Did Schrödinger's Cat Simply Drop The Ball?

right on!

 

It doesn't necessarily seem like a paradox as we know that beaming a light (which contains its own particles) on other particles effects it's behavior. so setting up an observer with it's own particles, which might disrupt the wave nature of the particle and collapse the wave function, doesn't seem like a paradox necessarily, but I do see how you might need to bring in something like quantum gravity or perhaps dark energy into the mix if you're not going to accept that the particle knows it's being observed.

 

Sorry I didn't get too far. Those two ifs are entirely different things. Reality doesn't require observation. To observe requires an observer. The observer is supplied as a property of that relationship, in other words an essential element not apart from all the other essential elements that you are observing. You aren't creating what you see as something separate from yourself. The universe, being made of information, is itself every bit informed. We are informed relatively because of our purpose being homo sapiens sapiens tasting and knowing man. Both our purpose and our sameness and differences are reflected in that description. Of course every one flinches at the mention of purpose but it is because again there has been a confusion between form and content. Purpose is polarity, sameness and difference are absorption and refection. Our knowing is inherent in matter.

Knowing and tasting are the communal elements of knowledge and knowledge is being shared. Being informed relatively means we always stand in relationship and that relationship is to that every bit informed universe so there is a guide or a model there for everything. We always choose with a guide as we are guided in creation. There is not a philosophical dilemma or apparent schism between quantum and newtonian physics requiring a unified explanation. The mistake is having confused the elements in question at the beginning as being one in the same, we ask the wrong questions. The question is being created to create the good, taste, and the holy, knowing, how are we going to influence the universe as sons of god. This is hard to accept as fact. We have been trained to conceive these terms as arrogant and ignorant but this again is a confusion of form and content. That perceived arrogance comes from the fact that we are relatively informed but knowledge is complete. So this arrogance is not a scientific measurement it is a qualification, a matter of taste without quantification.

Now you know that you are real. But to what your creative power is, it is not in manipulating matter into greater production. matter is in abundance, so you aren't creating events through perception you are creating events through thought word and deed.

But to tell fact from fiction you use your powers of discernment. The ability to distinguish between what is the same and what is different,,absorption/refection and to determine what a thing is for, polarity. These account for the quantification of matter.

If you qualify in any way, then you have lost sight of the matter all together settling on a matter of taste with no real accounting or quantification. The subjective perception has no limitation in it's ability to approach knowledge except the temptation to qualify. That is the temptation to have illusion be real.

 

You aren't shooting out your eyeballs and making things coalesce you are observing whatever is there, to be quantified

 

I am also adding to whatever is there and not deducting it.....just in response to your last statement.

 

What is the point?

Of course the cat is a metaphor - so you discount my metaphors, and my analysis of that metaphor and what's wrong with it?

The cat is a stupid metaphor.

 

What additions or deletions? You add value, an abstraction to what is there but you can't take value away from it. You can appreciate or not but you can't offend god so to speak. There is no abstract value to it being every bit informed.

So in the pussies analogy relating to the double slit experiment either side of the slit is the same, it is not going to one or the other, because the wave doesn't collapse you just see it one way and then another.because the particle isn't static, it doesn't die it keeps on relating or returns to a potent relatable state. You have just beheld a corridor of refraction of the ongoing wave. Even the double slit device itself is arbitrary.

 

For catness?

 

So how do we maintain any conscious continuity, through memory. Memory is stored information. We replicate through the stored information in the gene. We see the planet by virtue of this same thing. So the power of our minds together, importantly, maintains our perception in a continuous way that is of the absolutely real but all the same continuously arbitrary. The outstanding frankness of the illusion of permanence speaks to the quality of the power of mind. To hold these ever flowing waves in a temporal state. We don't create different realities we cultivate different perspectives. We couldn't make a convincing picture if we were not all in it together.

 

Time being what part as a function? It doesn't look like a simplification but adding another layer of divergence to the equation. We are real we create the temporal illusion. If there is nothing real to see, then we are not real. To think you are not real is insane.

 

You show it well and dissemble the box well. The complexity I am talking about is, it leaves a question about what is real, or least in my mind that is what it looks like you are saying.
So there is a confusion between the concepts time and relative motion. If the cat was there it was a real cat and will always be a real cat being made of information. What made it come or go to be perceived was intent including the cat's. The cat was real but catness is malleable. The illusion of permanence is not the absence of it. So you could say that we are an out of time interval.
Hope I didn't make things impossibly understandable on that journey.
Not whether cat dead or alive but real or not.

 

Really quite impressive, the eureka moment and the beard.

 

So I guess it didn't have anything to do with Schrodinger's balls he just didn't have a cat

 

You seem to be supporting the many-worlds approach however the examples given, support some of the issues I have with the theory. The quantum events can be split off so much that eventually nothing becomes intelligible.

So you think quantum computing is a pipe dream?

Because from my understanding, alot of quantum computing is going to rely on this concept.