Schrödinger's Coin Toss

My own variation to the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. Could the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics invalidate the the third law of logic? Or could there be a much simpler explanation?

Honestdiscussioner's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-8EPjxo7gE

SisyphusRedeemed's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAj9siDbb74

(you should subscribe to both of them by the way!)

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Schrödinger's
• Cat
• thought
• experiment
• Logical
• absolutes
• Honestdiscussioner
• SisyphusRedeemed
• TAG

[Artifactorfiction]

From what I've read – No. This has been Tested for (EPR has been experimentally checked) – i.e. the state has not been determined yet - its not a case of we just can't see exactly/clearly which state the quantum system is in - it just isn't in 'a state' - its in a 'mixture' of states - which at the macro size seems absurd but this is how reality really seems to work at the smallest levels.

[vesman81]

My understanding of quantum superposition is that as the size of the particle increases the wave function decreases, meaning that it has fewer options for superposition.

it sounds like seeing quantum particles is akin to seeing a very low resolution picture. Nothing has a defined edge and its all kinda blurry and hazy and you can't be sure where something actually is, especially very small items in the picture, but once observed it becomes higher res.

[herbiepop]

@KnownNoMore However you thought experiment does not address Schrodinger's paradox. Until you learn more about quantum mechanics you will not be able to appreciate this. Read Feynman's book. It will only take a few hours, it's quite a slim volume. You will learn something to expand you horizons even if you don't agree with me. I would also recommend his undergraduate lectures on Physics; a bit more of an undertaking but worthwhile, even so long after they were written.

[herbiepop]

@KnownNoMore No there are no necessary facts, including this one, i.e. it is a fact but not necessary. I am using logic, not to argue with the validity of logic but merely to accept its own limitations. Just as one may use maths to demonstrate that maths is imperfect. All of this is irrelevant to the point. You cannot demonstrate that logic necessarily applies to the real world. Quantum mechanics apparently demonstrates that it does not. That is sufficient (if not necessary).

[KnownNoMore]

"Correct there are no 'necessary facts' that apply to the real world. "

So this statement is necessarily true either?

Is it necessarily true that ANY statement is true?

Is it possible that literally nothing exists?

Could it be true that no statement including this one, is true?

Is it possible that there are no possibilities?

Could it be true that you don't exist from your own perspective?

there are obviously necessary truths. You are arguing with logic itself... using logic

[herbiepop]

@KnownNoMore I don't know about your dreams but mine are filled with logical contradictions. I can be male and female at the same time. I can be in two places at once. I can be both child and man. I can perform actions without reactions. I can be large enough to reach across a table and small enough to walk under it all without transformation. I can also assert anything about my dreams without having to 'prove' it and without you being able to 'disprove' it.

[herbiepop]

@KnownNoMore As axioms they are merely statements that cannot be proven and yet you continue to assert that they are fundamentally true. This is merely an assertion on your part. Correct there are no 'necessary facts' that apply to the real world.

[herbiepop]

@KnownNoMore Your ‘square circle’ example is illuminating. A square circle is not a logical contradiction it is a flawed definition. Be that as it may, the concepts of circles and squares are extrapolations of real world experience but neither can exist in the real world, they are idealisations.

[KnownNoMore]

@herbiepop

I'm dutch so maybe dare was the wrong word. But no you cant dream of being both a butterfly and a man, at least not at once, or else it would be a mix. But not 100% man 100% butterfly at the exact same time.

"You are merely asserting that the 'laws of logic' are universal you cannot 'prove' it."

They prove themselves, thats what an axiom is. A fact which automatically has to be assumed even when trying to negate it. no assumptions here

So you think there are no necessary facts?

[herbiepop]

@KnownNoMore 'Dare' is a curious emotional response when having a discussion. However, I can 'dream' of both being a thing and not being for example. I can dream of being simultaneously a wave and a particle for example with contradictory properties or that I am both a butterfly and a man. You are merely asserting that the 'laws of logic' are universal you cannot 'prove' it. You assume the 'laws of logic' as an axiom. They do not necessarily apply to the world of experience.