Schroedinger's Cat is Reality

#1
It is described as reality so it must therefore be reality.

The universe splits into two; one in which the cat is alive and the other in which it is dead. God would exist is all possible universes.

The cat's life extends infinitely as the universes split.
Reply
#2
(Jun 20, 2019 03:26 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: . . . The cat's life extends infinitely as the universes split.


That sounds related to the old quantum immortality thought experiment, which is based on the many-worlds interpretation.

First: we don't know which QM interpretation (if any) would actually be the case in a meta-external world derived from physics accounts. Or, if there is no such abstract manner of existence (only the manifested one of outer sensations), then similarly we don't know which internal "story" or model of a meta-external world (if any) that our experienced reality is conforming to as if the former was existentially real.

Second: Quantum suicide/immortality's shortcomings or unlikelihood have been pointed-out by even those who advocate "many-worlds", like Max Tegmark and David Deutsch. (Gizmodo article)
Reply
#3
I'm from the 3rd reality, the one where we don't know and develop a thought experiment to make it interesting.
Reply
#4
(Jun 20, 2019 06:36 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jun 20, 2019 03:26 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: . . . The cat's life extends infinitely as the universes split.


That sounds related to the old quantum immortality thought experiment, which is based on the many-worlds interpretation.

First: we don't know which QM interpretation (if any) would actually be the case in a meta-external world derived from physics accounts. Or, if there is no such abstract manner of existence (only the manifested one of outer sensations), then similarly we don't know which internal "story" or model of a meta-external world (if any) that our experienced reality is conforming to as if the former was existentially real.  

Second: Quantum suicide/immortality's shortcomings or unlikelihood have been pointed-out by even those who advocate "many-worlds", like Max Tegmark and David Deutsch. (Gizmodo article)


What is your opinion of the most popular Quantum Physics account, namely, the copenhagen interpretation? Do you find it to be internally consistent? Me personally, I would say that it is fairly successful at explaining much of reality.
Reply
#5
(Jun 22, 2019 07:30 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: What is your opinion of the most popular Quantum Physics account, namely, the copenhagen interpretation? Do you find it to be internally consistent? Me personally, I would say that it is fairly successful at explaining much of reality.


It's more of an epistemological depiction of "what's going on" that tries to avoid metaphysical realism. It's not committed to the wave function and the collapse being ontologically objective. That I suspect, is the primary reason for its lingering popularity, since most if not all the others require biased dedication to [at least some of] the content of their models being existential.

If someone wants wave function collapse to be real (no agnostic stance), then that's supposedly an orientation held by Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory and the Penrose interpretation.
Reply
#6
(Jun 22, 2019 09:10 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jun 22, 2019 07:30 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: What is your opinion of the most popular Quantum Physics account, namely, the copenhagen interpretation? Do you find it to be internally consistent? Me personally, I would say that it is fairly successful at explaining much of reality.


It's more of an epistemological depiction of "what's going on" that tries to avoid metaphysical realism. It's not committed to the wave function and the collapse being ontologically objective. That I suspect, is the primary reason for its lingering popularity, since most if not all the others require biased dedication to [at least some of] the content of their models being existential.

If someone wants wave function collapse to be real (no agnostic stance), then that's supposedly an orientation held by Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory and the Penrose interpretation.

Using foresight and judgement, I would say you find the Copenhagen interpretation distasteful.
Reply
#7
(Jun 23, 2019 06:49 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:
(Jun 22, 2019 09:10 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jun 22, 2019 07:30 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: What is your opinion of the most popular Quantum Physics account, namely, the copenhagen interpretation? Do you find it to be internally consistent? Me personally, I would say that it is fairly successful at explaining much of reality.

It's more of an epistemological depiction of "what's going on" that tries to avoid metaphysical realism. It's not committed to the wave function and the collapse being ontologically objective. That I suspect, is the primary reason for its lingering popularity, since most if not all the others require biased dedication to [at least some of] the content of their models being existential.

If someone wants wave function collapse to be real (no agnostic stance), then that's supposedly an orientation held by Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory and the Penrose interpretation.

Using foresight and judgement, I would say you find the Copenhagen interpretation distasteful.


No, not perpetually. Its neutrality would obviously appeal (intermittently) to the agnostic side of me with regard to metaphysics. That kind suspended belief about the latter territory is satisfactory from the standpoint that any "positive" commitment to what exists "beyond appearances" is always going be just more belief (though some beliefs are surely more justifiable or less arbitrary than others).

