Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 21, 2024, 3:36 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Defining "Atheism"
#81
RE: Defining "Atheism"
(November 21, 2010 at 6:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: "when we look in the box" isn't a possibility.
Are you talking about your comparison to God now? Coz I was just talking about the physics thought experiment...
Reply
#82
RE: Defining "Atheism"
No I was talking about the experiment - looking inside the box isn't part of the experiment.
Reply
#83
RE: Defining "Atheism"
It isn't part of the original thought experiment, no, but it is included in many of the interpretations of the experiment, since what happens after the box is opened is important.
Reply
#84
RE: Defining "Atheism"
(November 20, 2010 at 11:58 pm)Tiberius Wrote:
theVOID Wrote:The cat is either dead or alive, it's as simple as that, the whole point is that we could not know the outcome of a random event until we have observed it.

Erm, that's not how I learned it. From Wikipedia:

Quote:The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

Then again, I'm not a physicist, and I prepare to stand corrected.

That was a 'problem' that Schroedinger had with the Copenhagen interpretation because if it was true that you need an observer to collapse a wavefunction then the cat would be both dead within the potential scope of the system. Schroedinger rightly pointed out the paradox, and suggested that it needed to be resolved because as it stood the Copenhagen Interpretation could easily become a paradox.

This old school understanding of wave function collapses isn't accurate though, we now know that 'observers' are anything that interacts and causes a state change in the quantum system. The release of the radioactive material that triggered the release of the poison would be in it's self an 'observer' and cause the superposition of quantum states to resolve all by it's self.

(November 21, 2010 at 9:21 am)Tiberius Wrote: It isn't part of the original thought experiment, no, but it is included in many of the interpretations of the experiment, since what happens after the box is opened is important.

Only for someone who wants to know if the cat is dead or alive. The 'important' stuff has already happened.
.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Atheism VS Christian Atheism? IanHulett 80 29934 June 13, 2017 at 11:09 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  On Defining Atheism: A Sentence Napoléon 45 9829 August 24, 2015 at 8:25 am
Last Post: Ben Davis
  On Defining Atheism: An Essay Manalive 46 11075 August 22, 2015 at 6:22 am
Last Post: Little lunch
  Atheism, Scientific Atheism and Antitheism tantric 33 13709 January 18, 2015 at 1:05 pm
Last Post: helyott
  Strong/Gnostic Atheism and Weak/Agnostic Atheism Dystopia 26 12814 August 30, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Last Post: Dawsonite
  A question about defining 'Atheist' orangebox21 12 3931 July 10, 2014 at 6:08 pm
Last Post: Jenny A
  Debate share, young earth? atheism coverup? atheism gain? xr34p3rx 13 10918 March 16, 2014 at 11:30 am
Last Post: fr0d0
  A different definition of atheism. Atheism isn't simply lack of belief in god/s fr0d0 14 12574 August 1, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  Concisely defining three types of atheism. Edwardo Piet 6 3014 January 16, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Last Post: GANIMEDE
  "Old" atheism, "New"atheism, atheism 3.0, WTF? leo-rcc 69 40687 February 2, 2010 at 3:29 am
Last Post: tackattack



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)