On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 5:00 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:

* >>> I can arrange for any probability between zero and one of seeing a
>>> live cat. Whereas, if there is always a live cat branch and a dead cat
>>> branch, my probability of seeing a live cat is always 50%, contrary to the
>>> laws of radioactive decay.*
>> >> That would be true only if the cat had one and only one property, the
>> alive/dead property. But, except for Black Holes, all macroscopic objects
>> have an astronomical number of properties and most of them are not binary,
>> however in the cat thought experiment you're only interested in one of them
>> and it is binary, the alive/dead property. You're not interested in the
>> precise position or momentum of a particular electron in the cat's left
>> toenail. So there are an astronomical number of cats, and there are an
>> astronomical number of Bruce Kelletts, and all of them are in very slightly
>> different quantum states, but the astronomical number of Bruce Kelletts who
>> observe a living cat when the box is opened is 9 times larger than the
>> astronomical number Bruce Kelletts who observe a dead cat.  So before the
>> box was opened all the Bruce Kelletts would expect to see a living cat, but
>> 10% of them would be surprised.
> *> None of that is in the Schrodinger equation. The infinities are all of
> your own making,*

That is incorrect.  Schrodinger's equation, the thing that generates the
complex wave function, says nothing, absolutely nothing, about that wave
function collapsing, So if you don't like philosophical paradoxes but still
want to use Schrodinger's equation because it always gives correct results,
you only have 2 options:

1) You can stick on bells and whistles to Schrodinger's equation to get rid
of those other worlds that you find so annoying even though there's no
experimental evidence that they are needed.

2) You can use bafflegab, as Niels Bohr did, to conceal the fact that the
universe is odd, very very odd.

I don't like the first option because I do like William of Ockham. And I
don't like the second option because I do like clarity. Maybe tomorrow
something better will pop up but as of today the only quantum
interpretation that doesn't use either of the above two options is Many

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to