Sound can mean both the sensation our brains decode as wave of rarefaction/compression mechanically stimulates our inner ear AND the rarefaction/compression itself. As far as "brown" is concerned, "brown" is merely our brains interpretation of that combination of EMR triggering the photoreceptors in our retinas, but it does not make the EMR any less existent, regardless of observers or not...
Of the TAG premises you present, it was 3 and 4 that seemed weakest links. Why can not 3 be stated "Hence there is more to the physical world than what we consider reality." Quantum states are physical states and properties.
Premise 4, "... must be an eternal, non-physical mind that holds these absolutes true." Why? Why not logic abs as properties of the (as observed until recently) physical world? Or merely properties of our neural nets that observe and makes sense of world?
Who cares? These arguments (TAG, kalam etc) if true only suggest a divine intelligence behind "creation". The god of einstein or the deists. The only gods that matter are the personal gods of religions and there is no connection from this intangible "no-thing" to a super sky daddy who answers prayers and watches you masturbate.
"If this law isn't really absolute,.... and it fails to be true of all the physical universe, then what need is there to postulate anything beyond the physical universe to account for it?"
Even if the law was absolute and true of all the physical universe, would there be any need to postulate anything beyond the physical universe to account for it? I don't really see that there would be.
@Roenazarrek Yeah, Schrodinger didn't seem to think that cat's were conscious. Either that, or he just didn't think about it. Either way, it's just an illustration, don't get too caught up in the particulars of the example.
A good example, my point is a bit of a tangent, though I think its worth a brief note; is this with regard to the notion in quantum phisics that knowing the position of a particle actually sets that position, and previously it's state wasn't in fact determined, literally in a kind of superstate? I'd never imagined anything like this could reasonably apply to the macro world, but even if it did, my point is there still would be an "observer" of the cat's state.
@SisyphusRedeemed you need to watch my video entitled ''unreasonable presupp''. Logic is simply the way the universe (existence) operates ,behaves. logic and the universe are one. i agree with some of this videos assertions. However by your logic the dead cat would not stink until you open the box. however i no that from personal experience that ,that isn't true.
@OpenAirAtheist "Logic is simply the way the universe (existence) operates"
But the universe isn't consistent. It plays by one set of rules on the relativistic scale, one set on the mesoscale, and a 3rd set on the quantum scale.
"by your logic the dead cat would not stink until you open the box."
No, because as more time goes by, the probability of collapse increases. The mass continues to decay. It's only 50/50 at the halflife of the substance.
@SisyphusRedeemed i think i agree with your response concerning the dead cat. However regarding the first portion of your response. at this time on the quantum level particles may be unpredictable ,but that doesn't mean they are random. All random means is that we haven't figured out something yet. its a gap in knowledge and nothing more. Infact even if something was un caused we would never know it . we would keep searching and never finding.
@OpenAirAtheist "All random means is that we haven't figured out something yet."
This is what's known as the 'hidden variable theory.' Suffice to say, while you can never rule it out entirely, quantum physicists have ruled it out as a reasonable possibility. Check out 'Bell's Inequality' as a very solid denbunking of hidden variable theories.
@SisyphusRedeemed if ur going to assert that this has been debunked please provide link to the so called refutation. Also by non logic should i assume that you say your claims are based on research or that the so called debunking pop out of nothing without causation? how about i try that ? your assertions are wrong ! whats that you want to know why i know your wrong ? well there is no causation my knowledge that your wrong just popped out of nothing. lol sorry i'm a former formal logic student.
The logical absolutes ARE absolutes. The problem with your logic is that you're assuming that dead and alive is a true dichotomy, when in reality, the two dichotomies are dead and not dead and alive and not alive. Under the category of not dead, you have alive, and a superposition of states, so in the dichotomy of dead not dead, the cat is not dead. In the alive not alive dichotomy, under the category of not alive you have dead, and superposition. In this dichotomy, the cat is not alive.
And I just want to mention that the belief in the absolutism of non-contradiction does not preclude the existence of paradoxes. Obviously, there is the Liar's paradox; there is also the Holy Trinity, and the paradox of material implication. Schrodinger's cat is just another paradox; its solution only requires you to clarify the terms 'alive' and 'dead', themselves ambiguous between various meanings that differ according to one's presupposition regarding the issue of personal identity.
You act like the notion of a multi-valued system is a discovery of physicists. On the contrary, the rejection of the absolutism of bivalence is nothing new; Aristotle believed that statements regarding future contingents are neither true nor false. Even 20th century mathematicians, such as Lukasiewicz, formalized multi-valued systems; I doubt that Lukasiewicz knew much about QM.
Assume that LEM is not absolute; what do you do with non-contradiction, or '1 + 1 = 2'?
@SisyphusRedeemed How is it a concrete illustration? Schrodinger never actually conducted the experiment; he simply thought it up, and presented it as a paradox. That makes it abstract every bit as much as, say, the Liar's paradox or Aristotle's notion of future contingents.
The existence of paraconsistent logic proves nothing more than that people are free to formalize contradictory systems, just as they are free to say contradictory things.
@rumblefishism "The existence of paraconsistent logic proves nothing more than that people are free to formalize contradictory systems, just as they are free to say contradictory things."
If Priest is correct, he's not just formalizing contradictory systems. He argues that there are 'dialetheia', that is, true contradictions. It's not clear he is correct, but his argument shouldn't just be written off as absurd. It might just be that reality is not always consistent with itself.
@SisyphusRedeemed 'True contradictions' in what sense? Is he purporting to be able to confer abstract notions of consistency, or inconsistency, to concrete things? As far as I can tell, such notions are only applicable to propositions ('de dicto'), in which case I will agree that contradictions exist. My impression of this is that he admits these are absurdities, but--for logically noncontradictory reasons-- simply treats them more charitably in the context of his formal system.
IF the box is opened and the cat is alive, not only does the cat still exist, but the cat's metabolic functions continue.
If the box is opened and the cat is dead, the condition of the dead cat, provides evidence for the moment of death... therefore the cat does not exist in superposition in the past, once the box is opened.
The cat will have ceased to be alive at a moment that can be determined from the current state of Cat.
Your argument is incorrect. Quantum superposition does not contradict the law of excluded middle. The cat is still either in a "half-dead, half-live" state or not in a "half-dead, half-live" state. And in any case, superposition is a probabilistic statement about the states in which the cat may be found.
There is no need for quantum mechanics to discredit TAG. It suffices to say that no amount of mental masturbation will "prove" god into existence.
Go the Everett FAQ and read "who believes many worlds" and it seems to contradict the premise that the Copenhagen is the most popular one. I tried to post the link but I kept getting errors.
@JohnnyAdroit I can't link here, but there is a bloggingheads diavlog between Sean Carroll and David Albert about how to interpret quantum mechanics (settling on Many Worlds despite lingering problems (like where the probabilities come from). The great thing about Many Worlds is that it doesn't require something special about measurement or consciousness.
Quantum mechanics empirically falsifies the law of the excluded middle and non-contradiction no matter what interpretation you use.
Amateur physicist here. Don't rely on specific interpretations of QM to justify the violation of non-contradiction (in fact, you are mistaken in saying the Copenhagen interpretation is the dominant one, Many Worlds is now dominant among working physicists (I'll post a link to a discussion in my next comment)). Bell's Inequalities and the experiments confirming these inequalities are enough to confirm that there is no "fact of the matter" as to the state of a particle in superposition.
THe cat is a complex piece of matter, not a quantum particle.It is in fact either dead or alive. Quantum quackery is well noted and documented problem. SOunds like church to me as the 'sup position' is something that is simply not falsifiable.
Here, I have a cat in a box and all this math to show you it is dead an alive at the same time. But you can't look at it, no no no. You just have to accept thats what it is.
@sashajw1234 No probabilistic theory is falsifiable. Any and all result are always compatible with a probabilistic distribution. That's one of the major limits to Popperianism. If this is problem for CI, it's equally a problem for all quantum mechanics (and population biology, and statistical genetics, and cognitive science and...) Keep following my philosophy of science series; when I get to Popper I'll explain in more detail.
Correct. Which is why they cannot be used to claim a certain outcome. THe cat is alive OR dead. Quantum mechanics is not anywhere near far enough along to claim certainty to any other posibility. It is dead or it is alive.
BTW the cat can observe its self. Hear its self. Lick its self. ect. Give a good think about what that means.
Umm, The idea of the experiment was never meant to prove the cat would be alive and also dead at the same time in the real world. You need to really read up on Quantum quackery.
@sashajw1234 Yeah, like I said in the video, the point was to be a reductio ad absurdum AGAINST the CI, but the scientific establishment actually embraced it. Like you point out, it's a poor example because the cat could (probably) collapse the superposition itself. But we can change the example from a cat (which can observe) to the vial (which cannot). There is no 'quackery' in that. It's mainstream science.
@SisyphusRedeemed "the example from a cat (which can observe) to the vial (which cannot)."
It makes no difference SR. THe cat is alive unless the poison is released. WHile the cat can observe its self the poison would not be released. If the poison is released, the cat dies. This would happen whether one can see in the box or not.
THe sup position exists in theory. A theory that has been mis applied and abused by the religious to the ridiculous.
@sashajw1234 "A theory that has been mis applied and abused by the religious to the ridiculous."
This isn't wingnuttery, this is the mainstream scientific interpretation. If you think this is ridiculous, then you think that the majority of quantum physicists are ridiculous. They may be wrong, but I really don't think you are in any position to just dismiss them so.
@SisyphusRedeemed "the majority of quantum physicists are ridiculous."
Are you suggesting that an unfalsifiable position is held as true by the majority of the academic field in question? THat the 'majority' of quantum phys.... will stake their career on the idea that the poison mechanism would transform its physical state to a contradiction as soon as the box is closed? This is your view of credible quantum physics?
@sashajw1234 You don't have to take my word for it, research it on your own. Start here: According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics. arxiv[dot]org/abs/quant-ph/9709032v1
And I repeat myself: no probabilistic theory is falsifiable. Theories in population biology, statistical genetics, neuroscience, etc. all rely on probabilities & are not falsifiable. This is not a problem.
