Anyone with hair like that must know what they're talking about.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is your stance on AI?
Schrödinger's Cat
- Thread starter Arbiter
- Start date
Anyone with hair like that must know what they're talking about.
Merely thinking about an object does not make it real. Ergo, your second question is a resounding no. As for the follow up about mentally affecting physical objects by merely thinking about them...well, erm...uh...not sure how to answer that without insulting your intelligence or comparing you with Junior (I suppose it's one in the same)...
There's a physical connection being made there to interpret the brain-patterns which is very different to the OP's comparison within the context of Schrodinger's cat...
Geriatrix
Executive Member
Yeah. Its his experience. He's done lots of "finger in plugs" tests wondering if the circuit is complete or not when he doesn't watch the switch.
BinaryJack
Spam
Arbiter
Well-Known Member
How on earth can the mere act of observation be so significant that it solidifies something into a single state?
How does one defien the act of observation? Taking a nanoruler to a microbe? Looking at something?
How does one defien the act of observation? Taking a nanoruler to a microbe? Looking at something?
Ok, when you think about moving your arm, are you mentally affecting the movement of a physical object (your arm) when you decide to move it?As for the follow up about mentally affecting physical objects by merely thinking about them...well, erm...uh...not sure how to answer that without insulting your intelligence or comparing you with Junior (I suppose it's one in the same)...
And when you mentally think about making an observation about a physical object (e.g. an electron), are you mentally affecting the quantum status of the electron when you decide to observe it?
smokey
Honorary Master
AGAIN. I was just pointing out that we can use the brain alone to interact with things around us. wizard said it wasn't possible... I said it was. Whether by a physical connection to the brain or not the fact remains that it is possible - currently. I was not referring to the OP's post.arf9999
MyBroadband Member
I think that someone has missed the point here. Schrödinger's Cat is an analogy, a way of explaining a very complex theme. In the analogy, observing the cat can be achieved by opening the box and looking at it. Trying to add new concepts to a simplified analogy is pointless or, at worst, mischievous.
Sorry smokey, when I answered that question it was in the context of metaphysics and in my mind I was imagining something like psychokinesis (which is where I thought Arbiter was leading the questions to).
Last edited:
BinaryJack
Spam
Can I get some clarity from Arbiter where this discussion is leading to.
It will make my life so much less complicated to know whether he is discussing the actual "schrodingers cat" thought experiment and its relevance or whether this is leading to a more "metaphysical" thread.
An entire post without a single use of the word "intentionality" - I'm impressed.
But the difference being that there is a physical connection. I'm assuming the OP is referring to effects brought about without any physical contact whatsoever, as that is implied in the post. Merely thinking about an object has no effect on it's state. That's Gregg Barden territory and the basis for this quantum gobbledygoock and I'm sure even you know that he's about as much of a scientist as my kitchen sink is a spacecraft...
There is no clear evidence either way and depends one one's interpretation of what is merely a thought experiment. Many worlds theories, objective collapse theories, ensemble theories etc...
Not quite. All that we can say with any reasonable degree of certainty is that it requires physical interaction afaik. I'm happy to learn if this isn't the case...
Arbiter
Well-Known Member
Yes Kage, I am talking about the ONE and ONLY and ACTUAL Schrodinger's tikkytak.
What I'm saying here is that someone must be mistaken. Because saying something can exist in two states, alive and dead in this case, doesn't really flow well with basic physics. If I've got it right, SC was actually designed as a thought experiment that challenged the Copenhagen interpretation.
Also, the question here is to quantify the concept of observation. What is considered observation? Because apparently observation can solidify something into one of its possible states. Observation can't be just looking at something, because all that that implies is the intake of reflected light into receptive organs.
There must be another, more specific meaning. And perhaps that meaning includes some more, as Kage puts it, "metaphysical" "ways of observing".
What I'm saying here is that someone must be mistaken. Because saying something can exist in two states, alive and dead in this case, doesn't really flow well with basic physics. If I've got it right, SC was actually designed as a thought experiment that challenged the Copenhagen interpretation.
Also, the question here is to quantify the concept of observation. What is considered observation? Because apparently observation can solidify something into one of its possible states. Observation can't be just looking at something, because all that that implies is the intake of reflected light into receptive organs.
There must be another, more specific meaning. And perhaps that meaning includes some more, as Kage puts it, "metaphysical" "ways of observing".
You trolling again there old chap? Your goading is really uncalled for, grow up.
You have not answered the actual question though.
Here:
When you think about moving your arm, are you mentally affecting the movement of a physical object (your arm) when you decide to move it?
Objective collapse theories are actually compatible with consciousness being explained by quantum mechanics. But which one do you prefer though?
Last edited:
'twas but harmless banter. Do you work in HR?
On the contrary...
None of them and all of them at the same time. It's a thought experiment and I don't have the inclination, expertise, education nor equipment to prove any of them right or wrong...
'twas but mindless goading
.Questions:
1) When you think about moving your arm, are you mentally affecting the movement of a physical object (your arm) when you decide to move it?
2) When you think about typing a word, are you mentally affecting the arrangement of electrons on your screen by mentally affecting the movement of your fingers?
Could be
Exactly.. with basic.. newton or Einstein physics.
Newtons physics had flaws (ie.. Newtons laws of physics dont apply to everything).. and didnt apply to everything.. which is why Einstein came along with special relativity as an explanation for those flaws.
However, neither Newton or Einsteins physics could explain what happens on the quantum level. Neither explanation or model worked on the quantum level. So a whole new set of physics had to be discovered.
Theres a thread I made in this section called "The Elegant Universe".. I think a lot of the answers you are looking for are in the link in my OP. Watch the videos, get a 101 in cosmology.
Whether you agree or disagree with quantum mechanics is unimportant. It exists and has PRACTICAL real world "we use this stuff" application. So clearly the mathematical theory has being converted into practical reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer <=--- Computers that user superposition and entanglement.
I also suggest you watch a documentary by the BBC called "The Atom" (3 part series)... You can get it of the Pirate Bay. It deals with this as well.
Last edited:
Arbiter
Well-Known Member
No, it is not Kage. You really WANT me to have an agenda of some sort, don't you? So that is somehow vindicates your lack of insight? It won't kill you to put one foot in the unknown while keeping the other in the herenow. You might come up with something fundamentally brilliant if you try that. On the other hand, having both feet in the herenow will doom you to a lifetime of reciting the greatness of others, throwing boundless potential out the window.
Why don't you assist in reaching a definition of observation? That would clear up a lot of doubt. Because until observation is defined, nearly any interpretation of it would be scientifically correct. Including your so called "metaphysical" ways of observation.
Why don't you assist in reaching a definition of observation? That would clear up a lot of doubt. Because until observation is defined, nearly any interpretation of it would be scientifically correct. Including your so called "metaphysical" ways of observation.
Arbiter
Well-Known Member
But if SC is correct, then it means something can be dead and alive at the same time. And that by the arbitrary act of observing it, you are forcing it into a state.
Explain that wiz.
Explain that wiz.