Did Schrödinger's Cat Simply Drop The Ball?

Matter.

 

Intelligence is not a general quality of matter, intelligence emerges from particular collectives of matter.

 

This is why it wasn't simply a thought experiment. RooRshack is exactly right if it was simply a thought experiment. It certainly would not have gotten decades of attention----nobody takes a Kafka novel and treats it as implying a whole model of the universe.

Schrodinger's cat was an attempt to provide a rational explanation to the paradox presented by the double slit experiment, and that every particle of the universe is both particle and wave, yet is particle or wave, depending on the observation. And after all these years------no one has come up with a better rational explanation---and by rational, I mean, that relies solely on physical reality.

 

Intelligence can be defined in many ways as communication for example. obviously intelligence implies relationship. Is intelligence always going to emerge in the presence of certain combinations? What is curious to me is why we regard life as a special or a unique example of anything.

 

It does not rely on physical reality - it relies on a construct, our knowledge of the scenario.

Because outside of our minds, nothing in the box exists at all when the box is closed, or even when the box is open, anywhere but exactly in the location of those objects. Reality is interwoven and all that bullshit, but knowledge of cats or life is not part of it.

There's nothing better about this than saying yes and no to the tree with no one to hear it question.

 

A box a box a cat a cat and in the box is the cat's hat

 

Would you eat them in a box?



Would you eat them with a fox?

Try them, try them and you may, but until then you simultaneously like and dislike them, I say

 

Hmmm... I don't know. Certainly intelligence may vary with certain conditions, as you suggested intelligence is multi-faceted and the demands of the enviornment can play a role on intellectual capacity. But whether those conditions necessarily lead to some type of intelligence, I don't know, it'd probably be a headache defining each and every particular facet which suggests intelligence.

Biocentrism?

 

Look what we found, in the park, in the dark. We will take him home. We will call him clark.

He will live at our house. He will grow and grow. Will our mother like this? We don't know so Schrödinger says so.

 

I think ill need to revisit this thread stoned.

 

Your missing the point Roorshack-----the cat is really a metaphor---but the implications do stretch to the physical reality we experience. But for scientists--the results of the double slit experiment are real. No matter how many times the experiment is done or how many different ways they try to alter it, the results are the same----reality requires an observer...

I can dig that----but then I believe that existence arises from essence, I believe that there is a non-physical element to the universe. In fact---though I would not have said this over 15 years ago---I believe the universe is alive. So I have no problem with the double slit experiment.

 

observation requires an observer.

High, haven't seen you for a minute.

 

Don't see what those two have to do with each other but I understand the sentiment. I get same impression about the universe but it appears to me that communication is inherent in the qualities of matter,, absorption, reflection, and polarity.

 

So as it is observation that requires an observer does that mean some reverse engineering might need to be applied to the entire preamble?

 

What if we just drop an anvil on the box like in cartoons, then what does that do to reality?

 

Sounds like scratchos, take two by four and apply to skull.

 

I found his hat

 

That is exactly the problem----if reality requires an observation, and an observation requires an observer, then there is a serious problem with science-----going all the way back to when Kant split science from religion. The problem stems from who, or what, is the cosmic observer?

As I stated in earlier posts--this is how the whole problem of Schrodinger's cat came to be. It was an attempt to create a rational universe where the observer doesn't need to exist----basically that all possibilities exist, and when an observation is made---then the universe splits into different possibilities each in a new universe. There is a you in one universe with a live cat, a you in another universe with a dead cat, a you in another universe where the box is unopened and so forth. since all possibilities exist, there is no need for a cosmic observer that determines a specific course for reality.

If there is an animating force through out the universe of some sort, then there is a form of consciousness of some sort---an observer, no matter how complex or simple.

No---it is already implied in the problem----it is the fact that the observer is required that science tried to work around it.


Anyway----yes I have been busy and have not been able to get on the forums too much lately.