h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I like this entry. Nicely explained. I take issue with the idea that the cat is both dead and alive. It seems to have become a bit of a taken for granted by the "one handed clap" cult.

I'm not a scientist, but I'm not an idiot either - well, there's a high(ish) probability that I'm not a complete blithering idiot, anyway. So why should I feel self-conscious about admitting that "if a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it", I truly believe it's going to make sound waves whether anyone's there to enjoy them or not. And what kind of egocentric nut really believes that whether a cat's alive or dead depends on whether they're there to appreciate the fact.

It seems that quantum physics works, from what I've read (not enough to know enough to argue about it really). But Shrodinger's thought experiment, aimed at highlighting what he perceived to be the silliness of the ideas of quantum physics doesn't work, because electrons can behave in ways that cats can't behave, apparently. The electron may be doing odd things that are difficult to grasp (for me at least) but I can't see why any reasonable, rational person would harbour any doubts about a cat's ability to be both dead and alive at the same time. I'm sure I don't have to qualify that by pointing out that I'm not talking about having cells in its body that are dying while new ones are being made. But just in case, I'm talking about the cat being both dead (in the sense that the person who loved it wouldn't want it to be dead) or alive (in the sense that the same person would prefer it to be alive).

We have everyday experience of the behaviour of cats but we don't have any conscious experience of the behaviour of electrons. I'm not qualified to comment on the spin of electrons but I know the sort of things cats are capable of and being both dead and alive at the same time isn't one of them.

Let's see if I can air this out a little (but I'm not promising anything, mind you)

The scientific stuff behind the catinthebox is explained relatively well in the article (I hope) so let's focus on the other side.

The idea is this, from a philosophical standpoint anyway--how do you know something has happened without experiencing it? Well, you don't really. If something happens somewhere in the world that has no effect on you (meaning it doesn't interact with your 5 senses or your intellect; you didn't directly experience it and you didn't, say, read about it either) it in no way changes YOUR universe because it had no impact on you whatsoever. Therefore, it is impossible to tell whether something has happened or not without observing it or learning about it. Make sense?

Ok, so now we apply this to the cat. there's an even shot that the cat is alive or dead, but since we can't tell one way or another till we look, the cat exists in what's called a 'superposition of states'. It's alive, but it's dead also. We have insufficient information to tell because the cat doesn't interact with our percieveable universe in any way. it only snaps into one state or the other when you look into the box and the cat interacts with your universe, your 5+1 senses.

I hope that makes sense as it is 3:30 am in New York and I've had a very busy day. Do feel free to respond.

Triv

Your explanations are lovely and clear and I don't think I have a problem with them. If I do, it'll be due to my shortcomings and not yours.

The thing I have the problem with, is confusing probability with actuality. The notion that a cat actually is both dead and alive until the moment you determine by observation that it's one or the other, seems exactly like solipsism to me. If I believed in astrology or some other supernatural stuff, I might be able to accept the idea. It doesn't sound much like science though.

Whether I'm aware of an event or not is, as far as the event is concerned, irrelevant. If I came across a dead wasp in my attic that had lain undisturbed for 3 years, would the wasp suddenly die 3 years ago because I'd just noticed its corpse, according the theory?

You say that the Copenhagen Interpretation isn't wrong and that experiments have proven that. I don't want to involve you in a lot of work, but if you happen to know without having to dig it out, what experiments were they? Did they involve anything as "everyday" as a cat? Because I have no argument with quantum physics. I know as much as most people know about it (hardly anything at all). I was under the impression though that things behave differently at the quantum level and you wouldn't expect a cat to go in for that sort of (probability waveform?) behaviour.

Do you, yourself subscribe to this idea that something can be in two mutually exclusive states (dead and alive for example) at the same time, up until the point of observation?