Did Schrödinger's Cat Simply Drop The Ball?

I was watching a special on the multiverse and they discussed the many-worlds theory, where a quantum event triggers a variety of different possible worlds to split due to decoherence, yet according to this theory all possible worlds are equally real. I also happen to be reading a philosophy book which is discussing Hume's skepticism regarding causality, which claims that regardless of how many times we have been witness to cause and effect in an event, we can never be certain the same effect will happen again. I find it fascinating that I have came upon (reintroduced really) both these concepts at around the same time.

Now both have examples to illustrate:


Ball example

Schrödinger's Cat

Now it's fascinating to me that we have gone from Hume's Skepticism to where no possible effect can be assumed by obeservation to the many-worlds interpretation of Schrödinger's thought experiment, where every possible effect can be assumed until observation.

Hopefully Schrödinger gave his cat a ball to play with because it's going to take me awhile to figure this one out...

 

Well in opening the box we not only find the cat dead or alive but we also might find the broken flask.

 

Do we get the same results in the world in which we don't open the box?

 

Not opening the box is not the same as opening the box so no. The results the cat gets are from it's frame of reference.

 

The trouble I'm having resolving these notions is the quantum event leading to different worlds, even with it's various outcomes, relies on causality. However if we can't actually rely on cause and effect by observations, then how does the many worlds theory ever point to an 'event' in which the world's branch off? What prevents the number of possible worlds, including those violating the laws of physics from happening?

Now perhaps these ideas aren't meant to be conjoined, I just find it an interesting exercise to attempt to.

 

The examples given by Max Tegmark, a premiere scientist who supports the theory in the special, are a world where the dinosaurs still roam the Earth, where the interview is conducted at a different location, one where the Nazis won World War 2.

The event as I understand it is a totality of cause and effect, then splits due to quantum decoherence so we only experience a particular outcome. However if cause and effect are distinct as Hume suggests, then there cannot really be a distinct 'event'.

 

There is a point at which these two concepts can come together. Hume's view is that we can only understand the world through impressions, building upon earlier concepts that we cannot understand the physical world and all the objects within as they truly are, but only as per the perceptions that we have of them. Causality then is only a creation of our own minds, based upon our perceptions.

The multiverse explanation of Schrodinger's cat is based on an attempt to get around causality by stating that all potential states of existence already exist until an observation is made determining one state over another--for each universe corresponding to the observation being made (since all possibilities are possible, we would have at least 3 possible universes, based on the cat scenario--one in which the cat is alive, one in which it is dead, and another in which no observation has been made and therefore, the cat is still both dead and alive.

In both cases it is the observation that creates the perceived causal relationship, and therefore there is no true causal relationship.

The difference is that in Hume's world, objects arise from essence, and therefore we cannot know the objects as they truly are, or even if they actually exist outside of the creation of the mind (in which case they would not even have physical existence, but would only exist as essence--created by mind). Of course, when we take skepticism this far--where everything is created by mind--then the problem becomes that if the physical world is created by mind, and causality is perceived by mind, doesn't the mind then create the causality? The question of whether we can prove causality or not then becomes moot.

The materialistic metaverse version of reality has trouble accepting that an observation, because it is an action of the mind, can determine one result over another. It refuses to acknowledge that there could be causality between an observer and the resulting state of being--therefore it must be that all possible outcomes exist somewhere. The universe we perceive is simply the one we find ourselves situated in. It is in response to the problem of, who or what is the observer?

In a purely physical and material world, the problem of Shrodinger's cat, even if it is of the micro-world as MeAgain points out, should not rationally exist. There should be a mechanical causality that does not rely on something as abstract and nonphysical as observation.

 

Good response, let me clarify a few parts..

The many-worlds theory is just one interpretation of the multiverse. There is, I believe the Copanhagen interpretation of this thought experiment, where the cat is only in one particular state upon observation and none others. If you are suggesting that the causal interaction could be that the observer could think the cat out of the box, then yes you are probably right insofar science would have a difficult time accepting that scenario.

How do you figure? Light travels at a fixed speed and The material mechanisms needs time to process the outside information. Think about when we view the Sun, we are witnessing the sun as it was about 8 mins in the past. When we look at other stars, we are often seeing them hundreds of year in their past. So same delay with observing the cat, even if it's fractions of a second.

 

The real question that needs to be asked of the multiverse model is, "Why?" Why would the multiverse expend so much energy continuously creating infinite possibilities.

Consider, for example, that our universe consists of only 10 particles (please excuse my math here, if I make a mistake, I'm sure you will still get what I am trying to say---but I am busy working on my writing, and am trying to only spend a short time of diversion with this thread----I am going to answer it as quickly as I can to get back to work. Let's say that there are only 4 possible states for each of those particles. Therefore we have 40 possible universes--except that in each of those universes all 10 other particles must be in a state unique to that universe (Otherwise, how could there be a universe where dinosaurs still exist?)---therefore it is a matter of 4 x 10 x 10 universes. Out of a mere 10 particles, we now have 400 possible universes. But now, in each of those 400 possible universes, each particle has 4 potential states, so we rapidly now develop 400 x 400 possible universes, or 160,000 new universes.

Now consider how many particles exist in our known universe, and how many potential universes would that create? The exponential growth rate of universes, beginning at this point, would be tremendous. And that doesn't even consider the redundancies. Or how many particles are there in your own physical existence--i.e. your body, and how many yous are being created, not even from your birth, but simply, from this point forward? Now again, why would the universe create so many infinite universes?

