Schrodinger's Cat and the Nature of Existence

[thegnome54]

A friend and I recently had a pretty extensive discussion about the nature of existence, and I thought I might see what you guys think of our conclusions. First, Schrodinger's Cat. For those of you who don't know, the idea is this: You put a cat in a box. While inside the box, the cat does not interact with the outside world, at ALL. No gravity from the matter of the cat, no noise or light escapes, no quantum entanglement, NOTHING. Just bear with me, this is theoretical. There is a lever/button outside the box which, when pressed, either feeds the cat food or feeds the cat poison. You have no way of knowing which it has done. The idea is that until you open the box and observe the cat in some way, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Our discussion didn't have to do with the idea of being both alive and dead so much as the idea of not affecting the outside world. The first thing we posited was that if something does not affect the rest of the physical world, then practically speaking it might as well not exist. Through this concept, we realized that since something can only be observed through its effects on the physical world, whether or not something exists simply depends on whether or not it affects the world. However, we were still a bit irritated that the word 'observe' was used so much when discussing these matters. Surely, we thought, it doesn't matter if an object's effects are seen by a human or not? This is where I had my little moment of clarity - what if YOU are in the box? Obviously, you wouldn't think that you didn't exist anymore, you would think that the REST of the world no longer existed. Therefore, existence should really be decided by whether or not the person in question is affected by the effects of the object on the physical world. The problem is, this violates the idea of an objective reality - surely existence isn't subjective? To solve this apparent disparity, we came up with a new word - relexistance. It's sort of a mashing of 'relevant' and 'existance'. Though a bit clunky, it serves its purpose. We defined relexistence as the act of existing subjectively through effects on a conscious entity. This seems to solve many problems. For example, though we can assume that the cat still exists inside the box, it does not relexist to anyone who cannot observe its effects. When YOU are in the box, only what affects you relexists, while the outside world still exists objectively. What's more interesting are the implications of separating subjective and objective existence. It should be possible for something to relexist to someone, but not exist - for it to affect the person as if it existed, despite not existing. This occurs during hallucinations, delusions, and at least a few dozen religions. I liken this phenomenon to an image in a mirror, or a hologram - both affect light as if the objects themselves existed, despite not actually existing. They mimic the effects that a non-existent object would have on the world if it did exist. I don't know if anyone will read or follow all of this, but comments and discussion are welcome. I'm most curious to know whether another word already exists for our 'relexistence' or not.

[pj]

Interesting take on quantum reality. No, I've never heard another single word with a meaning like 'relixistence,' but I would also argue that it is nothing more than another term to describe relativity. "Observe" is exactly what it means, and was used for a reason. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, among others, is very much about the ability to observe. Observation has been PROVED to be the action that collapses the duality. The men who developed these theories that have led quite directly to so much technology we enjoy today chose their terms and formed their definitions very carefully, and were brilliant enough not to make an error such as this nor compound it with further extrapolation from a faulty foundation. It really is observation. You say, "Surely, we thought, it doesn't matter if an object's effects are seen by a human or not?" Quantum mechanics says that indeed it DOES matter. Profoundly. If we want to describe what happens in an atomic event, we have to realize that the word "happens" can only apply to the observation, not to the state of affairs between two observations. --Heisenberg If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet. --Niels Bohr

[Xaqaria]

A good way to phrase it is, the universe that humans percieve does not exist without a human to observe it.

[thegnome54]

You both seem to be saying that there is no objective reality - is this what you mean to say? I don't see how observation by a human could affect an objective reality.

[R.D.735]

Here's an analogy that might help. Suppose a point-like object is traveling in a two-dimensional plane with x and y axes. Its velocity in the x direction is completely independent from its velocity in the y direction. Suppose the only way of measuring the velocity of the particle is to confine it and eliminate either component of its velocity. Then, the observation changes the object's speed and you see it moving in the x direction or the y direction, but not both. In quantum mechanics, the measurement of a particle always has the effect of confining the particle, and only one state is observed. It's a bad analogy, actually, but it gets the point across.

