Please refer to these first to understanding this post,
(Another You) can be considered now already crossed over to another universe. Are we speaking in Schroedenger? No we aren’t !
I’ll explain what i meant (it’s not the same as Schroedinger’s cat) …
The next moment always indicate the presence of cat and the absence of cat, but when we opened the box and found the cat was still alive then there is no other universe to a dead cat. But there is another universe for the absence of cat, where the absence of schroedinger’s cat in a universe because it represents another universe (belonging to) the observer who does not have direct observations (in whatever form) to the cat.
What I mean here is a duplication in another universe to establish causality, and instead establish a possible ramification of Schrodinger. Everyone has their own universe and well connected with causalities of several possible causal circumstances. It means that if we combine all of universes into one universe, it would seem only one picture that does not affirm the existence of two possibilities (of schroedinger) coexist.
My appearance is duplicated in several universe does not necessarily reflect the ramification (multiplication) of universe to show the possibilities of schroedinger, but it shows that our twin(s) is placed in different universe owned by your friends (or others) while maintaining causality among universes. In my universe, i was an observer, and in another universe (friend’s consciousness), i was observed by other. There is only one observer in my own universe, and in other universe (owned by other people) the presence of myself (another me) is always being observed by other. But if you want to visit other universe as an observer (although the possibility can not be observed by others – hidden observer), then your awareness must be like out of all the universes and see the whole universes (but you still won’t find “Schroedinger’s consequences”).
So if you go back to the Schrodinger’s cat, then when you open the cat and watched the cat was alive or dead, and deemed that only you’re watching a cat, then there is no other cat in another world (other than being observed by you), but as soon as other people are also watching a cat who is also being observed by you, then the cat impression will be formed also in the second observer, but still follow the rules of causality for the cat alive or dead, and in between the two observers did not have two cats in a state of life and death, but the two observers get a cat as the same circumstance of two circumstances, dead or alive.
Schroedinger then get a cat that died, as it happened for others schroedinger’s cat observers, also get a dead cat and there is no Schroedinger’s cat still alive anywhere and vice versa (if the cat is still alive).
@spaceghost, suppose that cat was your dead cat (only found the body), then there will be only your dead cat on the entire possible universes. There will be no single universe that support possibilities for alive cat (pointing to your cat).
There will be no equal possibilities for both dead or alive cat that were supported by universes.
@spaceghost, Quantum Superposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition doesn’t represent there is indefinite states that SUPPORT DUPLICATION as mentioned on Schroedinger’s cat
It just asserts that indefinite states are ready to be changed (converted) relevantly (quantum entanglement).
There will be readiness, but still there is no duplication irrelevantly.
@spaceghost Schroedinger’s cat may not be interpreted beyond as it should be, where it asserts that suddenly there are duplication into many worlds. One world for the dead cat, and another for the cat which was alive.
Whether there is observer opening the box or not, but the cat is either alive or dead, but not having a superposition of the two states (alive and dead). There will be readiness, but there is no paradox.
@spaceghost, If we consider it may be a dog or skyscraper, then there must be someone (PREVIOUSLY) did a plan whether it must be a cat, a dog or else to be selected, it’s “Someone’s animals” or “Someone’s things”. And putting Schroedinger’s cat at the last order. In the sense that, if the dog was selected rather than a cat, then further it would be Schroedinger’s dog. But the result is just the same, that there is only a dog either alive or dead.
Still, possibilities whether alive or dead, or whether cat or something else (related to this case), it must be worked (understood) at relevant level. Assuming whether it’s a dog or skyscrapper, but it can only be accepted at the higher level or previous session before Schroedinger took action with his cat. Otherwise (or finally, eventually), we were only dealing with alive or dead.
Meaning, in this case, at this level (Schroedinger’s cat), it’s just a cat, whether alive or dead. And again …, but not having a superposition of the two states (alive and dead).
