Why?????????????
Discussion
Jewhoo said:
NO! The cat is neither dead or alive cos it's constantly fluxing between the two....
I'm with Raify. To say that the cat is not in any particular state says that when observed it can be in no particular state. As the cat must be in one particular state - it always is once it is observed - it must be both alive and dead until it is observed.
It can't be dead and alive. You can only ascertain the cat's state of health upon opening the box, therefore it is neither dead or alive, but permanently fluxing between life and death without actually being either at any time other than when you open the box.
Maybe this is the state that we enter when we break the speed limit?
Maybe this is how little kids die suddenly when we drive past at 31mph? The kids are neither dead nor alive until we decide to go over or under 30...this must be how they come up with all of those crappy stats that are constantly cited
Maybe this is the state that we enter when we break the speed limit?
Maybe this is how little kids die suddenly when we drive past at 31mph? The kids are neither dead nor alive until we decide to go over or under 30...this must be how they come up with all of those crappy stats that are constantly citedJewhoo said:No, it's not. It is either dead or alive (probability = 0.5 at any one time during the experiment); it does not 'flux' (it cannot; once dead the cat cannot become alive again). It must be in one or the other state at all times during the experiment and it changes its state (from alive to dead) only once (if indeed it does change its state); but which state it is in cannot be determined without observation. Got it? - Streaky
NO! The cat is neither dead or [sic] alive cos it's constantly fluxing between the two....
streaky said:
NOt that I want to be pedantic, but don't all crashes involve speed of some sort
I once offered the proposition that speed is a factor in all accidents, at the moment of impact - or words to that effect. Therefore I suggested we should concentrate on avoiding the impacts. That seems to me to be the primary task.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Ah, surely at the moment of impact speed is not an issue, as both vehicles are stationary.
They are only stationary after certain unpleasant events have taken place immediately following the initial impact, and that is the period during which all the damage is done - to people and vehicles.
I expect you'll let me know if you still disagree.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I still disagree (and note in passing that you deleted the explanation for my point when quotin me); but, as the argument revolves around the precision of the English language and quantum mechanics, in the words of Tony BLiar, "let's move on" - Streaky
OK, sorry about the deletion, but I thought we'd concentrate on the nitty gritty etc.
Various things happen between the initial impact and things finally coming to rest.
I guess we still disagree. No problem.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Jewhoo said:
It can't be dead and alive. You can only ascertain the cat's state of health upon opening the box, therefore it is neither dead or alive, but permanently fluxing between life and death without actually being either at any time other than when you open the box.
The cat isn't fluxing between life and death in the box...you're taking it too literally. If it were fluxing, we could open the box and find it somewhere between life and death, which we obviously can't. Its state is binary - either dead or alive.
It's more of a philosophical point (actually it is used to demonstrate subatomic particle duality, which I believe can be demonstrated, so it's not solely philosophical)...here's one way of looking at it: when the cat goes into the box, reality forks, and two parallel realities exist. In one, the cat is alive; in the other it is dead. We do not know down which side of the fork we are travelling until the box is opened; but both realities can be said to exist.
PS One point regarding rhetoric - you can't really tell me that a cat can't be both dead and alive at the same time and then state the inverse as part of your own argument ("therefore it is neither dead or alive").
ok, first Ecks, I can say that it can't be dead and alive yet not be either dead or alive as life and death are not necessarily mutually exclusive (hence teh state of flux). The cat is not in a definitive state of life or death until it is observed - the observation interferes with the state of the cat (by defining what the state is).
Therefore upon opening the box we can't find it between life and death as the act of opening the box defines whether or not the cat is alive. The cat can not be in a binary state (dead or alive) as this would mean you could know for sure that it was definitively dead (or alive) before opening the box. The fate of Felix is undefined until the box is opened, therefore whilst in the box, poor pussy is both neither dead and alive (as it is impossible to be both) or dead oralive.
Subatomic particle duality can be demonstrated only in the same way that the existence of a heartbeat in the cat can be demonstrated ie the particle goes one way or 'tother but we don't know without looking (we only know for certain that it goes one way or the other), and the act of looking influences the direction.
To be clear, I should have said that the cat is neither dead or alive whilst in the unopened box, but is definitely dead oralive when the box is opened.
The point about the life-expectancy of the puss ties in with the reality forks - Ecks, you haven't taken it literally enough. If you consider the fluxing to mean one line rebounding from one fork to the other (ie the cat is alive, then soon after dead, then soon after alive), then yes Raify and Ecks are correct that the cat is always in one particular state (dead or living) and that it could be observed between a point of life and death (which is impossible), and that it can only change state once etc etc.
