Here are the stats so far: Dead: 2 Alive: 2 Both: 1
A cat is placed in a box with a flask of cat poison that has a 50% chance of being open and a 50% chance of being closed at any given time. The cat and the poison are completely sealed off from the outside world. We have no knowledge of what is going on inside that box. Therefore, physics professors claim, the cat is BOTH alive and dead at the same time. I see this view as cowardly. You can't go through life putting off this important decision indefinitely. So how do YOU choose? Dead? Alive? or both? What do YOU believe? (I believe that the cat lives.)
quote:There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
I've read that description several times, and this sentence is always left off. It makes the whole concept much more understandable.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
But it's a matter of belief. My belief that the cat lives has, without a doubt, enriched my life. Agnosticism is cowardly; you have to decide what you believe at some point.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Can we only answer "dead", "alive", or "both"? I cannot answer any of them.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
Answer what you will; those were merely guidelines. Everyone has to come to their own decision.
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Why is it so important to decide? I don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
My answer is either dead or alive, but not both. Obviously, if there is a 50% chance that the gas will or won't be released, then we can't give a preference for one or the other. Even if there is some sort of superposition thing going on, I see no reason why a cat would not be able to act as an "observer".
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead_Horse: Why is it so important to decide? I don't know is a perfectly acceptable answer.
If you choose to go through life claiming that you don't know, fine. I'm simply asking you to make the leap of faith. It will make your life better, trust me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I believe that he actually had four cats.
The three named Fluffy, Whiskers, and Lucky died while the one named Dog lived.
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
No one should ever name their cat lucky.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Therefore, physics professors claim, the cat is BOTH alive and dead at the same time. I see this view as cowardly.
Well, not quite. Your analogy is somewhat imperfect.
quote:It will make your life better, trust me.
This, I'm afraid, is a steaming load. You have at best your own uninformed opinion to back that one up -- and even using your own analogy, your life is only "better" for believing the cat to be alive for as long as you avoid looking in the box. You are essentially asserting that people living in the Matrix are -- even if they are aware of the possibility that they are being harvested by giant robots -- far better off choosing to believe otherwise.
This is actually a more interesting philosophical conversation than a physics conversation (not least because the physics behind this particular example is more involved than what you've presented here).
One of the biggest questions of modern philosophy is one of epistemology: how do you know what you know, and how can you tell whether what you "know" accurately reflects reality? The problem, of course, is that our perceptions and conceptions are limited and cannot currently be said to accurately reflect the actual state of the universe. There is no way for us to tell whether we're butterflies dreaming we're men, or disembodied brains floating in vats, or any of those other thought experiments. So what's the proper response to that situation?
One common answer is that it doesn't matter. You should live your life as if your perceptions were accurate, but with the conscious knowledge that they almost certainly aren't. This is the equivalent of agnosticism.
Another possibility is to assert that someday your perceptions WILL be able to completely reflect reality, and that if you were living in the Matrix you could somehow become able to tell. This is the "believer" answer.
The third option is to live as if your perceptions ARE the real world, and discard as irrelevant any concerns about a world you cannot perceive; only upon perceiving them or their effects can any phenomena become relevant. This would be the equivalent of atheism.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
...Exactly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: My answer is either dead or alive, but not both.
Both. Multiple universe theory.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Considering that cats have nine lives, I submit that the cat is alive, dead, non-existent, half-dead, mutated into half-cat/half-killer-monkey, sentient, omniscient, smaller than a germ, and capable of scratching elephants to death - and all at the same time. Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
Just to back up my belief: This box is NEVER going to be opened. It's pointless to consider the possibility that the cat may be dead or in critical condition, because we can't do anything to help it either way. It was doomed from the minute some old physics professor decided to lock it in a box. So why not just believe that it's alive and save yourself the emotional pain that it might be dead? I like cats.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Neither. Until we look. (If the cat is a subatomic cat.)
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
About your cat in the box, I am agnostic. If it was a real cat, whoever put him in the box would be in deep trouble.
I don't trust you, nor do I need to. My life is fine without wondering about cats in boxes.