[Xaqaria]

You both seem to be saying that there is no objective reality - is this what you mean to say? I don't see how observation by a human could affect an objective reality. If there is an objective reality, it is not precisely the reality that humans percieve. Your knowledge of reality is based entirely in your perceptions, therefore if you do not percieve reality, it does not exist to you. The physical reality that you see around you is at best a subjective representation of an objective reality and possibly entirely a construct of belief. Certain aspects of the percieved reality have been scientifically shown to be malleable under human scrutiny. As of yet, there is no proof of an objective reality.

[pj]

You both seem to be saying that there is no objective reality - is this what you mean to say? I don't see how observation by a human could affect an objective reality. Objective reality and quantum mechanics do not co-exist at the quantum level. And it isn't US saying it - it is the theorists themselves. Remember before you reject this out of hand; the theories that refute objective reality also permit me to be communicating with you via the internet.

[thegnome54]

Objective reality and quantum mechanics do not co-exist at the quantum level. And it isn't US saying it - it is the theorists themselves. Remember before you reject this out of hand; the theories that refute objective reality also permit me to be communicating with you via the internet. Scientific theories are not about the truth, they are about functional models of the behavior of our world. Just because things work out if we assume that there is no objective reality would not mean that there ACTUALLY is no objective reality - just like light is obviously not both a wave and a particle, it is really something in between which neither model completely describes. I'm not questioning the use of these models, I'm just questioning whether or not their counter-intuitive nature and strange implications are a result of an objective phenomenon which seems strange to the human mind, or a result of our own relative ignorance about these matters. "If there is an objective reality, it is not precisely the reality that humans percieve. Your knowledge of reality is based entirely in your perceptions, therefore if you do not percieve reality, it does not exist to you." This is where I separate objective and subjective reality - if you do not perceive reality, it still exists, but it does not relexist to you. The only existence that humans can be aware of is really relexistence, because all of our observations of reality are subjective. "In quantum mechanics, the measurement of a particle always has the effect of confining the particle, and only one state is observed." That's more the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, though. Schrodinger's Cat is more like saying that the particle is both moving and not-moving until you observe its motion and the waveform collapses. I think.

[pj]

That's more the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, though. Schrodinger's Cat is more like saying that the particle is both moving and not-moving until you observe its motion and the waveform collapses. I think. Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. What Heisenberg is saying is simply that an observation tells you nothing about the system other than its state at the instant of the observation itself - and that even subsequent observations cannot be extrapolated (in the quantum world) to model the behavior of the system in between observations. Schroedinger's mental exercise is but one of many impossible scenarios, but it is a particularly beautiful one in that most people can grasp the absurdity of a cat which is both alive and dead a lot easier than grasping the concept of a particle which has both decayed and not decayed. Even the idea of "in between" is suspect. I prefer thinking about it as light consisting of something we have not identified that indeed behaves both as wave and particle. Experiments prove that light IS both wave and particle, not somewhere between wave and particle. The simple fact is that classical physics stops working at all the extremes. It defines the bit of the universe we recognize because of our perceptive limitations, indeed, but it doesn't even come close when we start heading toward the extremes. The reason classical physics is "classical" is because we CAN observe it, and it can be perceived as objective reality. It is that whole "objective" thing that becomes suspect as one digs deeper and deeper into these matters. We CAN'T observe the quantum world or what is going on at the pressures and temperatures at the heart of a star. We can't "perceive" the warpage of space and time directly, though we can do so indirectly though gravity and the gravitational lensing of light. We can't even objectively come to grips with the variability of time other than in mathematical terms. We humans are incredibly limited. Objectivity, from human scale and perspective, is anything BUT objective.

