I will try to answer your challenging question. Without an individual interpreting facts what is left is simply a
recognition of what is? is everything or everything is nothing. What I hope I am conveying is that with out interpretations there are no distinctions. Without distinctions then every thing is equal to everything else. This means that there are no way to detemine relative value as everything is of equal value. This concept might be seductively appealing to a quintessential idealist but as for living in the compex world that we do we are forced to make daily choices as to what direction to go, what activities to pursue, etc. Implied is the pragmatic necessary need to assign relative values to our actions. Conclusion it makes no sense ot me to believe in a realm of so called "absolute meaning.' As all that would be necessary to access it would be equivalent to taking a photograph of it and we would capture it as it is. Instead I think thnat what we call meaning is not a static fact but an active process of meaningmaking where an individual always adds something of his conscious or unconscious self in generating personal meanings. -----Original Message----- From: Justintruth <[email protected]> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 5:21 am Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Schrodingers Cat on verge of becoming real .... there is a realm of absolute meaning above and beyond individual interpretation or there is not. If there is not, which I am inclined to be the truth of the matter..... I guess I am inclined the other way can you say why you think meaning is reducible to individual interpretation? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Justintruth <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Sep 16, 2009 4:23 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Schrodingers Cat on verge of becoming real > > I guess I am confused. I thought that the cat experiment was trivial > to set up and only needed a quantum trigger mechanism. I thought it > wasn't actually set up out of concern for the cat - not that it took a > sophisticated technical setup was needed. > > I also thought that the whole issue was decided. If I flip a coin and > I look at the result and ask you the probability that it is a head you > will say 50/50 but if I show you the coin your "wave function" will > "collapse" and you will say its 100 or 0. Your "observation" affected > the probability. The only difference is that I posited that I looked > at the coin or ?at least that the coin exists. In quantum mechanics no > one can look at it and in some cases it can be shown that there is no > way that a coin could have gotten there by usual mechanism. But if one > tries to decide whether to posit an object that can't be experienced > then the answer is no by Ocham's razor. > > I don't get why there is a need for this experiment nor why its so > hard to set up? > > On Sep 15, 7:32?pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Towards Quantum Superposition of Living Organisms > > > Oriol Romero-Isart, Mathieu L. Juan, Romain Quidant, J. Ignacio Cirac > > (Submitted on 8 Sep 2009) > > The most striking feature of quantum mechanics is the existence of > > superposition states, where an object appears to be in different > > situations at the same time. Up to now, the existence of such states > > has been tested with small objects, like atoms, ions, electrons and > > photons, and even with molecules. Recently, it has been even possible > > to create superpositions of collections of photons, atoms, or Cooper > > pairs. Current progress in optomechanical systems may soon allow us to > > create superpositions of even larger objects, like micro-sized mirrors > > or cantilevers, and thus to test quantum mechanical phenomena at > > larger scales. Here we propose a method to cool down and create > > quantum superpositions of the motion of sub-wavelength, arbitrarily > > shaped dielectric objects trapped inside a high--fines > se cavity at a > > very low pressure. Our method is ideally suited for the smallest > > living organisms, such as viruses, which survive under low vacuum > > pressures, and optically behave as dielectric objects. This opens up > > the possibility of testing the quantum nature of living organisms by > > creating quantum superposition states in very much the same spirit as > > the original Schr\"odinger's cat "gedanken" paradigm. We anticipate > > our essay to be a starting point to experimentally address fundamental > > questions, such as the role of life in quantum mechanics, and > > differences between many-world and Copenhagen interpretations. > > Comments: ? ? ? 8 pages, 4 figures > > Subjects: ? ? ? Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics > > (cond-mat.mes-hall) > > Cite as: ? ? ? ?arXiv:0909.1469v1 [quant-ph] > > > Apparently, this is about actually putting a flue virus or possibly a > > water-bear (tiny - less than 1 mm) in the Schrodinger's Cat super- > > position using lasers. ?Water-bears can actually survive vacuum for a > > few days. ?The old thought experiments get ever closer to being made > > into real experiments. ?This one might answer the question of whether > > large objects aren't quantum because of interference from the general > > world or whether there is a size or mass for quantum behaviour as > > Penrose (Danger Mouse's best pal) suggests. ?I can't wait for the day > > I can approach some old mate blathering on about Schrodinger's Cat and > > accuse him of being a mindless philosopher before setting up my lasers > > and water-bears on the bar! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