Tom is almost certainly right. I might be. And your reply to him might seem to be the safe one. Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
If you're never going to open the box, then the cat is dead.
And the _Horse is almost certainly Dead, too.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
quote:
Tom is almost certainly right. I might be. And your reply to him might seem to be the safe one. [/QB]
Tom didn't seem to give any opinion, though I'm guessing he's going with the agnostic approach. But he did give an accurate outline of the possibilities.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
If the cat is never going to be let out of the box, then it's dead no matter what.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead_Horse: If you're never going to open the box, then the cat is dead.
And the _Horse is almost certainly Dead, too.
And obviously this is a metaphorical cat, that is not in need of oxygen or any such thing.
Posted by signal (Member # 6828) on :
obviously Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If your question is "Is the cat dead or alive?" then the correct answer is that there is a 50% chance that the cat is alive, and there is a 50% chance that the cat is not alive, and I don't know which.
If your question is "Do you BELIEVE the cat is dead or alive?" then my answer is that I really don't know, but I am certain it is one or the other, and is definitely not "neither". After all, if there is a 50% chance the cat is alive, and a 50% chance the cat is not alive, then the laws of probability dictate that there is a 0% chance the cat is neither alive nor not alive. And since "alive" implies not "not alive" and since "not alive" implies not "alive", I know it cannot be both. They are logically mutually exclusive.
Do you think I need to BELIEVE the cat is alive in order for it to ACTUALLY BE alive? If so, you must think the cat is something that exists entirely in my mind. I don't believe this. I think the cat actually exists independently of me, and if it is alive then it will be alive regardless of what I do or do not know about it.
Of course, particles might be different from cats. I think it is reasonable to think the particles are symbolic things that exist only in our minds to describe what we know about things like cats. That would be a bit strange, but if so, it might make sense to say that if we don't know whether or not a particle is in a given spot, it is neither in that sport nor not in that spot at once. But to extend that analogy to cats would be simply wrong, if you believe cats actually do exist independly of us human beings.
quote:The third option is to live as if your perceptions ARE the real world, and discard as irrelevant any concerns about a world you cannot perceive; only upon perceiving them or their effects can any phenomena become relevant. This would be the equivalent of atheism.
It is also theism, if you believe that God can be perceived. Most theists I know belive He can.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I submit that it's actually a silicon-based catform and therefore would instantaneously die upon contact with carbon, which means the cardboard box itself would kill the cat. Cruel, cruel experiment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And obviously this is a metaphorical cat, that is not in need of oxygen or any such thing.
My metaphorical cat has enslaved mankind and outlawed hypothetical questions.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Neither. Until we look. (If the cat is a subatomic cat.)
If it's a subatomic cat, and it doesn't breathe, is it still a cat?
And if it exists in multiple universes, is it "the same cat" in both universes, or is it two different cats?
--j_k
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
I've read that description several times, and this sentence is always left off. It makes the whole concept much more understandable.
Yes, but it's this picture that really makes the article.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Two different cats existing simultaneously in an infinite number of multiple universes - that sounds like the kind of cat that can take over the multiple universes. I dub him Oberon! And the other, lesser, cat ruler can be, uh, Spot!
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
quote: Do you think I need to BELIEVE the cat is alive in order for it to ACTUALLY BE alive? If so, you must think the cat is something that exists entirely in my mind. I don't believe this. I think the cat actually exists independently of me, and if it is alive then it will be alive regardless of what I do or do not know about it.
Of course, particles might be different from cats. I think it is reasonable to think the particles are symbolic things that exist only in our minds to describe what we know about things like cats. That would be a bit strange, but if so, it might make sense to say that if we don't know whether or not a particle is in a given spot, it is neither in that sport nor not in that spot at once. But to extend that analogy to cats would be simply wrong, if you believe cats actually do exist independly of us human beings.
Does the same apply to God?
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
I've read that description several times, and this sentence is always left off. It makes the whole concept much more understandable.
Yes, but it's this picture that really makes the article.
Clearly.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
"a cat is placed in a box"
They don't say whether the cat is alive at first or not.
