![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
it's an illustration of duality in quantum states, where the act of observing creates a result.
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:08,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
and confused
*flips though the ladybird book of Quantum Theory*
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:10,
archived)
*flips though the ladybird book of Quantum Theory*
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
"to be is to be perceved" said Berkeley
so there is no result of any experiment untill you have a look
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:15,
archived)
so there is no result of any experiment untill you have a look
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
you are a tree falling in the woods kind of philosopher?
;o)
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:18,
archived)
;o)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
the Sun would never let facts get in the way of a good story.
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:12,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
edit: in that it was a thought experiment to show the seeming absurdity of quantum mechanics, given the superposition of 2 different probabilistic wave functions which collapse into a real world event after the observation of the event by a conscious observer. I think
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:12,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
best explanation ever
edit:oops, credit to ClockworkDespot as well www.b3ta.com/board/3351596
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:22,
archived)
edit:oops, credit to ClockworkDespot as well www.b3ta.com/board/3351596
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
i.e. until a radioactive particle has been observed by someone it has both decayed and not decayed with certain probabilities. What Schrodinger did was say, "What if a decaying particle were set up to kill a cat?" Then the cat is both dead and alive.
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:34,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
-what state is the cat in?
i dont know
-what state is the cat in?
i dunno
-what state is the cat in!?
umm.. indeterminate state?
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:52,
archived)
i dont know
-what state is the cat in?
i dunno
-what state is the cat in!?
umm.. indeterminate state?
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
it exists in an indeterminate state, which will not become determined until observed by a conscious mind (this of course makes the assumption that cats are not conscious), hence the collapse of the wave functions into a definate state (ie. the cat is really in an indeterminate state, it's not just that the observer doesn't know)
edit:plus what bagpuss said ^^^ (apart from the both dead and alive bit at the end :)
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:36,
archived)
edit:plus what bagpuss said ^^^ (apart from the both dead and alive bit at the end :)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
is that Schrodinger really didnt like cats
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:40,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
he certainly didn't think they were conscious, which is a bit debatable
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:42,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
for Wittgenstein, conciousness is impossible without language
for for Descartes "an animal screaming in pain is like a chiming clock"
that Descartes didnt like any bloody animal it seems. twat.
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:44,
archived)
for for Descartes "an animal screaming in pain is like a chiming clock"
that Descartes didnt like any bloody animal it seems. twat.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
although they seemed to miss the fact that language is merely a tool to convey the approximate state of one or more concepts from one mind to another, and I think that animals do that perfectly well (and between their own species, probably even better). I think that the whole non-conscious animal thing is a throwback to a Christian world-view. And don't get me started on the fact that when Descarte said "I think therefore I am" he pre-supposed the existence of an "I".
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:49,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
in Descates' Meditations he explains in the first chapter how he must doubt everything. then goes on this massive leap of faith that he exists because he doubts and doubt is a type of thinking. seems contradictory, in my opinion.
although, his ontological argument in the next chapter is second to none (as st anselm makes very little logical sense)
and im guessing this post is going to be particularly squashed up.
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:55,
archived)
although, his ontological argument in the next chapter is second to none (as st anselm makes very little logical sense)
and im guessing this post is going to be particularly squashed up.
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
I guess he was the last of the theologian-scientists (edit: or rather, theologian-scientist-philosophers)
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:43,
archived)
![link to this post #](/images/board_posticon.gif)
that pic should win (or at least come as the 4th winner) for inspiring such interlectualness.ness.
( ,
Sat 19 Jun 2004, 20:49,
archived)