In all honesty, I was expecting another misunderstanding of Schrodinger’s thought experiment. And to be even more honest I didn’t read your post all the way through but I think I have a decent grasp on your stances. (I want to also not the inherent chaos in your thoughts haha.. very poorly structured sentences and word choices but I believe we are on the same page as far as the actual ideas go)
My question is are you a supporter of the many worlds theory? I would say that you are not but I want your clarification. Plus, I feel it would make for a good discussion (if we are at a disagreement).
@egarim, I disbelieve many worlds interpretation. I am trying to make it as short as possible, but perhaps my explanation still rather lengthy, therefore please correct me if you are still having difficulties following my structured sentences.
We are definitely on the same page then. This discussion would be more akin to a lengthy, mutual agreement. I do want to say that I used to believe in the many worlds theory (it’s a very romantic idea if I can call it that) but have since changed my mind.
Well, I basically said nothing. Good post, my friend!
@seremonia, my first thought is that your “whole” universe seems like it would be filled with inconsistencies. Mainly if you were able to observe the “whole” universe, I’m lost at how perceptions would mix, but that’s not the issue I wish to confront.
Second, if your idea works it seems like you have as many segments as you would multi-verses. Why not let each play out on its own than try to give everyone their own personal universe. Your idea comes off to as Plotemic. You’re revolving the solar system around the earth, a single person, rather than orbiting around the sun, scientific properties.
To put this into mathematical lingo, your independent variable is the persons perception and the rest of their universe has to morph to that perception. Where as in the multiple world scenario, the universe doesn’t give a shit. It just simply lets both happen, rather both are occurring on the same line of time. Nothing has to change because both already are. Now I’d like to rephrase my bit about the number of universes in case. There would most likely be a greater number of multi-vesres than prectional-verses, but the number of times the perception alters would sum to the possible number of multi-verses.
The double slit experiment has hinted that the behavior Schroedinger was trying to deal with is independent of time. The electrons will behave as if the wavefunction was destroyed prior to observation if an observation is conducted. You’re case would not allow this. The change would have to be upon observation of the viewer. You could say that the universe “knows” the actions of the observer but I believe its a much simpler situation if the state of the experiment simple transverses universes.
@seremonia, No. I mean, you put a cat in there. While it’s unobserved it can be anything. A dog..balloon..screwdriver…
Why is it limited to the cat only being alive or dead? If the cat was put in alive, I’m going to believe it’s still alive while I can’t see it. What would make something come to the conclusion that while you aren’t observing it, it can be dead? Like I said I really don’t get the point. Like I also said I believe anything is possible, let me rephrase it. Anything is possible, but it needs a cause. So unless the box is full of deadly gas, I’m going to think if I put an alive cat in a box, it’ll be alive even if I can’t see it.
We can’t observe the whole universes independently, but the whole universes would be perceived by us, in the sense that there is no single part of ourselves jump up out of an ice ball and watching all ice balls. We are still as an ice ball. We are still as one consciousness, but the whole universes would be perceived within our consciousness, in the sense that our consciousness are changing to reflect appearance of the whole universes.
jturk181 said: “…You’re revolving the solar system around the earth, a single person, rather than orbiting around the sun, scientific properties….”. //It doesn’t have to be considered as the opposite of scientific properties. In the sense that both (whether now or in the future) as scientific properties. It’s just that it has different level of the law.//
jturk181: “…simply lets both happen, rather both are occurring on the same line of time. Nothing has to change because both already are….”. //Whether those were happened or not, but the point was that all of those were within ourselves, in the sense that for one single consciousness (whether myself or yourself) was enough to create what we perceived as “the branches of the universe”. There was no duplication irrelevantly, in the sense that multiplication or all of those branches of the universe were not exist side by side but rather within one single consciousness. Otherwise there will be a distance in between observer (myself) and what was being observed (within another universe).//
– All that we were aware of, because of the state of our consciousness. The logical consequence of it, that, if we were observing object, then it must be understood that we were observing the object within ourselves. In the sense that we were aware of something, not by perceiving something, but actually one specific state of consciousness was enough to create sensation that there was “myself was observing something”. And the logical consequence of it, it could be considered that there was no distance in between observer and what was being observed.