[thegnome54]

What Heisenberg is saying is simply that an observation tells you nothing about the system other than its state at the instant of the observation itself - and that even subsequent observations cannot be extrapolated (in the quantum world) to model the behavior of the system in between observations. I don't see how that ends up proving that something can be in two distinct states at once in an objective reality. Even the idea of "in between" is suspect. I prefer thinking about it as light consisting of something we have not identified that indeed behaves both as wave and particle. Experiments prove that light IS both wave and particle, not somewhere between wave and particle. It's physically impossible for something to be both a wave and a particle, at least by our definitions of those models. I like to think of it as something new, which both models can partially describe, but neither fully captures the behavior of. My point was that although some would argue that light is sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle, this is not true. The light ACTS like one or the other sometimes. This means that even if a model describes the behavior of something, the model is not necessarily reflective of the objective reality of the phenomenon. We humans are incredibly limited. Objectivity, from human scale and perspective, is anything BUT objective. I don't believe humans are capable of ever understanding the objective nature of things. I do, however, hold that we should work under the assumption that there exists an objective reality, or else all science should fall to pieces. It's true that we as humans can only ever perceive relexistence, but that doesn't mean that we should assume that nothing truly exists independent of our limited observations.

[Xaqaria]

This is where I separate objective and subjective reality - if you do not perceive reality, it still exists, but it does not relexist to you. The only existence that humans can be aware of is really relexistence, because all of our observations of reality are subjective. I'll ask you, if you cannot perceive this objective reality, how can you be so sure it exists at all? It seems to me that you have renamed the only reality that we have any evidence of "relexistence" so that you can leave room for this possibly fictional objective reality that you have trouble letting go of. There is no more evidence for an objective reality than there is for god. Essentially, an objective reality is what religious people call god in certain terms.

[thegnome54]

I'll ask you, if you cannot perceive this objective reality, how can you be so sure it exists at all? It seems to me that you have renamed the only reality that we have any evidence of "relexistence" so that you can leave room for this possibly fictional objective reality that you have trouble letting go of. There is no more evidence for an objective reality than there is for god. Essentially, an objective reality is what religious people call god in certain terms. The fact that our subjective realities are so similar indicates that there is an objective source of our observations. If I see an apple, and you see an apple, then although we are seeing different photons which have been reflected off of it, it is VERY reasonable to assume that there exists an apple independent of our observations. How would you explain two people seeing an apple if there is no objective reality?

[Universal Mind]

I just noticed this thread. That means the thread now exists, thanks to me. But seriously, I don't agree with the Schrodinger's Cat concept. Everything else in the universe is connected to everything else in the universe in terms of light travel, energy transfer, the constant amounts of matter and energy in the universe, the amount of gravity a box with a cat in it presses down on the capret, the faintest of soundwaves that occur in an atmosphere, and lots of other things. The state of an entity is affecting its surroundings even if nobody notices. Nobody was aware of the earliest evolutions of DNA, but they had to have happened because here we are. When police detectives find evidence, they are putting together what happened. What they find is determined by realities that are unknown for a while. I could keep going, but that sums up my perspective.

[Xaqaria]

The fact that our subjective realities are so similar indicates that there is an objective source of our observations. If I see an apple, and you see an apple, then although we are seeing different photons which have been reflected off of it, it is VERY reasonable to assume that there exists an apple independent of our observations. How would you explain two people seeing an apple if there is no objective reality? Well no, all it means is that the social paradigm that our subjective realities are based off of is very similar, which it is. You get most of your beliefs about the world around you from the rest of humanity, and not actually from the world. The zeitgeist defines our reality.

[Universal Mind]

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. What Heisenberg is saying is simply that an observation tells you nothing about the system other than its state at the instant of the observation itself - and that even subsequent observations cannot be extrapolated (in the quantum world) to model the behavior of the system in between observations. I have studied Heisenberg some, but I am still not quite sure where I stand with him. It looks like he might have been talking about limits to observation, not limits to objective reality. If was saying that reality is not objective, which a lot of people have taken from what he has said, then I will boldly say from my amateur perspective that he is wrong and will some day be proven wrong, even if certain apects of his theories are true and resulted in good technology. I will bet my left leg that reality is objective. Humans are not too significant in this enormous universe. Billions of years worth of universe history led to us, and we were not there for it. There is also a superhuge system of galaxies that go way beyond our spec of dirt, and it would do just fine if we weren't on this spec of dirt.

