it either way... Yet in reality, it does only one of the two.
    In potentia, you the quantum suicide both kills you and keeps you alive... But in reality, it can only take a single shape. So in potentia you become immortal, but in reality, you become dead.

    That is how it works.
    Stir thanks alot for the responses... really happy for it, I have paranoia and I think I might be over this now and can go to sleep.

    If mods thinks further discussion is possible, then you can keep it up but otherwise you can lock it!

  9. #29
    Meh... it is meant to ridicule quantum theory just as schrodingers cat was (which somehow was misinterpreted as a good example, it was really meant as a mocking)

    First for two universes to be created out of a simple event, i wonder, the energy would be immense, i highly doubt universes pop out whenever someone decides to brush or not their teeth.
    Second, that is assuming that your consciousness is share between worlds, you likely die and an exact copy of you keeps living, doesnt mean it has your consciousness at all, and even then, there is old age so... not that immortal *shrugs*
    Its still a decent thought experiment i guess, if you work it like a movie and do suspicion of belief.

    Then again, we never know, maybe that is exactly how it works and all matter is created out of nothing from consciousness and we are truly gods who created the universe or whatever

  10. #30
    Immortal Gheld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    7,953
    Quote Originally Posted by AcrobaticMegalodon View Post
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide

    Is it real? I don't really know how to inteprete it, does it mean I will exist forever? Is there any evidence backing it up?
    It's crap, based on a crap interpretation of quantum physics.

    In quantum physics an observation is ANY physical interaction. If a particle interacts with another then it is said to be "observed" and thus determined. In the situation of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat actually serves as the observation mechanism. The cat either survives or dies, and that is how you determine the quantum state.

    In fact Schrodinger was joking when he proposed Schrodinger's cat, because he too knew that observation (as defined by quantum mechanics) and observation (as defined in general relativity) are two completely different concepts.

  11. #31
    The problem with this is considering the consciousness as something "detached" from the body. Consciousness is somehow an electronic state of our brains, consciousness is tied to the arrangement of the different particles that make our bodies. Consciousness is not a "step-function" either. There's no dichotomy "your consciousness is on/off". Conciousness is gradual, and is tied to how many neurones are working into it. The same as your body dies gradually, so does your consciousness... because your consciousness is part of your body.
    Equivalently, the same as the multiverse has infinite copies of your current body, it has infinite copies of your consciousness. Your body can die in your universe, and so will your consciousness. Meanwhile, the copy-consciousnesses in other universes where you survive will keep working, but not you.

    Regarding to the self-schrodinger's-cat experiment, it wouldn't work. The only reason why the collapse of the wavefunction is troublesome for Schrodinger's cat is because the cat is perfectly isolated from the exterior. His (magical) cage doesn't allow interaction between inside-outside. This is why the overall wavefunction of the cat+poison+disintegrating atom doesn't collapse for us, outside.
    On the other hand, if we do not isolate ourselves that way (it's impossible) then the collapse of our wavefunction into death or life is not ambiguous, because our atoms are constantly interacting with the rest of the universe.

    Ugh, reading it again, this sounds like a lot of mumbo-jumbo x_x

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 06:13 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Gheld View Post
    It's crap, based on a crap interpretation of quantum physics.

    In quantum physics an observation is ANY physical interaction. If a particle interacts with another then it is said to be "observed" and thus determined. In the situation of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat actually serves as the observation mechanism. The cat either survives or dies, and that is how you determine the quantum state.

    In fact Schrodinger was joking when he proposed Schrodinger's cat, because he too knew that observation (as defined by quantum mechanics) and observation (as defined in general relativity) are two completely different concepts.
    Exactly right.

  12. #32
    I don't see how this is at all an exposition or thought experiment regarding quantum indeterminacy. Even Schrodinger's Cat isn't a particularly useful experiment as admitted by the man himself. Since you as the observer within the box, you'd know if you were still alive.

    aahhh nm beat to it.
    "But uh, says on your chart that you're fucked up. You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded!"

    On Parole from Retard Rehabilitation since June 6, 2014.

  13. #33
    I understand this but I don't understand how it would make anyone paranoid. OP was high on shrooms I think.
    My Cracked articles, writing blog, and Twitter.

    The problem with the internet is parallel to its greatest achievement: it has given the little man an outlet where he can be heard. Most of the time however, the little man is a little man because he is not worth hearing.

    Want to chat with people who aren't idiots? Join our IRC.