@SisyphusRedeemed "You don't have to take my word for it, research it on your own" I don;t take your word for it because it is understood as false. The behavior of stand alone 'Quantum particles' is not transferable to larger pieces of matter. Going from 1 particle to a cluster of billions of particles changes the rules.
On a microscopic level you would have an argument. Macroscopic, i'm afraid not. Saying the cat is what it is not is Quackery. You are obviously not a quantum physicist.
@sashajw1234 Of course I'm not a quantum physicist. I never claimed to be. I'm a philosopher, with an area of competence in philosophy of science. But that too is irrelevant. All that matters is that what I am saying is true: (1) Copenhagen is the most popular interpretation of quantum mechanics amongst quantum physicists, and (2) superposition is a direct consequence of Copenhagen. You move the goal posts when you say that quantum behavior doesn't transfer to the macro. So what?
SO what? Your sitting here saying the cat is what it is not. You have no evidence but theroretical concepts, yet you say its true!?!? It doesn't even matter if Copen is even the most recognized interpretation.
Philosophy looses its way when we don't ground our results. No one has even shown such a bizarre state of matter to actually exist. Atleast nothing I have read.
Yet you say it is the case. I dunno what else to say
@sashajw1234 "You have no evidence but theroretical concepts"
To the contrary, there is ample empirical evidence that supports the CI. It's not univocal, but it does exist, it's not just hypothesizing from the armchair.
"yet you say its true!?!?"
It's not me, it's the majority of specialists in the field. You say this doesn't matter, to which I say "what else could possibly matter, unless you are in a position to evaluate the evidence for yourself?"
@SisyphusRedeemed -It's not me, it's the majority of specialists in the field-
Uh huh. If such an experiment was unders\taken that empirically showed a piece of matter such as a cat was indeed what it wasn't. You as a science philosopher should have that at hand. Such proof would be famous in the academic arena. So, I'm all ears. BTW, theoretical math is not empirical proof.
@SisyphusRedeemed -It's not me, it's the majority of specialists in the field-
Uh huh. If such an experiment was unders\taken that empirically showed a piece of matter such as a cat was indeed what it wasn't. You as a science philosopher should have that at hand. Such proof would be famous in the academic arena. So, I'm all ears. BTW, theoretical math is not empirical proof.
SO go ahead. State the research that PROVES such a state of matter exist emprically.
You should try actually reading what I write before you respond: "It's not univocal, but it does exist," I didn't say that it was PROVEN; I said it was SUPPORTED. Stop strawmanning me and don't be such a dick. And if you would bother to actually research this at all, rather than bird-dogging me, you would see this is true. Check out the double slit experiment and Bell's Inequality experiments. Both support (but don't prove) the CI.
@SisyphusRedeemed -It's not half alive and half dead; it is ENTIRELY alive and ENTIRELY dead. -
Thats you. This is not your position then? A funny comment to make since no one has produced any such proof of the matter. I have read the research you spoke of. The results are not an object that is what it isn't.
SO your position then. IS it TRUE if such an experiment was done that the cat would be what it is not?
@SisyphusRedeemed If Copenhagen is not true of reality though, than your argument does not work,because one of it's premises is untrue. That it is"the most popular interpretation"does not make it true to someone who believes it not to be so, and if you will not argue with someone who believes in, say, the many worlds interpretation.In that case,the question of weather the cat is alive is as irrelevant as me asking which hand the chocolate bar I halved is in.Correct me if this is out of context.
Lets say alive is the colour blue, and dead is the colour yellow. Then you are essientially saying the only poosible colours are yellow and blue, what happens when you mix them colours?... you get green (super-position). Which catorgory does green fall under out of blue and yellow? You see. Green is it's own colour, if you say alive/not alive, then you are saying blue/not blue, green would fall under the non blue catorgory.
@ZenoKameno Actually, the color metaphor is very apt. There aren't just two colors, there are many colors. So a logic that only has two truth values isn't a very good tool for mapping color: we need a multi-valued logic for that. The same holds for quantum mechanics: fuzzy logic can map the reality of quantum behavior much better than classical logic. When we try to shoehorn quantum mechanics into classical logic our map breaks down.
@SisyphusRedeemed All logic as 2 fundemental truth values, the difference between multi-valued and classical logic, is that classical is a way of presenting a true dichotomy, plain and simple. Where as multi-valued logic goes a step further and opens up SUBSETS of the dichotomy, that doesnt mean it presents options that the classical alternertive didn't include.
Classical logic- Blue/Not blue
Multi-valued logic-Blue/yellow, green, pink, red etc....
@ZenoKameno "that doesnt mean it presents options that the classical alternertive didn't include"
Actually, that's precisely what it means. Yellow, green, etc. are indeed subsets of 'not blue', but the very fact that 'not blue' can't distinguish between yellow and green shows why classical logic breaks down in these circumstances: there is a real distinction that classical logic cannot map.
@ZenoKameno "All logic as 2 fundemental truth values"
No, they don't. Fuzzy logic doesn't recognize 0 or 1 as fundamental. They use the anchor points of 0 and 1 as a notational convention, not an ontological distinction. There is nothing more 'fundamental' about 0 or 1 then there is about .5, or .25, or .9
@SisyphusRedeemed I thought they use the 0 and 1 as a metaphor, It's suppose to represent a dichotomy, not just 2 options in a larger set of values.
0 is everything of the nature x
1 is everything that is not of the nature x
All ontological options have been acounted for in that usage, I think the problem we are having is that you see 1/0 as 2 options, when I see it as 2 (dichotomous) catorgories. Thats why the cat is either in a superpostion, or it is not.
@ZenoKameno "the cat is either in a superpostion, or it is not."
Well, it's not quite clear that's true, either. It's clearly in a superposition if we wait for the odds of decay to hit 50/50, but if the odds are 1/99? Or .0001/99.999? Even 'out of the box', there is an infinitesimal (but non-zero) chance that every atom in your body is in a superposition. So technically, EVERYTHING is in a superposition, but the numbers are just so small that we can reliably treat it as if it weren't.
It seems to me like saying "if I roll a dice and I don't look at the result, I'll roll all possible outcomes at once". But there is some outcome on that dice and there is a cat in a particular state regardless of our perception. A state of an object doesn't depend on an observer, does it? If no one observed that experiment, the cat would still be either dead or alive. The merely presence/absence of an observer imho cannot change a state of another object.
@Ceberuss "A state of an object doesn't depend on an observer, does it?"
That's the common sense intuition, but what makes quantum physics so bizarre is that it defies our common sense. If Copenhagen is correct (and let me repeat that it is the dominate view amongst quantum physicists, as it accounts for the math) then quantum events DO depend on an observer.
@SisyphusRedeemed As a thought experiment I am lead to belive that this simply represents what happens at a subatomic level and accounts for the wave-particle duality of light
@jffryh 'Observation' is not well defined under Copenhagen, but it shows up in several contexts besides the collapse of superpositions (i.e.-Heisenberg uncertainty principle.) In short, I don't think we know. I may just be out of the loop, but I suspect this is an area of research and conceptual work.
@SisyphusRedeemed Indeed Observation is very important concept in quantum physics but is poorly defined. The problem is that it's seemingly impossible to devise an experiment to test exactly what counts as an "observer" because at some point a human will have to look at the system, which invalidates the test. There may be some clever way around it, but as far as I know (and I'm only an undergraduate Physics student) no-one can think of one...
@enilenif I think it's reasonably safe to assume that observation doesn't require sentience though, and as such the idea of an "observer" is probably confusing (because it implies some sort of sensory apparatus). Well defined things happened in the universe before beings with the ability to observe them arrived. The cat thought experiment is a problem too, because the cat is an observer and so no real superposition exists. The principle, though, still remains valid for observerless systems (??)
@Ceberuss "A state of an object doesn't depend on an observer, does it?"
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
If God created logic, is logic dependent on God? If logic is dependent on God, is it not necessary but rather contingent on God? And if principles of logic are contingent on God, are they not logically necessary?
@zarkoff45 I don't buy this trick, that things don't make a sound when nobody hears it. Sound is a mechanical wave, which occurs when a tree falls, whether someone is listening or not. That tree is also brown even if nobody watches it and it is solid even if nobody touches it.
Is sound the physical wave? Sound could also be defined as the sensation excited in the ear or brain or consciousness when the air or other medium is set in motion and then the answer would be "No." Because sound is a sense and is recognized as sound only in our brains. The falling of the tree will produce vibration of the air but if there are no ears connected to brains to hear, there will be no sound.
@Ceberuss "That tree is also brown even if nobody watches it..."
You have just assumed "the view from nowhere," an omniscient god-like perspective that assumes the unobserved world functions the same as your observed world and according to the scientific rules you know about. You have done this intuitively and Sissy's vid is all about being skeptical of such intuitions.
I do this also. It's an example of how inescapable our intuitions are.
Copenhagen was a moron. Quite simply the cat is or is not alive irrespective of the lack of human knowledge on the matter. To assume otherwise is to err greatly on the side of egocentricity and really the Copenhagen theorum can be summed up as our over active frontal lobes doing what they do best : wondering what if. Not that I support T.a.g. Thats even more stupid. Great vid!
@OsyenVyeter Well, you're certainly not the only one to reject Copenhagen, but just FYI, it's named after the city (where Niels Bohr was born), not a person.
@SisyphusRedeemed Yeah, I knew about Copenhagen being a place, but where my screw up was that from what I discerned from this vid, I thought there was a guy who happened to have the same last name as the place. An awfully odd coincidence I thought to myself, but I suppose one's thinking abilities arent always at their best at 4 in the morning. Thanks for the clarification
The problem with Premise 1 is more simple, IMO than the proposed problem. The first statement is already assuiming the conclusion, just not actully listing it, thus creating a circular reasoing. For logical absolutes to be true, there must be a logical mind to create them first, the assumpition here is that the mind which creates these logical truths was created by another logical mind. This debate is not being had on Jupiter, where (theoritically) no logical mind exsists.