My answer is that the cat was already dead, and the poison and the question are irrelevant.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: I submit that it's actually a silicon-based catform and therefore would instantaneously die upon contact with carbon
Huh? Why would a silicon-based lifeform (cat or otherwise) instantly die upon contact with carbon? Carbon-based lifeforms don't die instantly upon contact with silicon.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
There are many possible answers to this supposed puzzle.
1) The cat is alive. Once it is dead, it ceases to be a "cat" and becomes something else, so, if you say there's a cat in there, then it must be alive.
2) The poison has a .50 probability of deploying in any given moment in time? And one "whiff" of it will kill the cat? Um, if you know how long a "moment" is, you can pretty much guarantee to any level of precision that the cat is dead "by now" just by waiting for enough moments to pass. Since we've been arguing this particular issue for decades, I'd say that the cat is not only dead, you really should've put some air holes in that box, you ninny. And how about a little food!
3) If the cat's not dead, he's at the very least so traumatized that you really don't want him as a "pet" anymore. Not that you ever did, you heartless !@#$%@*. I've half a mind to report you to PETA!
4) You know, this is exactly why universities had to set up committees to establish protocols for treatment of non-human experimental subjects. Criminy sakes! How could this possibly advance the sum total of human knowledge? Still, it'll make a nice addition to that time capsule we're burying under the new stadium. Thanks!
5) If this was Shroedinger's rat, no one would give two flips! I think that says something about us as a society.
6) Truth be told, this set up, more than the tortured squirrels, is why Peter was quietly de-selected.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
In response to rivka: Because it's my imagination and I say so. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Agnosticism is cowardly; you have to decide what you believe at some point.
This only shows that you misunderstand what agnosticism is.
definition:
quote: 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
Agnosticism does not mean, "i'm too afraid to make a decision so I just won't decide." Agnosticism says, "the answer is unknowable." This is itself a belief, and thus falls under your definition of "you have to decide what you believe at some point."
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
'Es pining.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
After placing the cat and flask in the box there was an infinitely small moment when the box was neither closed nor opened.
We are dead.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If this was Shroedinger's rat, no one would give two flips!
Or Schroedinger's cockroach, who was featured in the Mother of all Windows books for precisely that reason.
quid, ok. *pat pat*
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Alive. Just because I said so. And yes, I have that power.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
quote: Agnosticism does not mean, "i'm too afraid to make a decision so I just won't decide." Agnosticism says, "the answer is unknowable." This is itself a belief, and thus falls under your definition of "you have to decide what you believe at some point."
But why would you ever settle for the answer being unknowable if you can never find the answer anyway? No one can ever prove or disprove the existance of God. So therefore the only answer that matters is what you believe in. What you believe in dictates how you act. Since there obviously IS an answer, why not pick an answer to believe and stick with it? After all, you MIGHT be right. Whereas an agnostic has zero chance of being right.
I'm just sayin'.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:No one can ever prove or disprove the existance of God.
Prove it.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:No one can ever prove or disprove the existance of God.
Prove it.
Could I?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
This analogy is tired, stretched beyond belief, and insulting to boot.
As someone who has actually "chosen" by your analogy, I have this to say:
And go learn some more physics. If you're going to use an analogy, at least understand it.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
If God exists in this universe, then all truth in the universe is knowable, and the unknown state of the cat is unsustainable. The laws of probability have claim upon the status of the cat when that status eventually becomes known. Until then "unknown" is a valid state for the cat.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
If man is the only observer in our universe capable of establishing standards of aliveness, then the status of the cat's aliveness as defined by man is unknown until the cat is observed by man or until man becomes God.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
Open the damned box and find out. This sounds like something congress would do.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think you are answering the wrong question still. The question is "Is the cat dead or alive?" The question is not "Do we know whether the cat is dead or alive?"
If the cat is alive, it is alive whether we can know it or not.
"Unknown" does not describe the status of the cat. It is the status of our beliefs about the cat.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
If God does not exist in our universe, then the box cannot be damned.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh... This is precisely why all popularisers of science should be shot. I'll put it in my TODO list, right after the Anglican bishops.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The question is not "Do we know whether the cat is dead or alive?"
