Saturday, March 14, 2009
Logic?
Consider Schrodinger's Cat. A complex thought experiment meant to show how ridiculous our concept of electrons' behavior is. I love this thought experiment, because in truth it really pokes alot of existentialism in the eye. What would ole Descartes do with the concept that things exist and don't exist at the same time until observed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem isn't that things both exist and not exist at the same time (this is a common misperception of the paradox), the problem is the condition of the cat (being alive or dead) is determined by opening or not opening the box. And because of this, it is thought the cat is logically in a superposition of states. As for logic, the whole paradox is a result of logical rules (some which may not apply to epistemic propositions such as the cat being live or dead).
ReplyDeleteMy own interpretation of the problem (outside the quantum measurement dilemma), is that it reiterates the same problems of induction and causality that David Hume has pointed out. But just because it's a problem, it doesn't mean there isn't a solution (see the Gettier cases, and the Raven's paradox, etc.).
There is a fact of the matter once we open the box, whether or not we placed the condition upon the outcome… If we do place the condition upon the outcome, then we are in fact the cause, are we not? If superposition, or this paradox, is untrue, then our observation (or measurement) does not affect the outcome. Both propositions are undiscoverable, and yet grants causal relation (it's just the cause is transferred between cases). And there are many solutions, some better than others, that are convincing with Schrodinger's cat, induction, and causality.
My consideration goes to a larger scale, and applies to objectivity most thoroughly. The person observing what is going on inside the box is the "objective" observer. Without this observation, what goes on in the box is either irrelevant or of infinite possibility. Does the cat pop out of existence? Turn into a dog? Without the observation are these things impossible?
ReplyDeleteI guess you have helped me alot towards the crux of my issue with this problem. Mostly the question of an objective observer and their possibility for existence. Would a series of subjective observations necessarily tell you what was in the box and the situation therein? How?
Hmm.. I'm not sure I understand your question. A subjective observation (for which there is no escape from) cannnot tell you what's in the box unless we open the box and observe. I think there's a confusion of terms here. "Objective" and "Subjective" are rather ambiguous terms and their uses need to be defined in argument.
ReplyDelete"Objective" is generally truth independent of the mind, for which we generally assume we have an accurate relationship to in most cases (existence, objects, events). An "objective observer" is rather ambiguous because an observer is the subject, and his perspective is always subjective. Unless we are taking a god's eye view (which might be an objective observer) and describing an agent of knowledge (the subject) - and describing his subjective beliefs about objective things, and how his beliefs may or may not be objectively true - independent of the subject's mind.
Not sure what this has to do with the cat. There is still a fact of the matter (an objective truth) apart from the subject (the agent of knowledge). Logically, it seems there is a superposition of states.. but this is a discription of the paradox in truth-value and causes in quantum mechanics. Even if causal connection changes upon observation, the fact of the matter (which is an objective truth) still holds apart from us. The problem is, what determines the outcome?
I imagine the outcome of "looking in the box" to be caused by what is occuring in the box. If this is the case, if the cat is dead, it's dead regardless of whether we observe it's corpse or not. I would call this an "objective" truth.
ReplyDeleteHere is the situation I imagine: I look in the box and see a live cat. You look in the box and see a dead cat. I look in the box and still declare the cat is alive. You say no, it is dead. Is it possible that we are both believing our perceptions and coming to opposite conclusions? Then again, how can we be certain that either of our perceptions are working properly? Do we use rulers to base rulers on? If so, how did the first ruler come to exist? Somebody subjectively chose something, correct? Called that amount an "inch". Was that measurement of an inch maintained? Are we sure the record of this is not fabricated?
Sorry. I usually wind up with an endless series of questions for stuff like this.