|
|
SchrödingerThis is from Schrödinger, famous quantum mechanics physicist: according to him this is a paradox, namely: a cat in a box with poison gas that will be released when radiation is present which will be present eventually, but we don't know when; so when the gas is released, the cat in the box will be both dead and alive at the same time, but we don't know it, not until we open the box, then it is dead or alive, and our opening the box is the 'cause' of its dead or living status. I say the whole story is fallacious, because the cat is dead or alive in objective reality, and our knowing its real condition upon opening the box, that does not cause the cat's being in the dead status or the living status. See [url] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch. . . |
| asked on Monday, Jun 27, 2016 08:51:39 PM by mdejess | |
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are. The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning. With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
You phrase the postulate somewhat imprecisely; in fact, in Schrodinger’s formulation, a cat is trapped in a box with a radioactive atom subject to decay. If that atom decays, the poison will be released and the cat will die, but if the atom has not decayed, or does not decay, the cat will continue to live. On an elementary level, there is no stipulation as to how long the cat will remain in the box thus there is no guarantee the atom will decay while the cat resides therein.
However, the real implication according to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (side note: I prefer the Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation, and wrote a play about it.) is that the atom in the box is in a simultaneous state of decay and non-decay; thus to someone observing outside the box, the only rational conclusion is that the cat is accordingly also in a simultaneous state of death and non-death (alive), which can only be confirmed (one way or the other) upon opening the box. Thus, opening the box does not cause the cat’s death (or aliveness) unless you are somehow able to make the unlikely case that opening the box either contributes to the decay of the atom present, or contributes to its non-decay. I think not. Opening the box merely confirms in retrospect whether the atom had decayed. There is no fallacy here. |
| answered on Monday, Jun 27, 2016 11:39:24 PM by modelerr |
Comments |
|
| |