Unfortunately, our definitions of "dead" and "alive" are dependent upon human observation. Those words cannot be applied to unobservable things.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The question is not "Do we know whether the cat is dead or alive?"
Unfortunately, our definitions of "dead" and "alive" are dependent upon human observation. Those words cannot be applied to unobservable things.
True, our definitions are based on things that are normally observable, but just because we cannot actually make the observations doesn't change whether of not they are dead. If the cat were shut off in an unopenable box (with an indefinite food/water/air source), we would not be able to determine the state of things like its heart or brain activity. That does not make a bit of difference, however, in regards to whether or not the cat is alive. It is what it is, regardless if anyone pays attention.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Is this a religious discussion, because I'm very confused, and I don't know that cats have to do with Jesus or Christmas time.
Is the poison the problem of evil? Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: It is what it is
It is what it is regardless of whether man defines it or not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It is what it is, regardless if anyone pays attention.
Well, that's not actually true, as applied to subatomic particles. It really isn't, you can do experiments to prove it. What Schrodinger was getting at is what's now known as the problem of quantum decoherence: Something is going on between the subatomic level where electrons really, actually are both up and down at the same time, and the cat level where that's ridiculous. Now, this is not completely understood even now, but the basic theory is that the cat is observing itself; that is, there's nothing magic about having a human observer, any part of the universe will do. Strictly speaking this is true for electrons also, but with electrons you can more easily set up a situation where there really is zero interaction with the outside. For a cat, if nothing else there'll be its gravitational self-interaction; at any rate, the wave function collapses quite rapidly.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:It is what it is, regardless if anyone pays attention.
Well, that's not actually true, as applied to subatomic particles. It really isn't, you can do experiments to prove it.
Sorry that I was unclear on that. My comment was directed at skillery's comment, which seemed to apply this idea to something large scale such as whether a multicellular organism is alive or dead. Like you said, once you get too far past the atomic level, this doesn't really apply any more.
quote:Originally posted by skillery: It is what it is regardless of whether man defines it or not.
Sure. But it can also fit the definitions that mankind makes whether or not a person is actually able to observe it.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
The cat is dead. Very dead. The flask leaked becasue of incorrect handling procedures and, as well as rendering the experiment invalid, it killed the cat.
Sorry.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:definition:
quote: 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
Agnosticism does not mean, "i'm too afraid to make a decision so I just won't decide." Agnosticism says, "the answer is unknowable." This is itself a belief, and thus falls under your definition of "you have to decide what you believe at some point."
I have always been uncomfortable with this definition of agnosticism. It presupposes a belief where no belief is necessary. I think it is possible that the answer IS knowledgeable. Perhaps those mystics who claim to have developed extra-sensory perception organs are correct and that humans potentially CAN know things beyond what is currently defined as the physical universe. The point is, I am undecided on this possiblility as well, and that's why I'm presently defining myself as an agnostic. So my own brand of agnosticism is not defined as "a belief that the answer is unknowable" but as being in abeyance both as regards any belief as to the spiritual nature of the universe AND as regards the existance of any methods to arrive to correct conclusions thereof.
It's basically the total suspension of belief which naturally is the most superior belief of all .
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:After all, you MIGHT be right. Whereas an agnostic has zero chance of being right.
Unless something truly is unknowable, then the agnostic is 100% right.
Take the show 6 Feet Under. In Season One one of the main characters finds a room in town his dad liked to visit before he died. There was a glass with lipstick in the room.
The episode ends with the character realizing he will never know what this room was for--there is no way of knowing. It is a mystery about his dad.
He is 100 Percent correct. To pretend he knew the answer would be nothing more then practicing self deception. If he asserted a strong belief then there is a percentage chance he would be right--but that would only be by accident and he would have no way of verifying it is true in this life.
It would seems extremely arrogant and deceptive for him to try to convince others that they would be better off living in an optimistic play-pretend version of his version of reality.
Plenty of people who have lived the life of a "believer" and an agnostic, myself included, find much more fulfillment as an agnostic who recognizes some questions just can't be answered.