Actually, Schrodinger's cat doesn't violate law of excluded middle. At 1:08 you show the formulation for the law of excluded middle (A or !A). In this case A = superposition and !A = not superposition. Or if you define A = "alive", then !A = "not alive" which would include the superposition state.
@SisyphusRedeemed No. I think this exactly the point that you are missing. The superposition is a separate independent state on par with "alive" and "dead". The best way I can describe superposition is through the cartesian coordinate system. You have two axes, x and y. Let's say we label the line from the origin to the point (1,0) as "alive", and another line from origin to (0,1) as "dead". Now the superposition would be a 3rd line say from origin to (1/2, 1/2) which is 1/2 alive and 1/2 dead..
@syrrus21 You're introducing a separate pair of values, for a four valued logic in your Cartesian example, and a third value in your talk of superposition. That's not the way a two valued logic would map Schrodinger's cat. There are ONLY two possible values: 'alive' and 'not alive'; there is no 'both' on a two valued logic. But there IS a both in the quantum world. Which is why the quantum world breaks excluded middle, since it is a two-valued law.
@syrrus21 It's not half alive and half dead; it is ENTIRELY alive and ENTIRELY dead. That's what a superposition is, not simply a half and half, it's BOTH at the same time.
@SisyphusRedeemed In a superposition you can be fractionally alive and dead. That's the whole notion of superposition (linear combinations). Please lookup "quantum superposition" in wikipedia and scroll down to the part with the example of the particle in both locations |a> and |b> in fractional proportions.
With regard to LEM, the venn diagram isn't two circles with overlap. Instead you have three mutually exclusive circles
@SisyphusRedeemed The numbers 1/2 in this case represent the probability that when measured it will change into a certain state. So if the probability that the cat dies is 3/4 and lives is 1/4, then the superposition state will be (1/4, 3/4), etc. This has numbers themselves have nothing to do with the fact that there are three separate states (represented by the lines).
...So you have three separate states, each represented by a line. So when you say A = "alive", you are referring only to the first line. !A would represent the other two lines. It's the kind of problem you run into when try to create verbal analogy of a problem--you lose the exactness of the math behind the physics.
@syrrus21 The problem here isn't with my verbal analogy, it's with binary logic. A two-valued system can't capture the math, and that's exactly why excluded middle breaks down. When you introduce the fractional notation you're introducing fuzzy logic, which can map the quantum states better, but which also defies excluded middle; there IS no middle in fuzzy logic because it's fuzzy.
@SisyphusRedeemed There's no fuzzy logic. I'm sorry my example was more confusing than explanatory. Human language can be vague but QM and logic (set theory) are not.
#1) In regular language "alive" and "dead" are mutually exclusive. But in Sch. cat problem they take on a different meaning. In QM, "alive" and "dead" are INDEPENDENT (or mathematically orthogonal) in EXACTLY the same manner as x- and y-axes in cartesian plane. When physicists say cat is both "alive" and "dead", it's a loose way..
@syrrus21 Fuzzy logic is used in quantum mechanics all the time; it's one of the principle applications of fuzzy logic. And while set theory is certainly not essentially fuzzy, there is 'fuzzy set theory' that combines the two and makes much legitimate work out of it. I'm not pulling this out of my ass; the literature on this in physics and mathematics is long and deep.
"Fuzzy logic" deals with cases where there are more than 2 truth values NOT states. "The cat is alive" is either true or false. "The cat is dead" is either true/false. "The cat is in superposition" is either true/false. Fuzzy logic is not needed for Sch. cat problem.Plz wiki "Fuzzy logic" and the example "applying truth values". In that example, LEM doesn't make sense because you can be in-between "cold" and "warm". In cat prob, there are only 3 discrete choices--alive, dead, or superposition.
...of saying the superposition state can be decomposed into "alive" and "dead" components EXACTLY like the direction northeast can be decomposed into north and east directions. But just because it can be decomposed, northeast is different direction than north or east. Ergo, superposition is different state than "alive" and "dead".
#2) I'll prove LEM mathematically. In sch. cat prob., the universe of states is U={alive, dead, super}. If A={alive}, !A = {dead,super}. Therefore A or !A is true.
@syrrus21 You're cramming two separate states of affairs (dead, super) into one truth value (!A). That's begging the question. There are (at least) three states of affairs: alive, dead and super. To map it accurately you need at least three truth values: (A); (!A); (~A&~!A). Hence, LEM does not apply.
flawed premise! you are assuming the Schroediners cat hypothosis has been scientifacally proven.
Shroediner designed this thiought experiment to demonstrate how quantum theorists are proably mistaken in their observations of quantum experimental results (which SEEM to indicate observation plays a role in a quantum outcome)
he was attempting to disprove it by linking the quantum world to the macroscopic world and showing that it made no logical sense.
@robertwc82 Did you actually watch the video? I spoke to every point you brought up. And you don't 'prove' an interpretation; you support it or you undermine it.
@SisyphusRedeemed yea but my point is the quantum world has never actually been directly observed. and what is actually taking place could possibly be different to whart we think is going on.
the only way you could prove it beyong reasonable doubt then you would need to observe the cat in the box without observing it at all. which is illogical
if your puropse is to provoke thought than its a good video
if your purpose is to disprove logical absolutes beyond a shred of doubt than you failed
@robertwc82 No interpretation in science is ever proven beyond a shred of doubt, even when it it's predicted effects are directly observed. But given how accurate the math is, it is definitely proven beyond a reasonable doubt that SOMETHING weird is going on. I included other interpretations PRECISELY to acknowledge that it's not a guarantee that Copenhagen is correct. But it DOES prove that it can be rational to reject excluded middle.
@SisyphusRedeemed i woudnt say prove though i would conced that it indicates that it could possibly be rational to reject it, possibly not. its something to think about though. also premise 2 is false and premise 4 is a baseless assumption
The alternative view substitutes the idea of an "irreversible interaction" for the more limited one of "observation." That is, the Copenhagen Interpretation would say a detector records a particular state of a particle with a photographic plate, it gets sent off to some automatic developing machinery, which develops it, packages it. But it gets lost in the mail for 6 months. Finally, you find it, and look at it - only then the observation occurs - and the wave function collapses.
But more recent experiments confirm that the taking of measurement actually collapses the wave function, independent of actual conscious observer.
That is - nobody has to open the box. What's necessary is for a sub-atomic event to, in effect, cascade up into the macroscopic world to to the point where become irreversibly entangled. That can be activating a detector or being seen by an observer - or killing a cat in a box.
Superimposition is valid - but only in the subatomic realm.
Yeah, I've often noted that it seems that a cat could collapse the wave function, invalidating the experiment. But then again, if it dies instantly, then maybe it wouldn't. That leads to another paradox: if it lives, then it is conscious and collapses the wave function, meaning it's only a live. But if it dies, then it's not conscious, doesn't collapse the function, and is hence both alive and dead.
Either way, Schrodinger should have chosen a different example.
Wait, I don't understand why the experiment can't be interpreted as such: The cat is either dead or not dead in the box. We don't know because we can't see the cat. The cat is either dead or not dead, and the simple act of a human being knowing or not knowing that the cat is or isn't dead does NOT give it a truth value. I honestly don't understand the logic behind trying to calculate whether the cat is alive or dead since it's independent of our own senses, cognition, etc.
The cat experiment isn't designed to prove the Copenhagen Interpretation. In fact, it was designed to DISprove it. What proves the CI is instead, it's a whole bunch of very complicated mathematical analysis of other very complicated experiments. I can't pretend to understand the details, but the result is fairly unambiguous: the cat is in a superposition, both alive and dead at the same time, despite how bizarre this is to our common-sense notions of how reality works.
That's my understanding. I'm not a physicist, and I don't pretend to have a complete grasp of this material, but as best as my informed non-physicist mind can reckon, CI is the best game in town. But who knows what the future will hold?
It's very specific to TAG. It shows that at least one of the so-called 'transcendental laws of logic' isn't really so transcendent; in fact, it collapses in certain contexts (namely the quantum). And that at least suggests that we ought not be so confident that there are transcendent laws of logic at all. That knocks the legs out from underneath TAG.
One of the many problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it requires either that God exists or that the universe was designed explicitly for us and that CI is false.
Without an observer, no quantum interaction is fixed. So either God watched all the stars form or the universe's many wave functions did not collapse until we evolved to observe it.
It's borked. It requires sapient life forms for any quantum event to collapse.
I actually don't think it requires sapient life forms to collapse a quantum event; it simply says that sapient life forms are ONE WAY that quantum events collapse. There may be other ways to collapse them, but we can't (or at least haven't yet figured out how to) determine what they are. Sapience is a sufficient, not (necessarily) a necessary condition.
Sorry, but the Copenhagen Interpretation requires sapient life forms. Otherwise the cat's flea could notice it was dead.
BTW, they opened the box in Copenhagen. But they haven't told me the results yet. So for me the cat is still in a superposition state. The same applies for every quantum event in the universe - if I don't know it, it hasn't happened.
To the tune of "Wonderful Copenhagen": Mystical, mystical Copenhagen...
Aside from the common complaint in this video that it could have made the nature of the Schrodinger "thought experiment" aspect clearer. I have another problem with the first premise of TAG. Isn't the first proposition unknowable and basically meaningless? How can we assume anything about a non-physical universe? Either it's meaningless or it's begging the question. Even if you accepts that there are logical absolutes (which I don't) how can you say they aren't dependent on the physical universe
"How can we assume anything about a non-physical universe?"
I would have to agree. THe way I understand it, something is labelled to be true because it is proven to be so. I would say its pretty hard to know that something is true (premise 1) if there is no known way to prove it to be so.
This in no way implies there are no logical absolutes. The problem in this video is a lack of proper definitions. Define "alive" precisely... Define "dead" precisely... is one the negation of the other?
No, it does not prove there are no logical absolutes, nor did I ever claim it did. What it shows is that one of the most well established logical absolutes is not, in fact, absolute. This casts doubt on the idea that the other so-called absolutes are in fact absolute, but it does not prove it.