  14. #34
    It won't work as the "system" inside Schrödingers box must be in a quantum state, with that I mean that it can't be a complex macro level when the quantum needs to decide in which state they are in. It works on small systems, like particular atoms or molecules, but as soon as it comes to a macro level it has already been "decided" what the quantum level does.
    Sorry for my lacking language skills, and I hope it makes more sense to someone... =D

  15. #35
    I suspect a lot of people don't actually get what Schrodinger's cat is an example of.

    It's more a paradoxical construct that illustrates one of the problems with quantum science.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  16. #36
    I must say, there is a weird issue with this.

    The idea is that you die and live in one universe at all times, so you seem to live forever, but no one else does. Is that really the case? If we're subscribing to the many-worlds theory with this, then doesn't it kind of kill itself? I mean, we're saying that everything comes down to each state at some point (this being your death or life), but wouldn't the many-worlds theory assume that EVERYTHING is possible?

    By that, I mean that there is a world where I am alive and the dog next to me is dead exists. A world where I am dead and the dog is not exists. There is a world where we are both alive (this one). That would be the assumption, right? If so, then we're saying that I exist in two universes right now--one where I am alone and one where I am with the dog. Technically, we're all alive in an infinite number of universes, negating that the idea that we only exist in this universe where we don't die but everyone else dies.

    The many-worlds theory (and correct me if I'm wrong; I might be back in here to check, I might not, but if I am wrong, it would be best for everyone to see that) would assume everything is happening in a universe. So, there IS a universe where I am immortal but no one else is. However, there would also be a universe where I am immortal and one of every other person to ever exist is as well, and one with two others and one where EVERYONE is immortal. So, this would assume that we all exist in an infinite number of universes, doing an infinite number of things with an infinite number of people.

    That is where I see this idea as breaking down personally. I suppose this idea is immediately negated by the idea that in those other universes I am not me, but a slightly-varied version of me, so the me I know only exists where I am, but that also kills this idea, in my opinion. If the previous mess of words in this paragraph is true, then this me that I know will not last forever, it will die at every point in some universe, so the me I know is not immortal necessarily, but there is an infinite number of me immortal in an infinite number of universes. The me that is here might be a me that dies in 10 minutes or 10 years or 10,000 years.

    I don't know the me that I am in this idea of quantum immortality/suicide because if I am not an immortal me, and there is no afterlife, then when I die, I won't know I have died (though I will likely realize that I am near-death). I will simply cease to be, without getting insight into which me I am and if other versions of me exist.

    So, what this comes down to is the same result as many of these types of questions/theories lead to:

    The life you live is the life you have. These things are not worth fretting about, so just try to do the best to you to be the best you can with the you that you have, rather than worrying about what kinds of balloon animals the version of you in a clown-themed version of the universe is making right now. Such thoughts do nothing but waste the time that we have on this version of this planet.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by oblivionx View Post
    I suspect a lot of people don't actually get what Schrodinger's cat is an example of.

    It's more a paradoxical construct that illustrates one of the problems with quantum science.
    No, it illustrates Schrödinger's eventual distaste for Quantum Mechanics.
    Schrödinger wanted to make the new Quantum science into a perfectly mechanical and predictable branch of physics, which is why he developed a new branch of wave mechanics that fit with the (by then) current knowledge. But he grew exasperated with all the probabilities, and wavefunction collapses, and spins, etc, and eventually said his time devoted to quantum physics had been a waste.

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by jotabe View Post
    No, it illustrates Schrödinger's eventual distaste for Quantum Mechanics.
    Schrödinger wanted to make the new Quantum science into a perfectly mechanical and predictable branch of physics, which is why he developed a new branch of wave mechanics that fit with the (by then) current knowledge. But he grew exasperated with all the probabilities, and wavefunction collapses, and spins, etc, and eventually said his time devoted to quantum physics had been a waste.
    Also incorrect. Schrodinger just hated cats cuz he was a creepy Austrian.
    "But uh, says on your chart that you're fucked up. You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded!"

    On Parole from Retard Rehabilitation since June 6, 2014.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    Also incorrect. Schrodinger just hated cats cuz he was a creepy Austrian.
    I think you have your facts wrong. Schrodinger loved cats.

    It's documented he was a ladies' man.
    But a cat is fine too.

    I hope you are not about to go to sleep

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by jotabe View Post
    I think you have your facts wrong. Schrodinger loved cats.

    It's documented he was a ladies' man.
    But a cat is fine too.

    I hope you are not about to go to sleep
    I have it on good authority that his only true love was a Possum named Daisy.
    "But uh, says on your chart that you're fucked up. You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded!"

    On Parole from Retard Rehabilitation since June 6, 2014.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •