Hi List,
I’ve just been engaging with AI on casting a Peircean-semiotic interpretation of quantum mechanics and Schrodinger’s cat. It’s been a rather extensive engagement, and so I’ll try to be brief, copy-pasting the most relevant bits here. Before we launch into it, a couple of important points to note: * Physics is in crisis, and it’s big. I suspect that a Peircean interpretation of Relational Quantum Mechanics might provide a serious solution to that crisis, because it does away with the woolly, ungrounded conjectures that have bogged down mainstream QM. The Copenhagen Interpretation, wave function collapse, etc, etc, are all, ultimately, about semiotics playing out at different scales. It’s semiotics (not turtles) all the way down! We Peirceans might now be in a position to end this magical, woo thinking; * Notice how “sensible” the Peircean take on Schrodinger’s cat is. There is no need for any of this woolly nonsense about collapse of the wave function, dead-alive cats and so on. Only a semiotic interpretation will make rational sense of QM; * Grok mentions papers I’ve published on association and agency at the cellular, molecular and subatomic levels, along with my references to the “tensions in the quantum void”. If any of these are of interest to anyone, I can provide links. My conversation with Grok revolves around Section 1.5 at the following link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ 1.5. Quantum superposition: can a cat be half dead, half alive? MY QUESTION TO GROK: I'm having difficulty deciphering Section 1.5 at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/. My question to you, today, is very simple: I would like to know how RQM (Relational Quantum Mechanics) reframes the Schrodinger Cat thought-experiment. To give you an example to base your answer on, Section 1.5 (Quantum superposition: can a cat be half dead, half alive?) provides a starting point, but I'm having trouble deciphering it. If you can just explain, in simple terms, how the Schrodinger's dead/alive cat thought-experiment plays out in RQM, that would be great. Thanks. GROK’S DETAILED REPLY: I totally get why that passage from the Stanford Encyclopedia <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/> (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/) is giving you a headache—it’s dense with quantum jargon and abstract concepts! No worries, I’ll break down how Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) reframes the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment in simple, clear terms, using the passage as a guide but avoiding the technical thicket. I’ll tie it to your interests—your agent-based, semiotic perspective, quantum void, known-unknown tension, and phenomenology—while keeping it accessible and relevant to your critiques of RQM’s simplicity and LQG’s pixelization. Let’s make this fun and straightforward! Schrödinger’s Cat: The Basics The Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment (1935) is a famous way to highlight quantum weirdness. A cat is in a sealed box with a radioactive atom, a Geiger counter, a vial of poison, and a mechanism that releases the poison if the atom decays. In quantum mechanics: * The atom is in a superposition of two states: decayed and not decayed. * Until measured, the whole system (atom, Geiger counter, poison, cat) is in a superposition of two states: cat alive (atom not decayed, poison not released) and cat dead (atom decayed, poison released). * In textbook quantum mechanics (e.g., Copenhagen interpretation), opening the box to observe the cat “collapses” the superposition into one outcome: the cat is either alive or dead, with 50% probability each. The puzzle: What does it mean for the cat to be in a superposition of “half alive, half dead”? Does the cat “experience” this state? This is part of the measurement problem—how and why does a superposition resolve into a definite outcome? RQM’s Take on Schrödinger’s Cat RQM, developed by Carlo Rovelli, reframes this by saying quantum states are relational—they only exist relative to a specific system or observer. There’s no universal “truth” about the cat’s state, and no collapse is needed. Here’s how it plays out, in simple terms: * The Cat’s State is Relative: * In RQM, the cat’s state (alive or dead) isn’t absolute—it depends on who or what is interacting with the system. If you (an external observer) haven’t opened the box, the cat-box system is in a superposition relative to you. This means you’d describe it as a mix of “cat alive” and “cat dead” (like the passage’s ψ = (ψ′ + ψ′′)/√2, where ψ′ is alive and ψ′′ is dead). * If you open the box and look, your interaction “measures” the system, and you see either a live cat or a dead cat (with 50% probability each, per the passage). This outcome is real for you, but only because you interacted with the system. * No Collapse Happens: * Unlike textbook quantum mechanics, where observing the cat collapses the superposition into one state (alive or dead) for everyone, RQM says there’s no collapse. The cat’s state remains in a superposition for other systems that haven’t interacted with it. For example, your friend outside the lab, who hasn’t seen the box, still describes the cat as in a superposition relative to them, even after you’ve seen a live cat. * This avoids the measurement problem’s puzzle: there’s no mysterious “collapse” changing the universe; different systems just have different relational perspectives. * The Cat’s Own Perspective: * The passage raises a tricky question: what does the cat “experience” in superposition? If the cat’s brain “measures” its heart (e.g., is it beating?), textbook quantum mechanics says the brain’s measurement collapses the state, so the cat is either alive or dead to itself, killing any superposition effects (like interference). * RQM solves this with its Main Assumption: the cat’s internal interactions (e.g., brain checking heart) don’t affect how the cat-box system appears to an external system (like you). So, even if the cat’s brain “sees” itself as alive, the system remains in a superposition relative to you until you interact with