Did Schrödinger's Cat Simply Drop The Ball?

I don't think this world would be possible without universal cooperation

 

Biological life thrives off division, in what sense do you mean universal cooperation?

 

If it were that simple, the problem would have been solved a long time ago----case in point is the experiment I mentioned earlier where there was a measurement of the particle but no record or report of the actual measurement, therefore there was a measurement but no observation-----there was no change in the wave pattern created because there was no observation. Anyway, that argument has already been attempted and shot down.

 

I don't discount your metaphors-----but did they apply to the problem? The point is that scientists, even more so in the late 1800's and into the early 1900's (when it was a very popular thing to proclaim yourself an atheist among the European intelligentsia) than today, did not want to accept the paradox presented by the double slit experiment and other unsettling problems with quantum physics. Schrodinger's cat was a metaphor that provided a rational explanation of the problem----that did not have any direct or indirect implication of a god or gods.

 

Ok---first let me clarify that I am not taking the side of the many-worlds view, and that I do not agree with Schrodinger---which I hope I made clear in the earlier post about the biggest problem about the many worlds view is the question of 'Why?' As I said, I do not believe in a materialist world that is based solely on the physical. But I am simply explaining why the Double Slit experiment was an issue, and therefore the reasoning behind the Schrodinger Cat scenario.

So based on what you have written here, please explain once and for all the problem presented by the double slit experiment. Consider first of all that light acts like a wave---the experiment never changes from a wave pattern, until, and only until, we try to observe it as a particle, then it becomes a double slit pattern. And apparently even doing the experiment in a manner where we as observers have no idea of the results (thereby preventing any conscious knowledge of whether we are viewing a wave or a particle) does not change the wave pattern, because there is no actual observation. So only the observation of light as a particle changes the pattern, and only when it can actually be observed.

 

Interesting path----but let's add Einstein's theory of relativity to the equation, since we are really talking about light as wave or particle.

If we remove time from the problem we actually lose the particle, because we are then speaking of a zero-time zero-mass particle which is light, it is a zero-time particle because it is moving at the speed of time: The speed of light. Because it is zero mass, it does not exist as a particle---in fact, at the speed of light as a zero-mass, zero-time particle it is at all points in time simultaneously in an infinitely small flash. In other words, if light only existed in this universe (which we don't really know if it does or if it extends beyond the universe), then for each photon it simultaneously exists at all points it traveled from the beginning of time (the universe) to the end of time (of the universe) in a single infinitely small instant. Light becomes simply a infinitely small flash of energy. (That's Einstein's part.)

We experience time, and light moving through time because we exist at a sub-light speed---therefore we live within time. The wave pattern as you pointed out, is the experience of light over time, and yes, as a particle it becomes a ghost.

All we know that truly exists is the moment of Now, there are successive moments of Now, but after each Now is gone, we cannot really know if there is any physical form to that Now, the same with tomorrow---we can not know if there is any physical form to tomorrow, all we know is that the current Now is physical. Within that Now, particles exist----because the world is physical. And the wave seems to be a ghost (though we assume it exists because we experience it across the Nows). But that single Now is fleeting and is gone as quickly as it came to be.

 

No, it took 50 years to confirm the existence of a Higgs Boson. The technology to discover this stuff is amazing but limited.

 

Ecology

 

First the subjective perception has no limitation in approaching knowledge except the temptation to qualify. Everything exists at once. Already you have been confused by all the qualifying parameters that have been put forward. Everything exist in a potent probable state. What I mean is reality does not require observation to be what it is It requires the observer to see what you make of it held together by you and it becoming entangled. It is like a single private but not unobserved conversation taking place in a room where every one is talking and every one at once understands what everyone else is saying. Your observation exists as a relatively informed corridor of refraction within a single mind that is every bit informed. Where ever two or more are gathered in my name I am there among you. The slit the slot the whatnot all of it arbitrary. The reason things are apparent at all is because we would have them that way. Reality itself comes together intentionally.

 

There is no leader of intention but the choreographer is love

 

Yes---that is right. Now take the last post I responded to with Skip----it all comes together in the Now---and yet by the time we perceive that Now, it is already gone (and there is where Berkeley who was right before Hume was right----esse est percipi: to be is to be perceived, or existence is perception).

But that is not a rational explanation that would be accepted by the dogmatically materialistic scientific world----at least not yet. If we were to present such an explanation in a hallowed hall of Science---the response would be laughter and jests, and then we'd be kicked out while they continue to ponder over Schrodinger's cat.

 

yes, even if your idea did apply to cases where a photon is used to identify the particle location--in cases of pure observation or pure measurement, there is no photon to change the results. For example, our eyes are receptors, they do not see by emitting light, they see by receiving light.

 

Now here is something that I would like to share with you and I was very flat about it before. No escaping the fact that we are our only measure. So you have your cogent argument for god. You've got some discovery to do in order to come to terms with that fact so you haven't committed to it because it is true, you continue to assert it. What you are doing is arguing about who said it, the truth that is. We need to fill holes in understanding not win arguments where fools in fact contend.

But as to existence is perception, no. Same as Dejavu's knowledge is perception. That that exists wants to perceive or not. Our purpose being taste and knowing.

Fuck them if they can't take the cosmic joke

 

Time is on our side as you use it wisely

 

Too much light causes us to blink or divert our gaze.

 

When I was innocently engaged in learning and teaching in the fifth grade I was accused by academics of falsifying papers and decided right there I was better off learning to be god.