However, I think the correct way to think about it is a series of parallel lines, that are infinitesimately close together, running from the dead fork to the alive fork. This way, the cat can instantly jump to a definitive state of life or death when the box is opened, whilst also allowing it to "float" between the two states whilst unobserved. After all, what's to stop the cat being in an instant life-death transition whilst you can't see it? Has anyone ever seen a cat in an instant life-death transition? Why can't it be true? It's heart isn't constantly beating, there is a gap between beats.
Why can't God exist? Philisophically its the same question. We don't know how Moggy is faring until we look, therefore before we look, Mogster is definitely somewhere between the two states of definitive life or definitive death (at least in the minds of the non-observing), ready to instantly move to its' actual state of life or death, whilst at the same time, being neither definitely dead nor definitely alive (pre-observation), as this would invalidate the question in the first place (if we know the answer, what's the point in asking?)
Streaky, you have both agreed with, and contested what I have said.
You are wrong to say that the cat is definitely dead or definitely alive (regardless of probability, after all, you cannot see inside the box so do not know that state of the cat). But you are correct to say that the state of the cat cannot be determined without observation. The connection being that at the point of observation, the cat is dead or alive, yet prior to observation, you can not say that the cat is definitely alive or definitely dead simply because you don't know without looking - hence the state of flux (with its infinitesimately close together parallel lines between the life fork and the death fork) described above and the resultant impact on the cat of observation.
Hopefully this correlates what everyone has said and makes some sense!
PS re: rhetoric, I can say that, as one point is post-observation, and the other is pre-observation (hopefully this is ex;lained above). Anyway, just because I say that something is false, doesn't mean I can't therefore say that the opposite is also false.
>> Edited by Jewhoo on Friday 29th April 01:08
Therefore upon opening the box we can't find it between life and death as the act of opening the box defines whether or not the cat is alive. The cat can not be in a binary state (dead or alive) as this would mean you could know for sure that it was definitively dead (or alive) before opening the box. The fate of Felix is undefined until the box is opened, therefore whilst in the box, poor pussy is both neither dead and alive (as it is impossible to be both) or dead oralive.
Subatomic particle duality can be demonstrated only in the same way that the existence of a heartbeat in the cat can be demonstrated ie the particle goes one way or 'tother but we don't know without looking (we only know for certain that it goes one way or the other), and the act of looking influences the direction.
To be clear, I should have said that the cat is neither dead or alive whilst in the unopened box, but is definitely dead oralive when the box is opened.
The point about the life-expectancy of the puss ties in with the reality forks - Ecks, you haven't taken it literally enough. If you consider the fluxing to mean one line rebounding from one fork to the other (ie the cat is alive, then soon after dead, then soon after alive), then yes Raify and Ecks are correct that the cat is always in one particular state (dead or living) and that it could be observed between a point of life and death (which is impossible), and that it can only change state once etc etc.
However, I think the correct way to think about it is a series of parallel lines, that are infinitesimately close together, running from the dead fork to the alive fork. This way, the cat can instantly jump to a definitive state of life or death when the box is opened, whilst also allowing it to "float" between the two states whilst unobserved. After all, what's to stop the cat being in an instant life-death transition whilst you can't see it? Has anyone ever seen a cat in an instant life-death transition? Why can't it be true? It's heart isn't constantly beating, there is a gap between beats.
Why can't God exist? Philisophically its the same question. We don't know how Moggy is faring until we look, therefore before we look, Mogster is definitely somewhere between the two states of definitive life or definitive death (at least in the minds of the non-observing), ready to instantly move to its' actual state of life or death, whilst at the same time, being neither definitely dead nor definitely alive (pre-observation), as this would invalidate the question in the first place (if we know the answer, what's the point in asking?)
Streaky, you have both agreed with, and contested what I have said.
streaky said:
No, it's not. It is either dead or alive (probability = 0.5 at any one time during the experiment); it does not 'flux' (it cannot; once dead the cat cannot become alive again). It must be in one or the other state at all times during the experiment and it changes its state (from alive to dead) only once (if indeed it does change its state); but which state it is in cannot be determined without observation.
You are wrong to say that the cat is definitely dead or definitely alive (regardless of probability, after all, you cannot see inside the box so do not know that state of the cat). But you are correct to say that the state of the cat cannot be determined without observation. The connection being that at the point of observation, the cat is dead or alive, yet prior to observation, you can not say that the cat is definitely alive or definitely dead simply because you don't know without looking - hence the state of flux (with its infinitesimately close together parallel lines between the life fork and the death fork) described above and the resultant impact on the cat of observation.