If you equate "belief" with some organized religion, then there are even more people who have left religion and appreciate the life of an agnostic.
Of course plenty of people have found faith and seem much happier. I guess I can't answer who is better off. It would seem some people are better off in both camps. I can only speak about myself. I am not even going to pretend I have an answer.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tristan:
quote:definition:
quote: 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
Agnosticism does not mean, "i'm too afraid to make a decision so I just won't decide." Agnosticism says, "the answer is unknowable." This is itself a belief, and thus falls under your definition of "you have to decide what you believe at some point."
To me, agnosticism means: "Regarding the amount and quality of information I've got concerning this particular question I think it prudent to leave my options open." (or in other words; in stead of choosing between yes or no, I'm opting for could be) Which in turn means that I might opt for one of the more definite choices once I feel that the knowledge I have obtained warrants such a choice. There's many subjects that have me rather unwilling to take a stance: UFO's, ghosts, healing powers of crystals and so on and so on... On these points I say 'could be', for now.
Some questions cannot be answered due to insufficient data. Which is the case in the cat situation as portrayed in the initial post of this thread. For instance the 'cat poison' was never stated to be gaseous, and if it isn't, the fact that the bottle is open or closed becomes irrelevant. I know I'm being a nitpicker, and that the original post was only paraphrasing Schrödinger's original set-up, but still, it shoots some serious holes in the whole issue.
Regarding the question of the existence of God it can only be said that there is perhaps far too much information to work into a coherent answer. (with God as the initial creator of everything around us, every piece of knowledge should be acknowledged as relevant when it comes to this particular question. The degree of relevance obviously varies.)
Oh, yes... The cat is dead. Because it'll have died of old age before this discussion will reach any kind of conclusion.
quote:To me, agnosticism means: "Regarding the amount and quality of information I've got concerning this particular question I think it prudent to leave my options open."
This is a much more succint and clearer definition than mine. I'm adopting it for future use.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The cat totally made it back through the Stargate. Didn't it? *can't quite recall*
Oh, sorry, wrong cat.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: 'Es pining.
It's a cat, not a parrot.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Unfortunately, our definitions of "dead" and "alive" are dependent upon human observation. Those words cannot be applied to unobservable things.
So are you suggesting that if I go somewhere that nobody could ever observe me, I'd (by definition) never be dead?
I think this is completely untrue - I don't think there is anything at all in the definition of "dead" that requires a dead thing to be observable. What definition are you using that has this requirement?
quote:To me, agnosticism means: "Regarding the amount and quality of information I've got concerning this particular question I think it prudent to leave my options open."
I don't agree with this definition of agnosticism because it would also include many religious people and almost all atheists. We keep our options open just as much as agnostics do, because we can always change our beliefs if one day we decide them to be false. This happens all the time when people change religions. Atheists, I'm certain, are willing to change their minds if they ever saw solid proof of God.
A definition of agnosticism must uniquely distinquish agnostics. In other words, it must indicate what is true for agnostics that is NOT true for atheists and theists. I am a theist, but I believe that a degree of faith if necessary to believe in God, and that most of us can't know He exists through evidence for certain. Thus agnosticism is also definitely not the belief that God existence is unknowable, because at least some theists (and presumably atheists) believe that as well.
Instead, the only unique difference that I have observed in agnostics is an unwillingness to believe without proof. Theists may believe God's existence is unprovable, but they'd assert we should believe in God anyway, using faith, because there is personal, subjective evidence that points to His existence. Atheists may believe that God's exisence is unprovable, but they'd assert we should revert to disbelief in God as the default. Agnostics, however, assert that if we can't prove one way or another, we should not believe one way or another.
The defining beliefs of agnosticism, as I see it: (1) If something cannot be demonstrated to be true, then we shouldn't believe it. (2) God's existence can't be demonstrated to be true, but we also can't demonstrate that He doesn't exist. (3) Therefore we should neither believe He exists, nor believe He doesn't exist. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
If the contents of a box were observable, it would contain a cat and a flask. The contents of the box are not observable. Is the cat alive?
