Dear Diary,

Erwin Schrodinger’s cat enigma could be solved with a simple modern invention.


The description of Schrodinger’s Cat:

“In 1935 Schrodinger published an essay describing the conceptual problems in a brief paragraph in this essay he described the cat paradox.”

“The cat finds itself inside a box along with a technical gizmo that sends a photon towards a filter and records whether the photon passes through or not. If it doesn’t, nothing happens. If it does, the photon trips a device that breaks open a vial of poisonous gas, and the unfortunate cat dies. The experiment is set up so that there’s a fifty-fifty chance of the photon passing through the filter. Accordingly, once you open the box and look inside, there’s a fifty-fifty chance the cat will jump out. “

“That’s all very well. The difficulty arises, as Schroedinger pointed out in 1935, when you start wondering what was happening inside the box after the photon measurement was made but before anyone lifted the lid. It’s simple enough to say that the gizmo delivered a photon, the photon either passed through the filter or it didn’t, the vial of poison was broken or not, and the cat died or stayed alive. “

“Once the photon hit the filter, a quantum measurement was made, and subsequent events ensured that after that time the box contained either a dead cat or a live cat. But that assumes that the photon striking the filter was enough to constitute a measurement. What if, on the other hand, it takes human observation to trigger the measurement? In that case, it would appear, the cat must have been in some indefinite quantum cat-state, neither dead nor alive but potentially either, until someone opened the box to see. But what can it possibly mean, if anything, for a cat to be in some undefined half-dead, half-alive state? “

End quoting.

So at the very worst of the worst scenario, where it is the whatif the cat must be observed yaddah yaddah, make the box out of plexiglass or glass. Problem solved. Altogether, a ridiculously easy paradox, and the crux of the problem is thus: What Schrodinger was saying, at least from what I can interpret, is that how can we know what reality is if we can’t precisely measure exactly every property of it? What I say is we make assumptions, not uneducated but educated assumptions on what reality is until we have perfected the measurement techniques to define it.

But let me say this. Sure, reality isn’t readily defineable in all aspects. We don’t know exactly what makes gravity work. But say I adopt the belief that gravity doesn’t apply to me. Because what’s true for you doesn’t have to be true for me. And say I sincerely believe this with all my heart.

I think we all agree that I will probably hold true to that belief up until the time I hit the pavement after I’ve stepped off the 9th floor balcony here at work.

I can sincerely believe things, and be sincerely wrong.

I cannot say simply because I don’t fully understand something that it can’t be accepted as a reality that applies to all people. To do so is folly. There are inalienable facts about this universe that apply to all people. I don’t know all of them. I know a couple of them. I don’t understand all, nay, even a fraction of them. But I’m willing to bet my life they exist and willing to admit I maybe wrong about a few.

But based on the evidence I see, I draw what I see to be safe conclusions about certain facts that I hold true. Among these are a) If I fire a bullet into my skull, there will be a hole thru my head where the bullet traveled thru it b) If I try to break the law of gravity from the top of a building, I will die c) the way I interpret things of a spiritual nature are correct in total, all these things based on the evidence I have observed.

If I don’t believe these things, it will be detrimental to me in the end. These are all my subjective perceptions of reality. Based upon objective evidence. If I based all my perceptions of reality my beliefs would be a) I can fire bullets into my head and they might bounce off b) I can leap buildings in a single bound if I want c) everybody is right about what they believe concerning God and spirituality.

But you see, I hold a belief that I am right, and someone who disagrees with me is wrong. I don’t hate the people who are wrong, just that they drew different conclusion based on the evidence they see or didn’t really observe the evidence.

Naturally, I think it would be a better world if everyone believed my way, but that’s just a panacea in my mind. I know I can’t convince everyone to think the way that I do. All I can do is offer the objective evidence that a) reality does exist b) what I think about crucial aspects of reality is actually true and c) now doesn’t that feel better now that you are right for a change?


Anyways, enough rambling. I’m actually just trying to avoid staring at my cube walls for hours endlesly. Send me some email! I’m bored!


Quote of the Entry: “poke poke, forkface!”
– celine

%d bloggers like this: