I left the world of Femto Lasers and the rest many years ago. The precision of modern experiments is beyond easy comprehension. Physicists engage in philosophy but are also very disparaging of it in the sense that the discipline requires schemes that can be observationally/experimentally tested. The real issues concerning the cat are much wider (as Justin points out), but the issue here is that what was once 'gedenken' can be subject of experimental resolution (at least in part). The extent to which we are penetrating and manipulating the 'tiny-world' is not well known - this is where we are building blackholes and so on. These experimenters have only outlined the methodology and suggested this may test superpositional states. Very different answers to a number of observations in physics could be on the brink.
On 17 Sep, 16:04, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > I will try to answer your challenging question. Without an individual > > interpreting facts what is left is simply a > > recognition of what is? > > I guess that I thought that in order to determine what is one needs to > interpret it and one is not free to do so willy nilly but is subject > to its actual meaning. Otherwise we misinterpret it. I am aware > however that a given situations may have multiple competing > interpretations and that sometimes more than one interpretation can be > valid. But not just any interpretation is valid. Only ones based on > the actual meaning. > > ...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. > > Well you could be speaking of definition as opposed to meaning. We do > have to specify or delimit the boundaries of meaning but I think that > meanings are in fact distinct. Red is not sound. Etc. > > > This means that there are no way to detemine relative value as everything > > is of equal value. > > I don't think that it is, although I am straining to understand what > you are saying so maybe I have it wrong. By value I think you don't > mean worth but the content of the meaning. I don't think that meaning > is monolithic. I think there are different meanings. There is a kind > of monolithic relationship of all meaning to being but I don't think > meaning itself is monolitic. But I suspect I am just not getting what > you mean. > > 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. > > Yes but we are not free to make them up. As free as we are to pursue > them we are not free to decide what is of value. If we think that we > end up believing that our desires are something that we can cause. To > some extent that is true but only to a very limited extent. It is > possible to not want to want what you do want. It is impossible to > decide to not decide what you do decide. This means for me that desire > is not a function of the will. It is not an act of will. Now there are > exceptions and limitations I would put on that. I would heavily > qualify it but basically I think its true. > > > > > 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. > > Well, even what one adds.... very little of it can be chosen actually. > So much of it is determined by "who you really are". I think Sartre's > idea of radical freedom is wrong. We are who we are and our choice is > to live according to who we are or choose not to. We do not have the > choice to decide who we are. Again, I would heavily qualify that. Of > course we can decide who we are in the sense that we make decisions. > But I cannot *base* my decision on my decision. I must have something > on which to base my decision and in fact I think we do have it and it > is tied up with the meaning of the situation. Based on the meaning of > what is, and the fact that it us and based on who we are we are > usually down to not so many choices left other than, as I said, to be > inauthentic. > > In either case the whole situation is loaded with meaning that I think > is not individual but, like the joint perception we have of our common > universe, determined by forces that are not "our own". One man called > it "Creative Fidelity" but I am not a real fan of that term > necessarily. > > Either way, today I drank a perrier soda. Now I may have some > lattitude on what that means but the lattitude is constrained by both > the fact that I did indeed do that and by the fact of what a perrier > soda is and what drinking is etc etc. > > I think the fact that I did is absolute. I am not saying that there > are not many interpretations that are not that but Ochams razor > applies > > > > > > > -----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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