But such pessimism isn't satisfactory from the standpoint of human curiosity, the latter's constant itch of wanting to know everything, of wanting to pretend that some particular abstraction really does exist as other than technical description or lesser speculative proposals. It's always a dance back and forth from skeptically viewing an _X_ as potential BS to recreationally exploring the concept deeper, to for therapeutic purposes even acquiring the conviction for brief intervals that an _X_ has to be the case. Before the skepticism rears its head again and the woodwork of the shantytown tower one climbed to the top of collapses from the former's wakening vibrations.

Then repeat. Though what's occupying the placeholder during the next cycle may likely be a different item.

There is Kant's practical philosophy or reasoning, though, where what seem like necessary ideas can be championed as true for the sake of establishing human rights and universal tenets of morality. (But obviously the latter are different targets of focus than this subject.) In turn, there are counterarguments that Kant didn't even need to recruit the meta-phenomenal or "what's prior-in-rank" to the natural world to establish the global effectiveness of whatever proposed rules (to make people adhere or whatever). But to me -- without the transcendent boot-thumping on the podium for emphasis -- the alternative approach still winds-up looking like dependency upon nothing more than a flimsy social contract or agreement. And some nihilist, relativist, or PoMo rabble-rouser or even rival traditionalist will eventually likewise still come along and start poking at the foundation.

There's perhaps a significant percentage of the human population that still needs the ancient act of reifying some of our (most necessary?) concepts into Platonic-like beings (if they can't be subsumed by one umbrella). It may be ingrained in us. Education can just as much trigger it in people as dissolve it, as there's a lot further to go in that journey then the usual stopping places that public institutions may typically leave a student stranded at, leaving the impression that nothing over the hill is even possible.
Reply
#8
(Jun 23, 2019 09:40 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jun 23, 2019 06:49 PM)Ostronomos Wrote:
(Jun 22, 2019 09:10 PM)C C Wrote:
(Jun 22, 2019 07:30 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: What is your opinion of the most popular Quantum Physics account, namely, the copenhagen interpretation? Do you find it to be internally consistent? Me personally, I would say that it is fairly successful at explaining much of reality.

It's more of an epistemological depiction of "what's going on" that tries to avoid metaphysical realism. It's not committed to the wave function and the collapse being ontologically objective. That I suspect, is the primary reason for its lingering popularity, since most if not all the others require biased dedication to [at least some of] the content of their models being existential.

If someone wants wave function collapse to be real (no agnostic stance), then that's supposedly an orientation held by Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber theory and the Penrose interpretation.

Using foresight and judgement, I would say you find the Copenhagen interpretation distasteful.



Quote:No, not perpetually. Its neutrality would obviously appeal (intermittently) to the agnostic side of me with regard to metaphysics. That kind suspended belief about the latter territory is satisfactory from the standpoint that any "positive" commitment to what exists "beyond appearances" is always going be just more belief (though some beliefs are surely more justifiable or less arbitrary than others). 

Belief can only be maintained temporarily as it rests on shaky grounds. I must tell you that it is possible to logically deduce what is beyond appearances in an absolute manner.

Quote:[quote pid='29445' dateline='1561322454']
But such pessimism isn't satisfactory from the standpoint of human curiosity, the latter's constant itch of wanting to know everything, of wanting to pretend that some particular abstraction really does exist as other than technical description or lesser speculative proposals. It's always a dance back and forth from skeptically viewing an _X_ as potential BS to recreationally exploring the concept deeper, to for therapeutic purposes even acquiring the conviction for brief intervals that an _X_ has to be the case. Before the skepticism rears its head again and the woodwork of the shantytown tower one climbed to the top of collapses from the former's wakening vibrations. 

[/quote]


Ignoring the enigmatic fluff, I would say skepticism drives logic towards reaching an absolute. But the back and forth dance is due to the fact that we are stuck in material illusion.
Reply
Reply
#10
(Jun 20, 2019 03:26 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: It is described as reality so it must therefore be reality.

Just because a description exists (in whatever sense that ideas and meanings exist) and purports to be true, doesn't imply that the description must therefore be true.

Quote:The universe splits into two; one in which the cat is alive and the other in which it is dead.

Maybe. That's a very strong metaphysical interpretation of what originally was (so I hear) intended by Schroedinger as a reductio-ad-absurdem of a certain variety of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Quote:God would exist is all possible universes.

The cat's life extends infinitely as the universes split.

And those sentences don't seem to follow from the physics at all.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)