No proper definitions are needed. All that is needed is a simple premise that you your self provided: alive is the negation of dead, and vice versa. Define them however you want so long as they fit that.
@SisyphusRedeemed That is meaningless... it truly does not mean anything... Either the state of being alive includes the superposition state, in which case we can definitely say the cat IS alive when the box is closed... or the state of being alive does not include the superposition state in which we can definitely say the cat is NOT alive...
Or you can say the cat does not exist when the box is closed...
Take it up with a quantum physicist. They seem to find the notion of superposition quite meaningful. They use it in experiments daily to predict very, very specific results.
@SisyphusRedeemed I have no disagreements or problems with states of superposition. What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that quantum superposition implies a logical paradox. There is no logical paradox in quantum mechanics.
It's simply a matter of definition. If I define alive as including the superposition state, then the cat is alive. If my definition of alive doesn't include the superposition state, then the cat is not alive.
Actually, you do have a problem with superposition. What superposition means is that something exists in two mutually inconsistent states. Take the cat out of it, just talk about the particle: to say a particle exists in a superposition means it has both decayed and not decayed. This is just basic quantum mechanics here.
Take an electron that is about to be observed... it exists in a state of superposition of "spin up" and "spin down"... this does not mean that it has both spin up and spin down at the same time. it has no spin yet... It has the potential to be either spin up or down when observation happens. there is no paradox because spin up and spin down are not negations of each other... we have a third state of "no spin".
Granting everything you've said in this argument, you eliminate one thing we thought was absolute. You conclude that there are no absolutes at all. Is this not a non sequitor? Also, is it an absolute assertion that there are no absolutes? In essence, what you are attempting to do is use a logical argument to debunk logical arguments. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It's not logical arguments, I'm attacking, it's logical absolutes. If you presuppose that all logical argument is based on logical absolutes, then you're begging the question. You're right that this video doesn't prove there are NO logical absolutes, but it does show that at least one of the principle alleged absolutes is not. That calls into question the rest. And it's not ALL absolutes I'm attacking, just LOGICAL absolutes.
You claim that the law of excluded middle does not always hold by showing an instance in which it doesn't hold. If it does not hold in one case, it does not hold in all cases, such is your reasoning. But, that reasoning itself employs the law of excluded middle. So should we not, by your own argument, question YOUR conclusion? Logic is BASED on absolutes i.e. the truth is non-contradictory.
So how do we distinguish between what does hold and what doesn't? If you use the law of excluded middle to show that the law of excluded middle doesn't hold in one case, you've shown that the law of excluded middle is universal, even applicable to itself.
Proving that X can apply to itself does not prove that X is universal; all it proves is that it applies to one more thing. (ex-The word 'polysyllabic' applies to itself, but it does not follow that it applies to everything.)
We distinguish the same way we distinguish anything: start on a case by case basis, see if we notice any patterns. If patterns seems to hold after repeated observations, have tentative confidence that they will continue to hold in future like cases.
So, in this case, we assume that the law works in order to determine that it doesn't in all cases? The problem that I have with your method of distinguishing in which cases it holds and in which it doesn't is this: you are now simply employing a new law of logic, the inductive principle. Are we now to assume that the inductive principle is absolute but the law of excluded middle is not?
There's a simpler issue with the "TAG" argument. Even if true, it does not prove any one god in particular. It says nothing of Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, or any other religious deity, so any theist using it is proving nothing at all.
That is simpler, but I don't think it's a very good place to draw the line. You're right it doesn't prove any specific god, but it still proves SOME sort of god. That's sufficent to prove the atheist wrong, and that would be a victory for the theist.
A theist, as such, is simply someone who believes there is a God; they don't necessarily belong to any particular religion. If we limit ourselves to the question 'is there a God?' TAG (if it works) is sufficient to answer that question in the affirmative. That means the atheist is wrong. As to WHICH god exists, that could perhaps be settled by another argument. So why concede TAG? Why give them an inch, when it's a bad argument on it's face?
Few physicists would claim to understand what quantum mechanics "mean," so I certainly don't claim to. But I feel that you didn't give enough attention at all to the instrumentalist interpretation. Are they basically anti-realists in regard to quantum physics?
I can't claim to fully understand it either. And clearly there is a lot more that can be said about each of the interpretations (and more.) But I don't think the instrumentalists are necessarily anti-realists about quantum mechanics, although they may be. The core idea as I understand it is simply that mathematical elegance is more important than conceptual clarity. Science should give us models, not understanding.
Well, I believe that on that level, all the science can provide us with is function. Structure is inaccessible to scientific observation, so scientific "models" are necessary to advance our understanding.
But to throw out the law of excluded middle seems... ridiculous... especially when there are alternate interpretations. Abandon that law, and the mathematics used to reach that conclusion are called into question. Pi can never not equal 3.14159, etc., can it?
You might be right about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics undermining the transcendental argument for God's existence, but I think it's a wee bit premature to claim that the argument is buried by modern physics -- especially when there are alternate interpretations that, to my mind, are more attractive and less earth-shattering than a denial of logical absolutes.
One might wonder, given the Copenhagen interpretation, if it's possible for both theism AND atheism to be true at the same time, in the same sense. ;P
Most physicists agree that this is nonsense. It is absurd to say that macroscopic objects can be in a superposition of different states.
The most accepted explanation is that the triggering of the Geiger counter collapses the wave function of the particle. Where does quantum mechanics say that there must be human intervention to collapse a wavefunction?
Before we open the box the cat is either dead or alive. We can't expect quantum behavior from macroscopic objects.
You're missing the point. The issue isn't whether or not we could put a macroscopic object into a superposition; that's simply an illustration used to help people grasp the idea of a superposition. The point is that quantum particles DO exhibit superpositions, and hence, the law of excluded middle is not absolute. QED.
Anyway in your video you say "... the cat is in what's called a superposition..." instead of helping people grasp the idea of superposition you are making things harder. Somewhere in the statistics of very large numbers superposition of states is no longer allowed when you consider systems of many particles (of the order of 10 to the 23 for macroscopic objects). So your argument based on the cat is invalid. You would have to make an argument based on a real quantum system.
That's probably because the data and math are ridiculously complicated, and only really comprehensible if you have an advanced degree in mathematics and/or particle physics. Presentations like this one are made by educated non-experts for interested non-experts.
SisyphusRedeemed, it is possibleto get a feel for the data without an advanced degree. There are many books which break it down into easily understandable terms and explain why the evidence is so strong.
Comment removed
grinoffortune 1 day ago
what if you don't look in the box BUT(T) grab the cat without looking in?
212Assain 2 weeks ago
Sound can mean both the sensation our brains decode as wave of rarefaction/compression mechanically stimulates our inner ear AND the rarefaction/compression itself. As far as "brown" is concerned, "brown" is merely our brains interpretation of that combination of EMR triggering the photoreceptors in our retinas, but it does not make the EMR any less existent, regardless of observers or not...
Voidsworn 5 months ago
Of the TAG premises you present, it was 3 and 4 that seemed weakest links. Why can not 3 be stated "Hence there is more to the physical world than what we consider reality." Quantum states are physical states and properties.
Premise 4, "... must be an eternal, non-physical mind that holds these absolutes true." Why? Why not logic abs as properties of the (as observed until recently) physical world? Or merely properties of our neural nets that observe and makes sense of world?
zarkoff45 6 months ago
Who cares? These arguments (TAG, kalam etc) if true only suggest a divine intelligence behind "creation". The god of einstein or the deists. The only gods that matter are the personal gods of religions and there is no connection from this intangible "no-thing" to a super sky daddy who answers prayers and watches you masturbate.
1empathy 7 months ago
4 is wrong. There are other dimensions and there might be parallel universes...
PaladinswordSaurfang 7 months ago
Comment removed
PaladinswordSaurfang 7 months ago
"If this law isn't really absolute,.... and it fails to be true of all the physical universe, then what need is there to postulate anything beyond the physical universe to account for it?"
Even if the law was absolute and true of all the physical universe, would there be any need to postulate anything beyond the physical universe to account for it? I don't really see that there would be.
redsaint182 8 months ago
well can't the cat know if its alive or dead?
Roenazarrek 9 months ago
@Roenazarrek Yeah, Schrodinger didn't seem to think that cat's were conscious. Either that, or he just didn't think about it. Either way, it's just an illustration, don't get too caught up in the particulars of the example.
SisyphusRedeemed 9 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
A good example, my point is a bit of a tangent, though I think its worth a brief note; is this with regard to the notion in quantum phisics that knowing the position of a particle actually sets that position, and previously it's state wasn't in fact determined, literally in a kind of superstate? I'd never imagined anything like this could reasonably apply to the macro world, but even if it did, my point is there still would be an "observer" of the cat's state.
Roenazarrek 9 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed you need to watch my video entitled ''unreasonable presupp''. Logic is simply the way the universe (existence) operates ,behaves. logic and the universe are one. i agree with some of this videos assertions. However by your logic the dead cat would not stink until you open the box. however i no that from personal experience that ,that isn't true.
OpenAirAtheist 6 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist "Logic is simply the way the universe (existence) operates"
But the universe isn't consistent. It plays by one set of rules on the relativistic scale, one set on the mesoscale, and a 3rd set on the quantum scale.
"by your logic the dead cat would not stink until you open the box."
No, because as more time goes by, the probability of collapse increases. The mass continues to decay. It's only 50/50 at the halflife of the substance.
SisyphusRedeemed 6 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed i think i agree with your response concerning the dead cat. However regarding the first portion of your response. at this time on the quantum level particles may be unpredictable ,but that doesn't mean they are random. All random means is that we haven't figured out something yet. its a gap in knowledge and nothing more. Infact even if something was un caused we would never know it . we would keep searching and never finding.
OpenAirAtheist 6 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist "All random means is that we haven't figured out something yet."
This is what's known as the 'hidden variable theory.' Suffice to say, while you can never rule it out entirely, quantum physicists have ruled it out as a reasonable possibility. Check out 'Bell's Inequality' as a very solid denbunking of hidden variable theories.
