Ok, i'm having trouble understanding this, here's what i know.
A cat in put in to a box with a deadly object.
The does object does something.
We don't know if the cat survived or not until we check.
Conclusion: thus the cats life is determined based on observation.
Here's my problem, HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK.
How does looking at something determine the outcome. Wouldn't is make sense to say that you observed or recorded the result? Maybe i'm misinterpreting something.
Someone help me
...
The universe is lazy it doesn't bother figuring that shit out until some asshole makes it get off its ass and kill the damned cat.
Because until the box is opened, the cat is in a theoretical state of limbo. You don't know the state of the cat until you open the box.
Another example:
You know that your wife is cheating on you with another man. You know that he is either white or black. But until you open your wife's closet, he exists as both black and white simultaneously. Once you open the closet, becomes either white or black.
ok i think i'm starting to get it.
Without knowing the race of man your wife is cheating with. You are left with two options. Until you find out what he is, they're the same race simultaneously. Once i open the closet i have determined the race of the man, black.
Yeah, here's my problem. Did i really just discover the race of the man or did i just fall in life as to be what was already know. You can simply go back to the man's history and discover that he has been black all his life. So did i really determine it?
This experiments seems to claim that things only exist if we observe them. An understandable reasoning. A person who hasn't seen or has come in contact with an particular object, has no different observation of life than a person who doesn't have the object at all.
However here's the problem. This experiment claims that the thing only come reality when observed. That's false, the thing has only come into YOUR reality, and things happen independent out of subjective reality. The world has moved without you and will move on without out you.
The Schrödinger's Cat experiment seems to be a case when science dwells in philosophy territory
It is. The main points being that we see things from our own frame of reference and that 'objective truth' is a meme
You put a cat in a box with an object that may or may not kill the cat. You don't know.
Once the cat is in the box, you can't see the cat, and have no way of knowing whether it is still alive, or is now deceased.
So in any problem or theorem, the cat is now a variable, that you must consider to be both alive and dead. Because it could be either.
The original thought experiment had a vial that injected poison into the cat if a sensor detected an electron at a certain place. It was about electrons existing in multiple superpositions until someone observed their location. Some people don't include that though, and the question ceased to be about quantum physics and more about philosophy, iirc.
There's literally no proof for or against this, which is the essence of realism vs. solipsism, and the "if a true falls.." and "if there's no one left to observe the universe" questions.
Schrödinger's cat is a meme that most people don't really understand. There is a theory called the Copenhagen interpretation in quantum mechanics which states that an atom exist in some unknown state in which all possibilities are considered because you don't know what it is (this state is called a superposition). Once you do look at the atom, then you know exactly what state it is in and the superposition ceases to be.
Now Schrödinger was like that's bullshit. If we apply that experiment to something that we can understand like a cat, you can see why it's bullshit. It's fucking impossible to have a cat both alive and dead at the same time.
But before you know it the internet known about it and normies are like "OMG zombie cat XD" and completely missed the point of the ecperiment
You people use the word 'meme' too much. Knock it off.
...
found the sophist
Coincidentally I was just reading about Schrodinger's cat along with Roko's Basilk.
Both are retarded, and that's basically the answer.
yeah it's actually pretty gay and not interesting at all
That's like the opposite though.
Your assumptions and lack-of-information are fake. The guy's race is objective.
This guy fucks up sometimes but he gets this mostly right.
Schrodinger didn't come up with this to help explain it but as an argument that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed. It is but it still explains so much accurately that despite not being 100% correct it's better than any other theory we have
It's like looking at a fluffy cloud and suddenly it look like a cat to you and once you see it you can't unsee it and others you point it out to see it too. Basically reality is a blur of possibilities and observation makes you focus on one so it becomes your reality. .
...
it occurs to me that this idea was developed before things like cameras and heart monitors were developed. you totally dont have to open the box to know. hell you could just shake it or maybe im missing the point
I read that when Syd Barrett (of Pink Floyd) went crazy. He would just lay on his bed not moving. Because went he didn't do anything, everything was possible. As soon as he did something, the possibilities weren't as many.
Syd Barrett is the Shrodinger's Cat of music
The universe is a software and the person who coded it like to use random vars.