+++ Back to double slit experiment +++
– The observer had ability to change the way quantum entity (electron, photon, etc) behave, in the sense that when we were observing it, suddenly we found particle pattern, otherwise we saw interference pattern (wavefunction). It can be understood that when someone was reporting his observation (and found particle pattern or whatsoever) to us, then we could say that at the same time and at the same placement it was an interference pattern.
– Meaning, at the same time and at the same placement there were two states, it was interference pattern and particle pattern and it was coming from one typical of source which was quantum entity (electron, photon, etc). And there was no distance in between the two states. It was definitely contradiction. Otherwise it’s just a potentiality which can be known differently dependent upon different point of view (by observing it or else).
– I am going to use parable: it’s similar to this, there was Hexadecimal data, or more popular we might say it’s potentiality to be observed as an image file (*.jpeg). While we weren’t observing this Hexadecimal data (having potentiality to be observed as an image file), this Hexadecimal data remained on its own state as Hexadecimal data. But once we were using computer system to look at it, suddenly we could see picture, image of it. We didn’t see Hexadecimal data, but we saw an image. Suddenly, Hexadecimal data was converted (changing) on our perception as (to be considered) solid thing (meaningful) as an image. And this hexadecimal data were created based on binary data.
– This binary, at the same time and at the same placement had two states, it was hexadecimal type of data and image type and it was coming from one typical of source which was binary file. And there was no distance in between the two states. It was definitely contradiction. Otherwise it’s just a potentiality for binary data which can be known differently dependent upon different point of view (by observing it or else).
jturk181: “…The electrons will behave as if the wavefunction was destroyed prior to observation if an observation is conducted…”. It’s the same as asserting that when we weren’t observing something, then consciousness was at specific state, but when we were observing, then suddenly previous state of my consciousness was collapsed and it was changed relevantly to a state where there was “i was aware of something”. Just by observing, there will be a changing on our consciousness.
– The point is that, Schroedinger’s cat is far away to be related to “many world interpretation” as derived from double slit experiment.
– But Schroedinger’s cat itself is also far away from “many world interpretation” as one of generally known. Because as you said: “…Where as in the multiple world scenario, the universe doesn’t give a shit. It just simply lets both happen, rather both are occurring on the same line of time…” It implies two possibilities:
– One of the branches of the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schroedingers_cat_film.svg must be considered as real as our universe or not. If that so then it has the same behavior, the same law as our universe and it will cause multiplication which it against axiom, where from a universe can’t be expanded beyond a universe itself. Or (as you said) “…Nothing has to change because both already are….”. Since when? If it’s just about now or before, then it was expanded beyond universe itself which is (again) against axiom. But if it’s already there at any moment, then, it implies infinite which is impossible .
There is no way for us to relate Schroedinger’s cat to “many world interpretation”.
spaceghost: “No. I mean, you put a cat in there. While it’s unobserved it can be anything. A dog..balloon..screwdriver…” //But in this case, it’s already clear enough that we are not dealing with whether cat or not, but we are dealing with possibilities which is alive or dead//
spaceghost: “Why is it limited to the cat only being alive or dead? If the cat was put in alive, I’m going to believe it’s still alive while I can’t see it. What would make something come to the conclusion that while you aren’t observing it, it can be dead? Like I said I really don’t get the point. ” // It’s not about limiting our judgement whether a cat must alive or dead, but it just that, it can’ be related to “many world interpretation”.//
spaceghost: “Anything is possible, but it needs a cause. So unless the box is full of deadly gas, I’m going to think if I put an alive cat in a box, it’ll be alive even if I can’t see it.” //Yes//