A certain type of onion is lethal to certain species of salamanders when ingested. That species has yet to be discovered. Is the onion lethal?
An old man's fortune is to be divided evenly between his sons. He has no sons. How much does his daughter inherit?
It's all the same as writing: "one divided by zero." We can assign text or numeric symbols to any imagined set of conditions, that does not mean that the set of conditions is defined or definable.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Incidently, the cat is example is not a good analogy to God, because in the case of God most people do not see the situation as 50-50. Atheists and agnostics tend to see God's existence as strange and unlikely. Theists tend to see God's existence as likely. Theists tend to include other sorts of evidence as proof, such as the Bible or personal experience, whereas atheists tend to rely on principles like Occam's Razor to draw conclusions. None of this is the case for a cat in a box.
A better example might be if there was a 60% chance the cat got killed and a 40% chance the cat survived, but there were also a bunch of people indepently saying that they had visions that told them the cat had lived - visions that they were certain were true. What would you believe then?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:A certain type of onion is lethal to certain species of salamanders when ingested. That species has yet to be discovered. Is the onion lethal?
Yes, it would be lethal to the undiscovered species. Why would this not be the case?
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I wonder if there is a direct correlation between people who dislike cats and people who chose to kill the cat.
I've been extremely allergic to cats since I was a young'un. And cats are stupid.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dead_Horse: No one should ever name their cat lucky.
Or Shroedinger. I named my cat Shroedinger and, well, I can conclusively say that he is dead. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
What if the cat is a Cheshire cat?
T'was brillig and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy, were the borogoves And the mome raths outgrabe!
^^ All from memory, I've got Jabberwocky completely memorized Firefox spell check is going nuts.
Seriously whats the deal with analogies and cats?
Schrödinger's cat, Pavlov's less known cat (the one that always ignored the bell and ate whenever it felt like it), CS Lewis' invisible cats.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Oh my god! BlackBlade just dissappeared and travelled to another dimension!
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
Funny how this all started as a personality test. Sort of a "is the glass half empty or half full?" But, I've also been intriged by agnosticism vs faith and by the power of belief. Obviously, belief is not a big deal when you're dealing cats in boxes; but there are other situations in which it matters alot. Also, I like trying to claim that the cat is alive while people who like to show how smart they are nearly start screaming their heads off at me that it's both at the same time. It's fun for quick between-class screaming matches.
As for the actual physics, I understand the original purpose of this analogy, or I think I do; I interpretd it to mean that since the you can't know, yet, whether the cat is alive or dead, you have to account for both possibilities. You can't yet throw out the old bags of cat food, but you also can't assure your kids that Fluffy will be coming home. Therefore, the cat is effectively bot alive and dead at the same time. Is to which is actually is...well, that matters to the cat, but since we have no contact with the cat, does it matter to us? Not really, not until we open the box. And if the box is never opened, and if the matter of the cat being alive or dead actually MATTERS to you, you might as well pick one or the other.
As for quantum mechcanics...maybe Schrodinger was saying something a little different. Since you have no way of knowing where an electron is, it's really here and there and there all at the same time....And you have to account for the possibilites of the electron being in all those places.
In my school, however, Schrodinger's cat seems to be more of a way for people to show off how smart they are then to actually explain something. I've never gotten any GOOD explanations for it from people who claim they understand it.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:King of Men wrote: Well, that's not actually true, as applied to subatomic particles. It really isn't, you can do experiments to prove it. What Schrodinger was getting at is what's now known as the problem of quantum decoherence: Something is going on between the subatomic level where electrons really, actually are both up and down at the same time, and the cat level where that's ridiculous.
See, that's why Schrödinger's cat always puzzled me. Once you start talking about the states of subatomic particles you're not talking about a cat anymore and you can't describe it in terms of "alive" or "dead," right? (see my earlier post) So I can't wrap my brain around the explanation that the cat is both.
Is that the point of the metaphor, or am I missing something? This thing has stood the test of time, so I assume my logic is faulty somewhere.