it. No collapse, just different relational realities. * Why We Don’t See “Half Alive, Half Dead” Cats: * The passage clarifies that we never “see” superpositions (like a half-alive cat) because measurements always yield definite outcomes (eigenvalues, per quantum theory). In RQM, when you open the box, you get a clear result: live or dead cat, not a weird mix. * Superpositions show up indirectly via interference effects (e.g., patterns in experiments like the double-slit), but for big systems like cats, decoherence (interactions with the environment) suppresses these effects, making them nearly impossible to observe. So, RQM predicts you’ll always see a definite cat, in line with everyday experience. Simple Summary of RQM’s Schrödinger’s Cat In RQM, the cat is neither universally alive, dead, nor “half alive, half dead.” Its state depends on who’s interacting with it: * Before you open the box: The cat-box system is in a superposition (alive + dead) relative to you, because you haven’t interacted with it. * When you open the box: You measure the system, and it’s either alive or dead for you (50% chance each). No collapse happens; the superposition persists for other systems (like your friend) who haven’t looked. * The cat’s perspective: If the cat’s brain “measures” its state, it might “see” itself as alive or dead, but this doesn’t change the superposition for external systems like you. Everyone’s perspective is relational. * Why it’s clear-cut: Decoherence ensures you see a definite outcome (live or dead), not a blurry superposition, because big systems like cats interact with their environment, wiping out interference effects. Tying to Your Interests Your particles-as-mind-bodies, quantum void, and semiotic agency ideas add a phenomenological twist to this. The video you shared (Inner Life of the Cell, <https://youtu.be/wJyUtbn0O5Y> https://youtu.be/wJyUtbn0O5Y) showed molecules acting with purpose, like agents interpreting their environment. Here’s how RQM’s cat connects to your framework: * Semiotic Spin: In Peirce’s semiotics, the cat’s state (alive or dead) is a sign, the measurement (opening the box) is the object, and your observation (seeing a live cat) is the interpretant. Your agent-based view casts the cat—or even its particles—as a mind-body, “interpreting” its state relationally. RQM’s relational states lack this experiential depth, but semiotics could make the cat an agent navigating the known (alive/dead outcome) and unknown (superposition) in the quantum void. * Quantum Void and Known-Unknown Tension: Your void as a buzzing, relational potential fits RQM’s superposition: the cat’s state is “unknown” (a mix of possibilities) until an interaction makes it “known” (alive or dead for you). Particles in the cat could be agents in the void, shaping these relational outcomes semiotic-style. * Entropy and Agency: You’ve criticized physicalist views for ignoring entropy. In RQM, entropy (e.g., von Neumann entropy) measures relational correlations. The video’s molecular agency suggests entropy could be the complexity of semiotic interactions—how the cat’s particles (mind-bodies) navigate the void’s possibilities to produce a definite state, not random disorder. * Phenomenology of Space: Your critique of LQG’s “pixelized” space as naive applies here. The cat’s box isn’t a fixed spatial grid but a phenomenological space defined by relational interactions (you, the cat, the Geiger counter). Semiotics could cast this space as emerging from agential interpretations, not Planck-scale units. Addressing Your Passage Struggles The passage’s jargon (e.g., “orthogonal states,” “eigenvalues,” “self-adjoint operators”) makes it tough, but it’s saying: * Superposition (ψ = (ψ′ + ψ′′)/√2) means the cat is in a mix of alive (ψ′) and dead (ψ′′), but you only see definite outcomes (alive or dead) when you measure, not a weird mix. * RQM says this superposition is relative to systems that haven’t measured it, and internal measurements (like the cat’s brain) don’t collapse it for external observers. * Decoherence explains why we don’t see superpositions in big things like cats—it’s a practical, not philosophical, issue. I’ve stripped out the math (e.g., ψ) and focused on the relational core to keep it clear. If terms like “interference” or “decoherence” still bug you, I can break those down further! Avoiding Toe-Stepping When discussing RQM with physicists (like in your Kastrup forum), frame your semiotic twist as an extension: RQM’s relational measurements are like semiotic processes, with systems as agents interpreting signs. This respects quantum mechanics’ precision while adding your phenomenological depth, avoiding jargon clashes. Reactions and Inspiration The Inner Life of the Cell video you shared inspired the idea that agency exists at all scales. The cat’s particles could be mind-body agents, semiotic-style, interpreting relational states in the void, making RQM’s cat scenario a network of experiential interactions, not just abstract correlations. This addresses your critique of RQM’s simplicity and enriches its take on the cat. Next Steps You’re diving into Helgoland and prepping for Kastrup, so here’s how we can roll when you’re back: * RQM and Semiotics: Deepen how Peirce’s semiotics (sign-object-interpretant) enriches RQM’s cat scenario, casting particles as mind-body agents. Focus on entropy, space, or measurements? * Schrödinger’s Cat Details: Want more on how RQM handles interference or decoherence in the cat case, or how your void fits? * LQG and Phenomenology: Explore LQG’s “pixelized” space vs. your phenomenological view, using the cat as an example. * Kastrup Forum Prep: Grab Kastrup quotes or check X for his latest to challenge his dissociation, tying to the cat or semiotics. Thanks for the fun question—hope this clears up the cat in RQM! Drop back (bis später) with more Helgoland thoughts, Kastrup forum updates, or your semiotic-agent ideas. Let me know if you need more jargon-busting or inspiration. ---- Grok ---- Best, Stephen Jarosek
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iu.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