[Xaqaria]

I have studied Heisenberg some, but I am still not quite sure where I stand with him. It looks like he might have been talking about limits to observation, not limits to objective reality. If was saying that reality is not objective, which a lot of people have taken from what he has said, then I will boldly say from my amateur perspective that he is wrong and will some day be proven wrong, even if certain apects of his theories are true and resulted in good technology. I will bet my left leg that reality is objective. Humans are not too significant in this enormous universe. Billions of years worth of universe history led to us, and we were not there for it. There is also a superhuge system of galaxies that go way beyond our spec of dirt, and it would do just fine if we weren't on this spec of dirt. Are you suggesting that a subjective reality cannot not exist without humans?

[Universal Mind]

Are you suggesting that a subjective reality cannot not exist without humans? No, I am saying that objective reality can exist without humans. Subjective reality is really just the result of the objective reality of brain activity.

[R.D.735]

All the confusion centers around the idea that an object can be multiple states at a moment in time. Why is this incompatible with an objective reality, exactly, other than it being counterintuitive?

[Oneironaught]

Objective reality has to exist. The catch is that we - as part of it - can never truly define its nature because we cannot separate ourselves from the system. We are forever entwined with the system so ultimate reality is not knowable to us. What we experience is obviously only a small part of what ultimate reality is. It's our subjective observation of an objective reality. Just because we are incapable of proper observation don't at all indicate that an objective reality doesn't exist. A good way to phrase it is, the universe that humans percieve does not exist without a human to observe it. More like: A Human's interpretation of the actual, complete reality can not exist without a Human to observe. But that universe will exist independently of the Human. First, Schrodinger's Cat. For those of you who don't know, the idea is this: You put a cat in a box. While inside the box, the cat does not interact with the outside world, at ALL. No gravity from the matter of the cat, no noise or light escapes, no quantum entanglement, NOTHING. Just bear with me, this is theoretical. There is a lever/button outside the box which, when pressed, either feeds the cat food or feeds the cat poison. You have no way of knowing which it has done. The idea is that until you open the box and observe the cat in some way, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. I don't think the idea is to assume that both states exist at once. The meaning is that, without observation, you could never know which state is true. There is that uncertainty factor so one can not assume a bias for either. This means that to consider the current state you would necessarily have to consider each as being equally as possible. This is where I had my little moment of clarity - what if YOU are in the box? Obviously, you wouldn't think that you didn't exist anymore, you would think that the REST of the world no longer existed. Therefore, existence should really be decided by whether or not the person in question is affected by the effects of the object on the physical world. Existence already IS decided by what has effects on the observer. But that's only a subjective interpretation of an objective existence. relexistance. It's sort of a mashing of 'relevant' and 'existance'. But they already have a phrase for that: Subjective observation.

[Oneironaught]