SisyphusRedeemed 6 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed if ur going to assert that this has been debunked please provide link to the so called refutation. Also by non logic should i assume that you say your claims are based on research or that the so called debunking pop out of nothing without causation? how about i try that ? your assertions are wrong ! whats that you want to know why i know your wrong ? well there is no causation my knowledge that your wrong just popped out of nothing. lol sorry i'm a former formal logic student.
OpenAirAtheist 6 months ago
The logical absolutes ARE absolutes. The problem with your logic is that you're assuming that dead and alive is a true dichotomy, when in reality, the two dichotomies are dead and not dead and alive and not alive. Under the category of not dead, you have alive, and a superposition of states, so in the dichotomy of dead not dead, the cat is not dead. In the alive not alive dichotomy, under the category of not alive you have dead, and superposition. In this dichotomy, the cat is not alive.
technopagan724 10 months ago
And I just want to mention that the belief in the absolutism of non-contradiction does not preclude the existence of paradoxes. Obviously, there is the Liar's paradox; there is also the Holy Trinity, and the paradox of material implication. Schrodinger's cat is just another paradox; its solution only requires you to clarify the terms 'alive' and 'dead', themselves ambiguous between various meanings that differ according to one's presupposition regarding the issue of personal identity.
rumblefishism 1 year ago
You act like the notion of a multi-valued system is a discovery of physicists. On the contrary, the rejection of the absolutism of bivalence is nothing new; Aristotle believed that statements regarding future contingents are neither true nor false. Even 20th century mathematicians, such as Lukasiewicz, formalized multi-valued systems; I doubt that Lukasiewicz knew much about QM.
Assume that LEM is not absolute; what do you do with non-contradiction, or '1 + 1 = 2'?
rumblefishism 1 year ago
@rumblefishism "You act like the notion of a multi-valued system is a discovery of physicists."
No, but it does show a concrete illustration of it, rather than simply an abstract idea.
"what do you do with non-contradiction"
Check out 'paraconsistent logic', specifically the work of Graham Priest. In short, non-contradiction isn't absolute, either.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed How is it a concrete illustration? Schrodinger never actually conducted the experiment; he simply thought it up, and presented it as a paradox. That makes it abstract every bit as much as, say, the Liar's paradox or Aristotle's notion of future contingents.
The existence of paraconsistent logic proves nothing more than that people are free to formalize contradictory systems, just as they are free to say contradictory things.
rumblefishism 1 year ago
@rumblefishism "The existence of paraconsistent logic proves nothing more than that people are free to formalize contradictory systems, just as they are free to say contradictory things."
If Priest is correct, he's not just formalizing contradictory systems. He argues that there are 'dialetheia', that is, true contradictions. It's not clear he is correct, but his argument shouldn't just be written off as absurd. It might just be that reality is not always consistent with itself.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed 'True contradictions' in what sense? Is he purporting to be able to confer abstract notions of consistency, or inconsistency, to concrete things? As far as I can tell, such notions are only applicable to propositions ('de dicto'), in which case I will agree that contradictions exist. My impression of this is that he admits these are absurdities, but--for logically noncontradictory reasons-- simply treats them more charitably in the context of his formal system.
rumblefishism 1 year ago
...and a small addition.
IF the box is opened and the cat is alive, not only does the cat still exist, but the cat's metabolic functions continue.
If the box is opened and the cat is dead, the condition of the dead cat, provides evidence for the moment of death... therefore the cat does not exist in superposition in the past, once the box is opened.
The cat will have ceased to be alive at a moment that can be determined from the current state of Cat.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
I would frame this differently.
The cat exists in the material universe whether dead or alive.
The state of aliveness, is not a state of existance but a quality of that existance.
Put the cat in the box... the cat is still in the box whether it it dead or alive.
The state of aliveness is the function of Gibb's energy within the system "cat."
The system, "cat" continues to exist regardless of whether its metabolic processes have ceased.
DeathofSpeech 1 year ago
Your argument is incorrect. Quantum superposition does not contradict the law of excluded middle. The cat is still either in a "half-dead, half-live" state or not in a "half-dead, half-live" state. And in any case, superposition is a probabilistic statement about the states in which the cat may be found.
There is no need for quantum mechanics to discredit TAG. It suffices to say that no amount of mental masturbation will "prove" god into existence.
r22k10 1 year ago
Go the Everett FAQ and read "who believes many worlds" and it seems to contradict the premise that the Copenhagen is the most popular one. I tried to post the link but I kept getting errors.
Sewblon 1 year ago
I seem to be having a problem posting comments now. I fear I must inconvenience you to test that this is not because I was trying to post a link.
Sewblon 1 year ago
@JohnnyAdroit I can't link here, but there is a bloggingheads diavlog between Sean Carroll and David Albert about how to interpret quantum mechanics (settling on Many Worlds despite lingering problems (like where the probabilities come from). The great thing about Many Worlds is that it doesn't require something special about measurement or consciousness.
Quantum mechanics empirically falsifies the law of the excluded middle and non-contradiction no matter what interpretation you use.
JohnnyAdroit 1 year ago
Amateur physicist here. Don't rely on specific interpretations of QM to justify the violation of non-contradiction (in fact, you are mistaken in saying the Copenhagen interpretation is the dominant one, Many Worlds is now dominant among working physicists (I'll post a link to a discussion in my next comment)). Bell's Inequalities and the experiments confirming these inequalities are enough to confirm that there is no "fact of the matter" as to the state of a particle in superposition.
JohnnyAdroit 1 year ago
THe cat is a complex piece of matter, not a quantum particle.It is in fact either dead or alive. Quantum quackery is well noted and documented problem. SOunds like church to me as the 'sup position' is something that is simply not falsifiable.
Here, I have a cat in a box and all this math to show you it is dead an alive at the same time. But you can't look at it, no no no. You just have to accept thats what it is.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 No probabilistic theory is falsifiable. Any and all result are always compatible with a probabilistic distribution. That's one of the major limits to Popperianism. If this is problem for CI, it's equally a problem for all quantum mechanics (and population biology, and statistical genetics, and cognitive science and...) Keep following my philosophy of science series; when I get to Popper I'll explain in more detail.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "No probabilistic theory is falsifiable."
Correct. Which is why they cannot be used to claim a certain outcome. THe cat is alive OR dead. Quantum mechanics is not anywhere near far enough along to claim certainty to any other posibility. It is dead or it is alive.
BTW the cat can observe its self. Hear its self. Lick its self. ect. Give a good think about what that means.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 "THe cat is alive OR dead."
So you know better than the majority of quantum physicists, eh? Pretty presumptuous of you.
"not anywhere near far enough along to claim certainty"
No scientific theory can claim certainty. That's the nature of science.
"the cat can observe its self."
Way to miss the point. So Irwin chose a poor example. He could just have easily said the vial of poison is in a superposition.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "Way to miss the point."
Umm, The idea of the experiment was never meant to prove the cat would be alive and also dead at the same time in the real world. You need to really read up on Quantum quackery.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 Yeah, like I said in the video, the point was to be a reductio ad absurdum AGAINST the CI, but the scientific establishment actually embraced it. Like you point out, it's a poor example because the cat could (probably) collapse the superposition itself. But we can change the example from a cat (which can observe) to the vial (which cannot). There is no 'quackery' in that. It's mainstream science.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "the example from a cat (which can observe) to the vial (which cannot)."
It makes no difference SR. THe cat is alive unless the poison is released. WHile the cat can observe its self the poison would not be released. If the poison is released, the cat dies. This would happen whether one can see in the box or not.
THe sup position exists in theory. A theory that has been mis applied and abused by the religious to the ridiculous.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 "A theory that has been mis applied and abused by the religious to the ridiculous."
This isn't wingnuttery, this is the mainstream scientific interpretation. If you think this is ridiculous, then you think that the majority of quantum physicists are ridiculous. They may be wrong, but I really don't think you are in any position to just dismiss them so.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed "the majority of quantum physicists are ridiculous."
Are you suggesting that an unfalsifiable position is held as true by the majority of the academic field in question? THat the 'majority' of quantum phys.... will stake their career on the idea that the poison mechanism would transform its physical state to a contradiction as soon as the box is closed? This is your view of credible quantum physics?
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 You don't have to take my word for it, research it on your own. Start here: According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics. arxiv[dot]org/abs/quant-ph/9709032v1
And I repeat myself: no probabilistic theory is falsifiable. Theories in population biology, statistical genetics, neuroscience, etc. all rely on probabilities & are not falsifiable. This is not a problem.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago 2
@SisyphusRedeemed "You don't have to take my word for it, research it on your own" I don;t take your word for it because it is understood as false. The behavior of stand alone 'Quantum particles' is not transferable to larger pieces of matter. Going from 1 particle to a cluster of billions of particles changes the rules.
On a microscopic level you would have an argument. Macroscopic, i'm afraid not. Saying the cat is what it is not is Quackery. You are obviously not a quantum physicist.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 Of course I'm not a quantum physicist. I never claimed to be. I'm a philosopher, with an area of competence in philosophy of science. But that too is irrelevant. All that matters is that what I am saying is true: (1) Copenhagen is the most popular interpretation of quantum mechanics amongst quantum physicists, and (2) superposition is a direct consequence of Copenhagen. You move the goal posts when you say that quantum behavior doesn't transfer to the macro. So what?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago 5
@SisyphusRedeemed 'So what?'
SO what? Your sitting here saying the cat is what it is not. You have no evidence but theroretical concepts, yet you say its true!?!? It doesn't even matter if Copen is even the most recognized interpretation.
Philosophy looses its way when we don't ground our results. No one has even shown such a bizarre state of matter to actually exist. Atleast nothing I have read.
Yet you say it is the case. I dunno what else to say
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 "You have no evidence but theroretical concepts"
To the contrary, there is ample empirical evidence that supports the CI. It's not univocal, but it does exist, it's not just hypothesizing from the armchair.
"yet you say its true!?!?"
