Philosophy block?

Post Reply New Topic

So I came across a random picture of the 1927 Solvay Conference the other day and it got me thinking about Schroedinger and his cat experiment. The idea of not being able to confirm something's state (alive vs dead) without seeing it is very confusing to me. Same with the, "If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" question. Well of course it does. With the cat, you break a vial of poison-- can't you calculate how long it will take to kill the cat based on the volume of poison and rate of exposure? I don't understand the idea of philosophical uncertainty.

When the tree falls, its matter gains momentum and collides with the matter that forms the ground and said collision produces a sound. When the poison vial breaks, the poison is released and the cat is exposed to it, leading to the cat's eventual demise.

I don't understand how the answers can be anything but those. I understand some aspects of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, so I mean I understand some aspects of quantum, but I just cannot wrap my head around Schroedinger's experiment or the tree question. Maybe I'm too much of a literal thinker? Does anyone else understand this a little better that can help explain it? Or do you struggle with these concepts too?

Different people will present the "tree falling in the woods" question in different ways. The answer isn't so important, its just supposed to make you contemplate the nature of reality.

That's not what Schroedinger's cat experiment is all about. It's about quantum states, pure and simple.

Either the cat is alive or dead so long as we can observe the cat. Alive represents one quantum state. Dead represents the opposite quantum state. If you can't know with certainty which quantum state one is, then it's assigned a third quantum state in which it is simultaneously both and neither--it is both alive AND dead AND neither alive nor dead. It exists in that state until it can actually be observed at which point it moves to a positive/negative state.

It's an allegory that uses the PERCEIVED state (purely in the mind) to describe quantum behavior. A particle can be +, -, or simultaneously both/neither. The particle exists in the both/neither state UNTIL it moves + or -. It's LIKE the state of the cat in the perceiver's mind: If you are uncertain as to the actual state of the cat, the perceived state is both/neither. Once you observe the cat to see which way the experiment went, the state IN YOUR MIND changes to reflect reality. Particles behave the same way: They are in both/neither states UNTIL they are acted upon to be one or the other.

To sum up:
The quantum state of your mind if you know the cat is alive = +
The quantum state of your mind if you know the cat is dead = -
The quantum state of your mind if you don't know = simultaneously +/- AND neither + nor -.
Apply concept to quantum particles and you have a pretty good idea how they work, i.e. it is possible that particles can exist in a third state such that they are both/neither + or - states.


In REALITY, a real cat can only be alive or dead. Opening the box doesn't change whether the cat is alive or dead. It's already in one state or the other. Whether one is around to hear a tree fall in a forest changes nothing about whether or not it makes a sound--the correct answer depends on semantics, how you define "sound." If sound is vibration, then it can be reasonably assumed the tree makes sound; unless, of course, it falls in a vacuum. But ordinarily, yes, it makes sound, and it doesn't need us to hear it to make sound. If the definition of sound depends on PERCEIVED vibration, then no, the tree doesn't make sound. You could ask the question "If God never made man, would God still exist?" It's an absurd question, because if a Supreme Being exists, He certainly doesn't need His creation to tell Him whether or not He exists. If you use the tree as a QM model, if no one is around to hear the tree fall, then the tree simultaneously neither made nor didn't make sound AND both did make/didn't make sound. You can't use that as a measure of reality, but rather a measure of the mental state of the person pondering the question. If the person pondering the question depends on a definition of sound that merely requires vibration to exist as such, then the person has moved his mental state from the 3rd state to a + state. If the person pondering the question depends on a definition in which sound must be perceived, he moved his mental state from the 3rd state to a - state. If the poor guy can't make up his mind, the mental state remains in the 3rd state until somebody slaps him around and makes him come to a conclusion one way or the other. It's not about the reality of the tree, but how we think about the tree, and applying that to QM.

And yes, you're being too literal... Schroedinger's Cat is an allegory. It has nothing to do with an actual cat.

And don't forget that Schroedinger himself intended the thought experiment to be a criticism of contemporary ideas of QM. He was deliberately being absurd to highlight a weakness of some QM interpretations. However, if you allegorically liken quantum states to mental states, it does somewhat ease the pain!

Paraconsistent logic (google Paraconsistent Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy ) was invented because the contradictions at the quantum level will emerge at our macro state. For example, take a contradiction such as this is a particle and not a particle (a wave).
A and not A
Add something absurd, such as "the queen of England eats gerbils." Let "B" represent that proposition.
A or B is true because A is true but B is not.
Remember that not A is also true (our first proposition )
Therefore not A or B
Therefore B must be true!
Paraconsistent logic was invented to prevent such absurdities.
Howecer, for me that there is a contradiction at the quantum level is astounding even if its effect is limited to the quantum level. For example, if someone said that square circles exist at the quantum level would blow my mind!
As for the tree in the forest,how could it have fallen if no one had seen it fall in the first place?

Sorry about the delay in replying. I had read the thread a couple of times, but was trying to gather my thoughts and reason through things as best I could before I replied.

AngelRho-- See, there's my problem. I can wrap my head around a particle being pos or neg, but not simultaneously both or neither! Unless there's a state of neutrality, which in this case there isn't. It's fascinating to me, but I can't quite conceptualize it. And I don't mean to sound arrogant, but that's very rare for me. I can generally pick up obscure concepts (astronomy is my primary area, but I can pick up physics pretty well too), but quantum and the concept of particles being simultaneously in both or neither of two possible states just escapes me.

I have to admit that it makes me feel quite dumb, which isn't something I'm used to feeling-- it's uncomfortable.

See the reality concept I get. If something is, then it is, whether you observe it or not. But while I seem to be able to understand perception bringing something into existence in theory (referring to God's existence here), when it comes down to it, I'm stuck on the same point as in the quantum issue! If something is, then it is, regardless of whether or not I am here to see it. It's like in my mind, things are concrete if they exist and irrelevant if they don't. I wish that I had a more abstract method of thought in this situation, but I don't and I don't seem able to get around it.

Blah! Hopefully I'm able to wrap my mind around this concept someday. Thank you so much for trying to explain it to me-- I really appreciate the time and effort to type everything up.

For the second response, really! How interesting Makes me feel a bit better, actually, that it was intentionally absurd

wittgenstein-- Oh my goodness, my mind is going in a few circles after rereading that a few times I'll have to read up more on paraconsistent logic and try to absorb it over time. Sometimes it takes me a little while to absorb a new, particularly complex topic. Square circles, I can't imagine! I think they'd lose me at that point haha.