Sorry this is so long... What Heisenberg is saying is simply that an observation tells you nothing about the system other than its state at the instant of the observation itself - and that even subsequent observations cannot be extrapolated (in the quantum world) to model the behavior of the system in between observations. That is true. But I think the model assumes that only instantaneous observations can be made. While I agree that Humans are unable to observe quantum scales without affecting measurement/observation, I think that only defines our limits and nothing more. It's always seemed to me that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle encourages that notion that accurate observation is not possible and, therefore, an objective reality doesn't exist. I think objective observation is possible - but I don't believe a sufficiently objective observer can exist. It's a seeming paradox. On top of that, scale is another reason that accurate, real time observation is impossible for an observer. We simply cannot think as fast as motion occurs on that scale. We also cannot see it - only its effects - because at a certain scale, light is too big to work for us. Beyond that, the electron is too large for us to use as an observation tool. And so on. But, providing that the quantum scale doesn't somehow elude time itself, there's no other possibility other than an objective reality. So, objective reality has to exist but it will forever be unknowable and we can never hope to observe it completely objectively. I think we are really only arguing semantics here. We can't even objectively come to grips with the variability of time other than in mathematical terms. Exactly. What we commonly define as objectivity is really only objective in very relative terms. So, anything within the system can never completely understand that system. Knowledge of objective reality is impossible. But objective reality is not. The right observer could certainly get to the bottom of it all but I doubt that observer even can exist (again because of the issue of scale). We humans are incredibly limited. Objectivity, from human scale and perspective, is anything BUT objective. My thoughts exactly. It's physically impossible for something to be both a wave and a particle, at least by our definitions of those models. Unless it's particles that travel in a wave pattern (I'm still trying to work that out. I'm not saying it's a fact.). I don't believe humans are capable of ever understanding the objective nature of things. I do, however, hold that we should work under the assumption that there exists an objective reality, or else all science should fall to pieces. It's true that we as humans can only ever perceive {subjectively}, but that doesn't mean that we should assume that nothing truly exists independent of our limited observations. You're absolutely correct. Objective reality is independent of our ability to observe and understand it. I'll ask you, if you cannot perceive this objective reality, how can you be so sure it exists at all? ...There is no more evidence for an objective reality than there is for god. The very fact that you are thinking right now proves beyond any doubt that objective reality has to exist. You may not know what it is but it has to exist for you to exist.

[Universal Mind]

All the confusion centers around the idea that an object can be multiple states at a moment in time. Why is this incompatible with an objective reality, exactly, other than it being counterintuitive? Because only one of the states can lead to what is now the present. Kennedy is not also alive right now while in his coffin. It would not be in synch with a great deal of objective reality that has happened.

[thegnome54]

I don't think the idea is to assume that both states exist at once. The meaning is that, without observation, you could never know which state is true. No, I'm pretty sure that they mean to imply that it is actually in both states until it is observed, and the waveform collapses. There's a famous slit experiment where single particles are fired through slits, and they make an interference pattern as if they were waves going through more than one slit, UNLESS they are observed somehow, in which case they only go through one slit and no interference pattern is made. I've never verified that experiment, nor do I know if it's just hypothetical or not, but the idea is that observation actually collapses things to one state or another. Existence already IS decided by what has effects on the observer. But that's only a subjective interpretation of an objective existence. But they already have a phrase for that: Subjective observation. "Relexistence" isn't subjective observation, because it is independent of conscious observation. For example, though you might not notice, every star in the universe is exerting a gravitational pull on you. Because of this interaction (as well as the light we see from them, obviously, among other things) they exist to you. The idea is that if something does not affect you, it does not relexist to you - whether or not it actually exists doesn't matter. Relexistence is more like subjective existence than subjective observation (it's a verb - something has to relexist in relation to someone), but neither term really captures the point of the word. The point is simply to separate objective reality from our subjective perceptions of it.

[Universal Mind]

Would anything exist if humans/animals did not exist? If not, then what was happening before we existed?

[The Cusp]

If the first person to check the box finds the cat dead, then he randomly dies, then next person to check the box could find the cat alive. Kind of like how the mafia eliminates witnesses...

[thegnome54]

If the first person to check the box finds the cat dead, then he randomly dies, then next person to check the box could find the cat alive. Kind of like how the mafia eliminates witnesses... No, because as soon as the box was opened to the rest of the world, the information about the cat's state interacted with the second observer (if you want to be really picky, considering light cones then he only 'knew' once at least enough time had passed for light to reach him from the box.) The box is supposed to keep the cat from any interactions with the outside world - including the gravitational pull of its mass, any quantum entanglements that might exist, etc.