It's not me, it's the majority of specialists in the field. You say this doesn't matter, to which I say "what else could possibly matter, unless you are in a position to evaluate the evidence for yourself?"
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago 2
@SisyphusRedeemed -It's not me, it's the majority of specialists in the field-
Uh huh. If such an experiment was unders\taken that empirically showed a piece of matter such as a cat was indeed what it wasn't. You as a science philosopher should have that at hand. Such proof would be famous in the academic arena. So, I'm all ears. BTW, theoretical math is not empirical proof.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed -It's not me, it's the majority of specialists in the field-
Uh huh. If such an experiment was unders\taken that empirically showed a piece of matter such as a cat was indeed what it wasn't. You as a science philosopher should have that at hand. Such proof would be famous in the academic arena. So, I'm all ears. BTW, theoretical math is not empirical proof.
SO go ahead. State the research that PROVES such a state of matter exist emprically.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 "State the research that PROVES..."
You should try actually reading what I write before you respond: "It's not univocal, but it does exist," I didn't say that it was PROVEN; I said it was SUPPORTED. Stop strawmanning me and don't be such a dick. And if you would bother to actually research this at all, rather than bird-dogging me, you would see this is true. Check out the double slit experiment and Bell's Inequality experiments. Both support (but don't prove) the CI.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@SisyphusRedeemed -It's not half alive and half dead; it is ENTIRELY alive and ENTIRELY dead. -
Thats you. This is not your position then? A funny comment to make since no one has produced any such proof of the matter. I have read the research you spoke of. The results are not an object that is what it isn't.
SO your position then. IS it TRUE if such an experiment was done that the cat would be what it is not?
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed If Copenhagen is not true of reality though, than your argument does not work,because one of it's premises is untrue. That it is"the most popular interpretation"does not make it true to someone who believes it not to be so, and if you will not argue with someone who believes in, say, the many worlds interpretation.In that case,the question of weather the cat is alive is as irrelevant as me asking which hand the chocolate bar I halved is in.Correct me if this is out of context.
arachnophile01 1 year ago
'The cat is simultaneous alive and dead'. The question I want to ask you is, what is it not?
ZenoKameno 1 year ago
@ZenoKameno It is simultaneously not alive and not dead.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Then that is the dichotomy, rather than alive/dead. So that is what the LEM should note.
ZenoKameno 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
Lets say alive is the colour blue, and dead is the colour yellow. Then you are essientially saying the only poosible colours are yellow and blue, what happens when you mix them colours?... you get green (super-position). Which catorgory does green fall under out of blue and yellow? You see. Green is it's own colour, if you say alive/not alive, then you are saying blue/not blue, green would fall under the non blue catorgory.
ZenoKameno 1 year ago
@ZenoKameno Actually, the color metaphor is very apt. There aren't just two colors, there are many colors. So a logic that only has two truth values isn't a very good tool for mapping color: we need a multi-valued logic for that. The same holds for quantum mechanics: fuzzy logic can map the reality of quantum behavior much better than classical logic. When we try to shoehorn quantum mechanics into classical logic our map breaks down.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed All logic as 2 fundemental truth values, the difference between multi-valued and classical logic, is that classical is a way of presenting a true dichotomy, plain and simple. Where as multi-valued logic goes a step further and opens up SUBSETS of the dichotomy, that doesnt mean it presents options that the classical alternertive didn't include.
Classical logic- Blue/Not blue
Multi-valued logic-Blue/yellow, green, pink, red etc....
ZenoKameno 1 year ago
@ZenoKameno "that doesnt mean it presents options that the classical alternertive didn't include"
Actually, that's precisely what it means. Yellow, green, etc. are indeed subsets of 'not blue', but the very fact that 'not blue' can't distinguish between yellow and green shows why classical logic breaks down in these circumstances: there is a real distinction that classical logic cannot map.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@ZenoKameno "All logic as 2 fundemental truth values"
No, they don't. Fuzzy logic doesn't recognize 0 or 1 as fundamental. They use the anchor points of 0 and 1 as a notational convention, not an ontological distinction. There is nothing more 'fundamental' about 0 or 1 then there is about .5, or .25, or .9
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I thought they use the 0 and 1 as a metaphor, It's suppose to represent a dichotomy, not just 2 options in a larger set of values.
0 is everything of the nature x
1 is everything that is not of the nature x
All ontological options have been acounted for in that usage, I think the problem we are having is that you see 1/0 as 2 options, when I see it as 2 (dichotomous) catorgories. Thats why the cat is either in a superpostion, or it is not.
ZenoKameno 1 year ago
@ZenoKameno Maybe i'm just confused over terms and deffinitions. Either way it's an interesting debate and thanks for helping me out with it.
ZenoKameno 1 year ago
@ZenoKameno "the cat is either in a superpostion, or it is not."
Well, it's not quite clear that's true, either. It's clearly in a superposition if we wait for the odds of decay to hit 50/50, but if the odds are 1/99? Or .0001/99.999? Even 'out of the box', there is an infinitesimal (but non-zero) chance that every atom in your body is in a superposition. So technically, EVERYTHING is in a superposition, but the numbers are just so small that we can reliably treat it as if it weren't.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Comment removed
ZenoKameno 1 year ago
Comment removed
ZenoKameno 1 year ago
Comment removed
ZenoKameno 1 year ago
Comment removed
ZenoKameno 1 year ago
It seems to me like saying "if I roll a dice and I don't look at the result, I'll roll all possible outcomes at once". But there is some outcome on that dice and there is a cat in a particular state regardless of our perception. A state of an object doesn't depend on an observer, does it? If no one observed that experiment, the cat would still be either dead or alive. The merely presence/absence of an observer imho cannot change a state of another object.
Ceberuss 1 year ago
@Ceberuss "A state of an object doesn't depend on an observer, does it?"
That's the common sense intuition, but what makes quantum physics so bizarre is that it defies our common sense. If Copenhagen is correct (and let me repeat that it is the dominate view amongst quantum physicists, as it accounts for the math) then quantum events DO depend on an observer.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed As a thought experiment I am lead to belive that this simply represents what happens at a subatomic level and accounts for the wave-particle duality of light
bellstephen41 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Does the observer have to be sentient? who qualifies as an observer? a gorilla, fruit-fly, robot, or only humans?
jffryh 1 year ago
@jffryh 'Observation' is not well defined under Copenhagen, but it shows up in several contexts besides the collapse of superpositions (i.e.-Heisenberg uncertainty principle.) In short, I don't think we know. I may just be out of the loop, but I suspect this is an area of research and conceptual work.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Comment removed
enilenif 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Indeed Observation is very important concept in quantum physics but is poorly defined. The problem is that it's seemingly impossible to devise an experiment to test exactly what counts as an "observer" because at some point a human will have to look at the system, which invalidates the test. There may be some clever way around it, but as far as I know (and I'm only an undergraduate Physics student) no-one can think of one...
enilenif 1 year ago
@enilenif I think it's reasonably safe to assume that observation doesn't require sentience though, and as such the idea of an "observer" is probably confusing (because it implies some sort of sensory apparatus). Well defined things happened in the universe before beings with the ability to observe them arrived. The cat thought experiment is a problem too, because the cat is an observer and so no real superposition exists. The principle, though, still remains valid for observerless systems (??)
enilenif 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Someone must have a relatively concrete notion of what an observer is, or else it wouldn't be a scientific concept, i think.
maybe the observer is anything outside of cat that could be influensed by state of cat.
jffryh 1 year ago
@Ceberuss "A state of an object doesn't depend on an observer, does it?"
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?
If God created logic, is logic dependent on God? If logic is dependent on God, is it not necessary but rather contingent on God? And if principles of logic are contingent on God, are they not logically necessary?
zarkoff45 6 months ago
@zarkoff45 I don't buy this trick, that things don't make a sound when nobody hears it. Sound is a mechanical wave, which occurs when a tree falls, whether someone is listening or not. That tree is also brown even if nobody watches it and it is solid even if nobody touches it.
Ceberuss 5 months ago
@Ceberuss "Sound is a mechanical wave"
Is sound the physical wave? Sound could also be defined as the sensation excited in the ear or brain or consciousness when the air or other medium is set in motion and then the answer would be "No." Because sound is a sense and is recognized as sound only in our brains. The falling of the tree will produce vibration of the air but if there are no ears connected to brains to hear, there will be no sound.
Of course, dead cats are not a sense.
zarkoff45 5 months ago
@Ceberuss "That tree is also brown even if nobody watches it..."
You have just assumed "the view from nowhere," an omniscient god-like perspective that assumes the unobserved world functions the same as your observed world and according to the scientific rules you know about. You have done this intuitively and Sissy's vid is all about being skeptical of such intuitions.
I do this also. It's an example of how inescapable our intuitions are.
zarkoff45 5 months ago
@zarkoff45
A better take on Sissy's view of intuition:
watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg
zarkoff45 5 months ago
The cat is dead. Old age has certainly done it in.
And hey ... did that box have air-holes in it?
g0ysorg 1 year ago
(cant help but do it)
6 6 is contingent on 5 (and BS btw)
5 Cant conclude yahweh is the specified from that one anymore than any other god.
4 why a mind? why not something else?
3 3 is contingent on 2
2 2 is contingent on 1
1 self contingent. Non-confirm-able. ( besides, on what basis was this concluded?)
OsyenVyeter 1 year ago
Copenhagen was a moron. Quite simply the cat is or is not alive irrespective of the lack of human knowledge on the matter. To assume otherwise is to err greatly on the side of egocentricity and really the Copenhagen theorum can be summed up as our over active frontal lobes doing what they do best : wondering what if. Not that I support T.a.g. Thats even more stupid. Great vid!