Scientists have tried to resolve this, for example, by limiting this growth of universes to those particles subject to observation------but that takes us right back to the very problem we tried to escape---the causality induced by an observer. Another method is one similar to statistical probability---but then how would locality for such a model be determined---which could easily take us right back to the problem of the observer again.

 

I answered before I saw your response---I am referring again to the many-worlds theory.

But with only one outcome, the Copenhagen model wouldn't, for example, create a universe where dinosaurs still exist---and the Copenhagen model does not resolve the observer issue. The scenario, as I recall, of Schrodinger's cat arose because of the problem presented by the double slit experiment--that particles passing through two slits will pass through either as individual particles, or as waves, depending on how they are observed. Therefore it is the act of observing that creates the result--until no observation is made, the cat is both alive and dead---the observation is the cause that forces a result---whether it is one result or a splitting of the universe into multiple universes.

But you are still thinking in terms of the cat being both dead and alive until observed. I am saying that rationally, the cat should be dead 'or' alive depending on a more mechanical causality---either the cat ingested the poison, or it didn't---before any observation took place------in the case of a purely physical universe where the observer has no effect.

 

You're right about the Copanhagen interpretation regarding dinosaurs, which is why I specifically chose the many-worlds theory in contrast to Hume's arguments.

The double split experiment shows a wave-particle duality. That is when the particle passes through the double split onto the projected screen, it has the point precision suggesting a particle but has other points on the screen as well, suggesting a wave, roughly similar to like dropping a rock in the water and the waves that disperse out from there.

In the many-worlds interpretation, as I understand it, every possible outcome would have occurred to the cat, those universe would split off into different universes. Still not sure how these splitting events would occur with Hume's philosophy in mind.

How do you figure observation is non-physical?

 

An awful lot of writers like to gloss over the paradox that you normally get a wave pattern, but when you try to measure the position of the particle---i.e. observe the particle---you get the double slit pattern. It can be so strange, that Newscientist had an article back in about 2010 or 2011 or so that explored how measuring its position after the double slits (creating the same results) suggests that the experiment may alter an event back in time---because it must be altering whether the photons are going through the slits as wave or particle. This paradox has been known for over a century or so----and scientists have struggled over and over to explain it---hence Shrodinger's cat. But mostly they shove it under the rug and simply use it as an example that particles have a wave/particle duality. I even have a book somewhere with a title related to Schrodinger's cat----and you would think that it would get into that paradox---but surprisingly, while it described the experiment, I don't think it even touched the paradox.

In a reductionist version of the material world---observation would not be non-physical---and our conscious mind is the workings of a physical hard-wired brain------in other words, we are just a more complex version of Artificial Intelligence---carbon-based rather than silicon-based.

But if we do not become so dogmatically reductionist, observation implies a conscious. I once read of a very unsettling double slit experiment---unsettling to dogmatic scientists that is. I have been looking for that experiment for several years---I think I found it again one time but was unable to record where---so I believe it is out there---but I am still looking for the details-----the double slit experiment was set up so that it would measure the photons position without reporting or recording the results. There was no change in the wave pattern. However in the control experiment where the results were seen the wave pattern would switch to the slit pattern--this suggested that it only works with some kind of conscious observation.

But here is the real problem----the universe is a lot older than humans, even older than life on earth---so who or what observed the universe to give it physical form----to determine that particles existed as particles not waves?

Hume and the Many worlds model come together in the following way (though their implications and conclusions are largely diametrically opposed): 1.)They both are based on the observation (Hume: observation creates impressions; Many Worlds: observation determines result for the current universe). 2.) They both attempt to eliminate causality (Hume: the causal relationship is a mental creation; Many Worlds: there is no causal relationship in the sense that all possible states exist simultaneously, they just each exist in separate universes). And 3.) We cannot really know the thing in itself (or the thing qua thing) (Hume: we can only know our mental impressions of the thing---we don't even know if the thing exists; Many Worlds: We can only know the thing as it exists in our own universe post-observation).

 

It's an interesting experiment, but in the end is like the idea that anything you believe is real is real.... we figure it out and think it's amazing and profound and we unlocked everything, we argue with old people who obviously understand what we're saying but are still exasperated with our immaturity and insistence on closely linking intellectual experiments and our actual experience of the phenomena we're discussing, and then a few years later we graduate high school.

Everything you believe is true, and any answer is true if you don't know which one is. Yep, got it.

If we assume that guy was about 14 when he came up with the scenario, we can determine he was of about average intelligence. But wasn't he like.... middle aged? It's a frustratingly meaningless, disconnected "ha-ha, I made a ridiculous statement that's technically true, though irrelevant, whatcha gunna do?" type of scenario.

It's fun when you do it with your friends, or on HF - it's downright retarded when you get decades of serious attention all over the world for it.

 

I think organic intelligence would be more appropriate for that view, as I think many would suggest the emergent process of intelligence in organic evolution is distinct from the artificial form of intelligence which would be assembled, at least initially.

 

Quality post Skip, only point of contention ill make is that it is a thought experiment. I do see value in thought experiments as they tend to help bring about new ideas and for the lay person, they help to better understanding actual phenomena.

 

How is organic intelligence different from the intelligence of substance in general?

 

Define substance...

 

What is non-physical examination?