--j_k
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Kill the damn cat already.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I've never gotten any GOOD explanations for it from people who claim they understand it.
That is probably because they don't understand it.
What do you know about the double slit experiment?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:As for the actual physics, I understand the original purpose of this analogy, or I think I do; I interpretd it to mean that since the you can't know, yet, whether the cat is alive or dead, you have to account for both possibilities.
No. Sorry, but you have to learn the mathematics of quantum wave functions to discuss this intelligibly.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Anyone amused at the "Dog the Bounty Hunter" ad at the bottom of the page?
Posted by Mathematician (Member # 9586) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:As for the actual physics, I understand the original purpose of this analogy, or I think I do; I interpretd it to mean that since the you can't know, yet, whether the cat is alive or dead, you have to account for both possibilities.
No. Sorry, but you have to learn the mathematics of quantum wave functions to discuss this intelligibly.
I would like to discuss this intelligibly. I'm not certain that I know the particular mathematics, but I do know a good bit of linear algebra, functional analysis (hilbert spaces, etc), and some basic quantum mechanics.
I would love to discuss the 2 slit experiment in this context, though perhaps it's better suited for another thread (or email? or some other method?).
I'm also interested in a brief description of an experiment which shows that, for instance, an electron actually exists in both an up and down state prior to observation.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
For the sake of argument, let's call me an agnostic.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QUOTE] I don't agree with this definition of agnosticism because it would also include many religious people and almost all atheists.
Yeah, and so what? Taking an agnostic stance on one issue doesn't oblige you to do so with every question.
quote:We keep our options open just as much as agnostics do, because we can always change our beliefs if one day we decide them to be false. This happens all the time when people change religions. Atheists, I'm certain, are willing to change their minds if they ever saw solid proof of God.
Okay, I won't flat out deny that. Every human being has the ability to change his/her mind. But will you agree with me that once you have chosen a side, it's more likely that your interpretation of evidence becomes biased? Because IME it's highly irregular (though not impossible) for someone to believe something and also actively seek to disprove the same. A person who does this is living with a huge contradiction, although the size is obviously linked to the importance of the matter he/she is investigating. Also, on a lighter note, the solid evidence of God's existence that would sway an atheist would have to be something along the lines of Monty Python's Hand of God. Or in other words; quite irrefutable.
quote: A definition of agnosticism must uniquely distinquish agnostics. In other words, it must indicate what is true for agnostics that is NOT true for atheists and theists. I am a theist, but I believe that a degree of faith if necessary to believe in God, and that most of us can't know He exists through evidence for certain. Thus agnosticism is also definitely not the belief that God existence is unknowable, because at least some theists (and presumably atheists) believe that as well.
Wait a minute... You actually know of people who know God's existence to be true? Could you point them out to me? I have some questions I'd like to ask them. Also, when something is true it is true for everybody, no exceptions.
quote: Instead, the only unique difference that I have observed in agnostics is an unwillingness to believe without proof.
Now, I believe that it's possible for all people to share this earth and live in peace. This is my belief, even though we can all agree that so far the history of humanity hasn't given us much proof to justify such a belief.
quote: The defining beliefs of agnosticism, as I see it: (1) If something cannot be demonstrated to be true, then we shouldn't believe it. (2) God's existence can't be demonstrated to be true, but we also can't demonstrate that He doesn't exist. (3) Therefore we should neither believe He exists, nor believe He doesn't exist.
Ahem, allow me to disagree with some of your statements. Rewritten no. (1) If something cannot be demonstrated to be true, then we cannot know it, therefore we can only choose to believe it or disbelieve it. numbers two and three do not logically follow from number one.
When you say you believe something, you're actually saying something along the lines of "I'll admit that there are other options, but this one seems most logical/plausible to me."
I do feel the need to end this post by saying that I don't have anything against religion as such. I do however, disagree vehemently with people who are so convinced of the truth of their beliefs that they're unwilling to listen to reason and also those people who try to push their views upon everyone they meet. Or in other words: One of the basic tenets of my 'belief' is that everyone is wholly free to disagree with me.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[/QB]![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Or in other words; quite irrefutable.