OsyenVyeter 1 year ago
@OsyenVyeter Well, you're certainly not the only one to reject Copenhagen, but just FYI, it's named after the city (where Niels Bohr was born), not a person.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Yeah, I knew about Copenhagen being a place, but where my screw up was that from what I discerned from this vid, I thought there was a guy who happened to have the same last name as the place. An awfully odd coincidence I thought to myself, but I suppose one's thinking abilities arent always at their best at 4 in the morning. Thanks for the clarification
OsyenVyeter 1 year ago
The problem with Premise 1 is more simple, IMO than the proposed problem. The first statement is already assuiming the conclusion, just not actully listing it, thus creating a circular reasoing. For logical absolutes to be true, there must be a logical mind to create them first, the assumpition here is that the mind which creates these logical truths was created by another logical mind. This debate is not being had on Jupiter, where (theoritically) no logical mind exsists.
milanthron 1 year ago
@milanthron
So in other words, this would count as a cartesian circle, right?
Lobotaru 1 year ago
Actually, Schrodinger's cat doesn't violate law of excluded middle. At 1:08 you show the formulation for the law of excluded middle (A or !A). In this case A = superposition and !A = not superposition. Or if you define A = "alive", then !A = "not alive" which would include the superposition state.
syrrus21 1 year ago
@syrrus21 Actually, !A doesn't equal the superposition state, since the superposition is BOTH 'alive and not alive.' That's the point.
Apropos of nothing, your user name (minus the numerals) is also my wife's name.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed No. I think this exactly the point that you are missing. The superposition is a separate independent state on par with "alive" and "dead". The best way I can describe superposition is through the cartesian coordinate system. You have two axes, x and y. Let's say we label the line from the origin to the point (1,0) as "alive", and another line from origin to (0,1) as "dead". Now the superposition would be a 3rd line say from origin to (1/2, 1/2) which is 1/2 alive and 1/2 dead..
syrrus21 1 year ago
@syrrus21 You're introducing a separate pair of values, for a four valued logic in your Cartesian example, and a third value in your talk of superposition. That's not the way a two valued logic would map Schrodinger's cat. There are ONLY two possible values: 'alive' and 'not alive'; there is no 'both' on a two valued logic. But there IS a both in the quantum world. Which is why the quantum world breaks excluded middle, since it is a two-valued law.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@syrrus21 It's not half alive and half dead; it is ENTIRELY alive and ENTIRELY dead. That's what a superposition is, not simply a half and half, it's BOTH at the same time.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed In a superposition you can be fractionally alive and dead. That's the whole notion of superposition (linear combinations). Please lookup "quantum superposition" in wikipedia and scroll down to the part with the example of the particle in both locations |a> and |b> in fractional proportions.
With regard to LEM, the venn diagram isn't two circles with overlap. Instead you have three mutually exclusive circles
syrrus21 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed The numbers 1/2 in this case represent the probability that when measured it will change into a certain state. So if the probability that the cat dies is 3/4 and lives is 1/4, then the superposition state will be (1/4, 3/4), etc. This has numbers themselves have nothing to do with the fact that there are three separate states (represented by the lines).
syrrus21 1 year ago
...So you have three separate states, each represented by a line. So when you say A = "alive", you are referring only to the first line. !A would represent the other two lines. It's the kind of problem you run into when try to create verbal analogy of a problem--you lose the exactness of the math behind the physics.
syrrus21 1 year ago
@syrrus21 The problem here isn't with my verbal analogy, it's with binary logic. A two-valued system can't capture the math, and that's exactly why excluded middle breaks down. When you introduce the fractional notation you're introducing fuzzy logic, which can map the quantum states better, but which also defies excluded middle; there IS no middle in fuzzy logic because it's fuzzy.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed There's no fuzzy logic. I'm sorry my example was more confusing than explanatory. Human language can be vague but QM and logic (set theory) are not.
#1) In regular language "alive" and "dead" are mutually exclusive. But in Sch. cat problem they take on a different meaning. In QM, "alive" and "dead" are INDEPENDENT (or mathematically orthogonal) in EXACTLY the same manner as x- and y-axes in cartesian plane. When physicists say cat is both "alive" and "dead", it's a loose way..
syrrus21 1 year ago
@syrrus21 Fuzzy logic is used in quantum mechanics all the time; it's one of the principle applications of fuzzy logic. And while set theory is certainly not essentially fuzzy, there is 'fuzzy set theory' that combines the two and makes much legitimate work out of it. I'm not pulling this out of my ass; the literature on this in physics and mathematics is long and deep.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
"Fuzzy logic" deals with cases where there are more than 2 truth values NOT states. "The cat is alive" is either true or false. "The cat is dead" is either true/false. "The cat is in superposition" is either true/false. Fuzzy logic is not needed for Sch. cat problem.Plz wiki "Fuzzy logic" and the example "applying truth values". In that example, LEM doesn't make sense because you can be in-between "cold" and "warm". In cat prob, there are only 3 discrete choices--alive, dead, or superposition.
syrrus21 1 year ago
...of saying the superposition state can be decomposed into "alive" and "dead" components EXACTLY like the direction northeast can be decomposed into north and east directions. But just because it can be decomposed, northeast is different direction than north or east. Ergo, superposition is different state than "alive" and "dead".
#2) I'll prove LEM mathematically. In sch. cat prob., the universe of states is U={alive, dead, super}. If A={alive}, !A = {dead,super}. Therefore A or !A is true.
syrrus21 1 year ago
@syrrus21 You're cramming two separate states of affairs (dead, super) into one truth value (!A). That's begging the question. There are (at least) three states of affairs: alive, dead and super. To map it accurately you need at least three truth values: (A); (!A); (~A&~!A). Hence, LEM does not apply.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
flawed premise! you are assuming the Schroediners cat hypothosis has been scientifacally proven.
Shroediner designed this thiought experiment to demonstrate how quantum theorists are proably mistaken in their observations of quantum experimental results (which SEEM to indicate observation plays a role in a quantum outcome)
he was attempting to disprove it by linking the quantum world to the macroscopic world and showing that it made no logical sense.
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82 Did you actually watch the video? I spoke to every point you brought up. And you don't 'prove' an interpretation; you support it or you undermine it.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed yea but my point is the quantum world has never actually been directly observed. and what is actually taking place could possibly be different to whart we think is going on.
the only way you could prove it beyong reasonable doubt then you would need to observe the cat in the box without observing it at all. which is illogical
if your puropse is to provoke thought than its a good video
if your purpose is to disprove logical absolutes beyond a shred of doubt than you failed
robertwc82 1 year ago
@robertwc82 No interpretation in science is ever proven beyond a shred of doubt, even when it it's predicted effects are directly observed. But given how accurate the math is, it is definitely proven beyond a reasonable doubt that SOMETHING weird is going on. I included other interpretations PRECISELY to acknowledge that it's not a guarantee that Copenhagen is correct. But it DOES prove that it can be rational to reject excluded middle.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed i woudnt say prove though i would conced that it indicates that it could possibly be rational to reject it, possibly not. its something to think about though. also premise 2 is false and premise 4 is a baseless assumption
robertwc82 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed......at least i think you failed......i should possibly reserve my judgement
robertwc82 1 year ago
The alternative view substitutes the idea of an "irreversible interaction" for the more limited one of "observation." That is, the Copenhagen Interpretation would say a detector records a particular state of a particle with a photographic plate, it gets sent off to some automatic developing machinery, which develops it, packages it. But it gets lost in the mail for 6 months. Finally, you find it, and look at it - only then the observation occurs - and the wave function collapses.
prodprod 2 years ago
@prodprod
But more recent experiments confirm that the taking of measurement actually collapses the wave function, independent of actual conscious observer.
That is - nobody has to open the box. What's necessary is for a sub-atomic event to, in effect, cascade up into the macroscopic world to to the point where become irreversibly entangled. That can be activating a detector or being seen by an observer - or killing a cat in a box.
Superimposition is valid - but only in the subatomic realm.
prodprod 2 years ago
it seems to me that the "Schrodinger's Cat" experiment assumes that the cat is not there to witness its own death.
dillj34555 2 years ago
Yeah, I've often noted that it seems that a cat could collapse the wave function, invalidating the experiment. But then again, if it dies instantly, then maybe it wouldn't. That leads to another paradox: if it lives, then it is conscious and collapses the wave function, meaning it's only a live. But if it dies, then it's not conscious, doesn't collapse the function, and is hence both alive and dead.
Either way, Schrodinger should have chosen a different example.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
@dillj34555 the hypothetical experiment would have made more sense if it was hammer smashing a class instead of poison killing a cat
robertwc82 1 year ago
Wait, I don't understand why the experiment can't be interpreted as such: The cat is either dead or not dead in the box. We don't know because we can't see the cat. The cat is either dead or not dead, and the simple act of a human being knowing or not knowing that the cat is or isn't dead does NOT give it a truth value. I honestly don't understand the logic behind trying to calculate whether the cat is alive or dead since it's independent of our own senses, cognition, etc.
ChaosChronicle 2 years ago
The cat experiment isn't designed to prove the Copenhagen Interpretation. In fact, it was designed to DISprove it. What proves the CI is instead, it's a whole bunch of very complicated mathematical analysis of other very complicated experiments. I can't pretend to understand the details, but the result is fairly unambiguous: the cat is in a superposition, both alive and dead at the same time, despite how bizarre this is to our common-sense notions of how reality works.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Thanks for the reply :)
So basically there's no perfect solution to the experiment, but the Copenhagen Interpretation is the prevailing answer for now?
ChaosChronicle 2 years ago
That's my understanding. I'm not a physicist, and I don't pretend to have a complete grasp of this material, but as best as my informed non-physicist mind can reckon, CI is the best game in town. But who knows what the future will hold?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
and how would you relate all this to transcendental existence/intelligence?
What is the point ?God exists and doesn't exist at the same time ?
EmperorLibertarian 2 years ago
It's very specific to TAG. It shows that at least one of the so-called 'transcendental laws of logic' isn't really so transcendent; in fact, it collapses in certain contexts (namely the quantum). And that at least suggests that we ought not be so confident that there are transcendent laws of logic at all. That knocks the legs out from underneath TAG.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Comment removed
sashajw1234 2 years ago
One of the many problems with the Copenhagen Interpretation is that it requires either that God exists or that the universe was designed explicitly for us and that CI is false.