Hopefully this correlates what everyone has said and makes some sense!
PS re: rhetoric, I can say that, as one point is post-observation, and the other is pre-observation (hopefully this is ex;lained above). Anyway, just because I say that something is false, doesn't mean I can't therefore say that the opposite is also false.
>> Edited by Jewhoo on Friday 29th April 01:08
is that wrong then? Jewhoo said:
[ ... ]
Streaky, you have both agreed with, and contested what I have said.
streaky said:
No, it's not. It is either dead or alive (probability = 0.5 at any one time during the experiment); it does not 'flux' (it cannot; once dead the cat cannot become alive again). It must be in one or the other state at all times during the experiment and it changes its state (from alive to dead) only once (if indeed it does change its state); but which state it is in cannot be determined without observation.
You are wrong to say that the cat is definitely dead or definitely alive (regardless of probability, after all, you cannot see inside the box so do not know that state of the cat). But you are correct to say that the state of the cat cannot be determined without observation. The connection being that at the point of observation, the cat is dead or alive, yet prior to observation, you can not say that the cat is definitely alive or definitely dead simply because you don't know without looking - hence the state of flux (with its infinitesimately close together parallel lines between the life fork and the death fork) described above and the resultant impact on the cat of observation.
You are both correct and incorrect. At the quantum level the cat is BOTH dead AND alive; however, it does NOT flux between these states ... theoretically it exists in both states simultaneously. Schrodinger did NOT think that the cat was neither dead nor alive. He accepted that it had to be in one of the two states, but since the actual state could not be determined except by observation (which would change the experiment) he postulated that - for the purposes of the experiment - it must be considered to exist in both states. Remember that this was a thought experiment (at the time) and was about observation, not the health of the cat - Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Friday 29th April 11:20
Jewhoo said:
ok, first Ecks, I can say that it can't be dead and alive yet not be either dead or alive as life and death are not necessarily mutually exclusive (hence teh state of flux).
Read this back to yourself. See whether it makes sense.
The point of the paradox was exactly that the two states are mutually exclusive - read about the Double Slit Experiment to find out why. The slits are binary - there is no gradation between them. Hence an example that relied on two discrete, mutually exclusive states.
Remember, the cat-in-a-box example was thought up to explain a theory, not the other way around. No-one actually did any experiments with cats in boxes.
Jewhoo said:
The cat can not be in a binary state (dead or alive) as this would mean you could know for sure that it was definitively dead (or alive) before opening the box. The fate of Felix is undefined until the box is opened, therefore whilst in the box, poor pussy is both neither dead and alive (as it is impossible to be both) or dead oralive.
You're missing the whole point that Schrödinger was trying to make.
Jewhoo said:
Subatomic particle duality can be demonstrated only in the same way that the existence of a heartbeat in the cat can be demonstrated ie the particle goes one way or 'tother but we don't know without looking (we only know for certain that it goes one way or the other), and the act of looking influences the direction.
Actually, that is not the case.
You seem to be getting confused (especially with the "infinite lines" between dead and alive forks comments) - I suggest you read through some of the links I've posted here, and take on board what Streaky has written, and you'll see what old Schrödinger was saying.
funkyrobot said:
So will you be making sure you stay below 12mph, Funky?
I'll be riding at 12mph on my speedo, if the law is passed.
Yeah bollox you will.
Well at least this nerdy stuff has stopped your drivel for a bit. No doubt you'll be back with more words of wisdom on another thread near us soon though
TROLL!gtr-gaz said:
If I read any more of this, I will have to ring the Samaritans....
I'd rather read (and get confused by) a theoretical argument about a cat, than listen to Funkyrobot's drivel. "No, I NEVER SPEED and anyone who does deserves all they get. I am the most perfect driver in the world, able to drive within the limits at ALL TIMES, whilst NEVER LOSING my concentration.
Raify said:
If I read any more of this, I will have to ring the Samaritans....
I'd rather read (and get confused by) a theoretical argument about a cat, than listen to Funkyrobot's drivel. "No, I NEVER SPEED and anyone who does deserves all they get. I am the most perfect driver in the world, able to drive within the limits at ALL TIMES, whilst NEVER LOSING my concentration.
Hear hear!
Funkybottom has probably gone quiet because he's looking up all the big words. He had trouble understanding "simplistic logic"
Anyway, I can understand almost all the nerdy bits.
One question though...how do you know it's a cat until you open the box? It could be a dog.
Does that mean it could exist in four states?:
live cat
dead cat
live dog
dead dog
Although thinking about it, you'd know if it was dead/alive before you opened the box because of the smell.
Nurse! Is it time yet?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff