Schrodinger's Cat TAGs Logical Absolutes (in the Nuts)

A brief criticism of one version of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (T.A.G.). In short, quantum physics suggests that logical absolutes are not as absolute as you might think they are.

Opening music: Underneath the Stars by The Cure

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Schrodinger's
• Cat
• TAG
• quantum
• physics
• Copenhagen
• interpretation
• Transcendental
• Argument
• for
• the
• existence
• of
• God
• at

[Roenazarrek]

well can't the cat know if its alive or dead?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@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.

[OpenAirAtheist]

@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. 

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@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.

[OpenAirAtheist]

@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.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[212Assain]

what if you don't look in the box BUT(T) grab the cat without looking in?

[Voidsworn]

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...

[zarkoff45]

@zarkoff45

A better take on Sissy's view of intuition:

watch?v=fUYjnL2PqUg

[zarkoff45]

@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]

@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.

[Ceberuss]

@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.

[zarkoff45]

@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]

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?

[OpenAirAtheist]

@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.