Without an observer, no quantum interaction is fixed. So either God watched all the stars form or the universe's many wave functions did not collapse until we evolved to observe it.
It's borked. It requires sapient life forms for any quantum event to collapse.
bdf2718 2 years ago
I actually don't think it requires sapient life forms to collapse a quantum event; it simply says that sapient life forms are ONE WAY that quantum events collapse. There may be other ways to collapse them, but we can't (or at least haven't yet figured out how to) determine what they are. Sapience is a sufficient, not (necessarily) a necessary condition.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Sorry, but the Copenhagen Interpretation requires sapient life forms. Otherwise the cat's flea could notice it was dead.
BTW, they opened the box in Copenhagen. But they haven't told me the results yet. So for me the cat is still in a superposition state. The same applies for every quantum event in the universe - if I don't know it, it hasn't happened.
To the tune of "Wonderful Copenhagen": Mystical, mystical Copenhagen...
bdf2718 2 years ago
EVIL SPOCK FTW!!!!!
nice videos man
dattebenforcer 2 years ago
Aside from the common complaint in this video that it could have made the nature of the Schrodinger "thought experiment" aspect clearer. I have another problem with the first premise of TAG. Isn't the first proposition unknowable and basically meaningless? How can we assume anything about a non-physical universe? Either it's meaningless or it's begging the question. Even if you accepts that there are logical absolutes (which I don't) how can you say they aren't dependent on the physical universe
AHBritton 2 years ago
Is there something simple I'm missing here?
AHBritton 2 years ago
@AHBritton
"How can we assume anything about a non-physical universe?"
I would have to agree. THe way I understand it, something is labelled to be true because it is proven to be so. I would say its pretty hard to know that something is true (premise 1) if there is no known way to prove it to be so.
I
sashajw1234 2 years ago
This in no way implies there are no logical absolutes. The problem in this video is a lack of proper definitions. Define "alive" precisely... Define "dead" precisely... is one the negation of the other?
otakurocklee 2 years ago
No, it does not prove there are no logical absolutes, nor did I ever claim it did. What it shows is that one of the most well established logical absolutes is not, in fact, absolute. This casts doubt on the idea that the other so-called absolutes are in fact absolute, but it does not prove it.
No proper definitions are needed. All that is needed is a simple premise that you your self provided: alive is the negation of dead, and vice versa. Define them however you want so long as they fit that.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Does being in a state of superposition fall into the category of "alive" or "not alive" ?
otakurocklee 2 years ago
If the cat is in a superposition, then by definition it is both "alive" and "not alive." That's the point.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
@SisyphusRedeemed That is meaningless... it truly does not mean anything... Either the state of being alive includes the superposition state, in which case we can definitely say the cat IS alive when the box is closed... or the state of being alive does not include the superposition state in which we can definitely say the cat is NOT alive...
Or you can say the cat does not exist when the box is closed...
otakurocklee 2 years ago
Take it up with a quantum physicist. They seem to find the notion of superposition quite meaningful. They use it in experiments daily to predict very, very specific results.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I have no disagreements or problems with states of superposition. What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that quantum superposition implies a logical paradox. There is no logical paradox in quantum mechanics.
It's simply a matter of definition. If I define alive as including the superposition state, then the cat is alive. If my definition of alive doesn't include the superposition state, then the cat is not alive.
otakurocklee 2 years ago
Actually, you do have a problem with superposition. What superposition means is that something exists in two mutually inconsistent states. Take the cat out of it, just talk about the particle: to say a particle exists in a superposition means it has both decayed and not decayed. This is just basic quantum mechanics here.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
@SisyphusRedeemed This isn't correct.
Take an electron that is about to be observed... it exists in a state of superposition of "spin up" and "spin down"... this does not mean that it has both spin up and spin down at the same time. it has no spin yet... It has the potential to be either spin up or down when observation happens. there is no paradox because spin up and spin down are not negations of each other... we have a third state of "no spin".
otakurocklee 2 years ago
could we please stop using cats in this experiment, they've had enough quantum torture, what about schrodinger's banker?
mjjuna 2 years ago
Granting everything you've said in this argument, you eliminate one thing we thought was absolute. You conclude that there are no absolutes at all. Is this not a non sequitor? Also, is it an absolute assertion that there are no absolutes? In essence, what you are attempting to do is use a logical argument to debunk logical arguments. Correct me if I'm wrong.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
It's not logical arguments, I'm attacking, it's logical absolutes. If you presuppose that all logical argument is based on logical absolutes, then you're begging the question. You're right that this video doesn't prove there are NO logical absolutes, but it does show that at least one of the principle alleged absolutes is not. That calls into question the rest. And it's not ALL absolutes I'm attacking, just LOGICAL absolutes.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
You claim that the law of excluded middle does not always hold by showing an instance in which it doesn't hold. If it does not hold in one case, it does not hold in all cases, such is your reasoning. But, that reasoning itself employs the law of excluded middle. So should we not, by your own argument, question YOUR conclusion? Logic is BASED on absolutes i.e. the truth is non-contradictory.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
No, the law of excluded middle DOES hold in SOME cases. It's just not UNIVERSAL.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
So how do we distinguish between what does hold and what doesn't? If you use the law of excluded middle to show that the law of excluded middle doesn't hold in one case, you've shown that the law of excluded middle is universal, even applicable to itself.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
Proving that X can apply to itself does not prove that X is universal; all it proves is that it applies to one more thing. (ex-The word 'polysyllabic' applies to itself, but it does not follow that it applies to everything.)
We distinguish the same way we distinguish anything: start on a case by case basis, see if we notice any patterns. If patterns seems to hold after repeated observations, have tentative confidence that they will continue to hold in future like cases.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
So, in this case, we assume that the law works in order to determine that it doesn't in all cases? The problem that I have with your method of distinguishing in which cases it holds and in which it doesn't is this: you are now simply employing a new law of logic, the inductive principle. Are we now to assume that the inductive principle is absolute but the law of excluded middle is not?
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
The meowing of the cat or the scratching on the box didn't count in that experiment. LOL
I am sure, even you must know that has to be one of the most preposterous arguments yet? 1 star for trying and 4 stars for entertaining me.
freedbyliberty 2 years ago
There's a simpler issue with the "TAG" argument. Even if true, it does not prove any one god in particular. It says nothing of Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, or any other religious deity, so any theist using it is proving nothing at all.
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
That is simpler, but I don't think it's a very good place to draw the line. You're right it doesn't prove any specific god, but it still proves SOME sort of god. That's sufficent to prove the atheist wrong, and that would be a victory for the theist.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
A victory for the theist? Hardly. They still are left with their religion being almost certainly wrong.
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
A theist, as such, is simply someone who believes there is a God; they don't necessarily belong to any particular religion. If we limit ourselves to the question 'is there a God?' TAG (if it works) is sufficient to answer that question in the affirmative. That means the atheist is wrong. As to WHICH god exists, that could perhaps be settled by another argument. So why concede TAG? Why give them an inch, when it's a bad argument on it's face?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Few physicists would claim to understand what quantum mechanics "mean," so I certainly don't claim to. But I feel that you didn't give enough attention at all to the instrumentalist interpretation. Are they basically anti-realists in regard to quantum physics?
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
I can't claim to fully understand it either. And clearly there is a lot more that can be said about each of the interpretations (and more.) But I don't think the instrumentalists are necessarily anti-realists about quantum mechanics, although they may be. The core idea as I understand it is simply that mathematical elegance is more important than conceptual clarity. Science should give us models, not understanding.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Well, I believe that on that level, all the science can provide us with is function. Structure is inaccessible to scientific observation, so scientific "models" are necessary to advance our understanding.
But to throw out the law of excluded middle seems... ridiculous... especially when there are alternate interpretations. Abandon that law, and the mathematics used to reach that conclusion are called into question. Pi can never not equal 3.14159, etc., can it?
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
You might be right about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics undermining the transcendental argument for God's existence, but I think it's a wee bit premature to claim that the argument is buried by modern physics -- especially when there are alternate interpretations that, to my mind, are more attractive and less earth-shattering than a denial of logical absolutes.
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
One might wonder, given the Copenhagen interpretation, if it's possible for both theism AND atheism to be true at the same time, in the same sense. ;P
ElasticGiraffe 2 years ago
Most physicists agree that this is nonsense. It is absurd to say that macroscopic objects can be in a superposition of different states.
The most accepted explanation is that the triggering of the Geiger counter collapses the wave function of the particle. Where does quantum mechanics say that there must be human intervention to collapse a wavefunction?
Before we open the box the cat is either dead or alive. We can't expect quantum behavior from macroscopic objects.
mmemo81 2 years ago
You're missing the point. The issue isn't whether or not we could put a macroscopic object into a superposition; that's simply an illustration used to help people grasp the idea of a superposition. The point is that quantum particles DO exhibit superpositions, and hence, the law of excluded middle is not absolute. QED.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Anyway in your video you say "... the cat is in what's called a superposition..." instead of helping people grasp the idea of superposition you are making things harder. Somewhere in the statistics of very large numbers superposition of states is no longer allowed when you consider systems of many particles (of the order of 10 to the 23 for macroscopic objects). So your argument based on the cat is invalid. You would have to make an argument based on a real quantum system.
mmemo81 2 years ago
very nice.
jrev37 2 years ago
I guess until then I'll have to stand by the logical absolutes then.
domino1492 2 years ago
That's exactly what i never see in these explanations. The data and explanations.
domino1492 2 years ago
That's probably because the data and math are ridiculously complicated, and only really comprehensible if you have an advanced degree in mathematics and/or particle physics. Presentations like this one are made by educated non-experts for interested non-experts.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
SisyphusRedeemed, it is possibleto get a feel for the data without an advanced degree. There are many books which break it down into easily understandable terms and explain why the evidence is so strong.
transferosome 2 years ago
Indeed. But given his level of resistance (which I applaud) I suspect that 'a feel for the data' might still be insufficient.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Superposition can be explained in devastatingly convincing terms without dry numbers. :)
transferosome 2 years ago