Is Schrödinger's cat dead or alive?

[Sam Wormley]

Is Schrödinger's cat dead or alive?
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2013/mar/07/is-schrodingers-cat-dead-or-alive

> In less than 100 seconds, Martin Archer gives his take on this famous
> thought experiment of quantum mechanics.

[benj]

And his "take" is that he simply asserts without proof or explanation
that the cat is BOTH dead and alive at the same time.

It's pretty much a good example of what happens when people begin to
regard mathematics as more real than reality and fantasy replaces
physics.

Thanks, Sam.

[hanson]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is Schr�dinger's cat dead or alive?

<http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2013/mar/07/is-schrodingers-cat-dead-or-alive>
In less than 100 seconds, Martin Archer gives his take on
this famous thought experiment of quantum mechanics.
>

hanson wrote:
Archer is a useless Neo-brain Farter.
If not, bring on real world situations which show
that this Cat-shit is useful for the "alive"

[Chris Richardson]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:23:15 +0000, benj wrote:

>
> It's pretty much a good example of what happens when people begin to
> regard mathematics as more real than reality and fantasy replaces
> physics.
>

No, it's not a case of that at all. The issue lies with an incomplete
perspective. Schroedinger's dilemma has been resolved by the idea
of *quantum decoherence* and the concept is not at all a part of some
fantasy land.

But since the poster often brings up this particular criticism of
mathematics in general, we take the opportunity to rebut his nonsense.

Mathematics has long been purged of "fantastical" items. No serious
mathematician ever speaks of infinity or the infinitesimal. These
notions have been replaced by the *limit* and by the *differential*,
both of which are founded in strict realism, and both of which form
the basis to our current science.

Regarding quantum mechanics, any unreality only creeps in by virtue
of philosophical interpretation. If left to itself, the mathematics
of the quantum quite naturally and supremely accurately leads to a
statistical methodology that is no different, in its essential features,
from that used in life insurance or gambling.

So where is the origin of the poster's complaint? It is only within
the chaotic refuse of his supercilious mind.

[benj]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 02:54:47 +0000, Chris Richardson wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 18:23:15 +0000, benj wrote:
>
>
>> It's pretty much a good example of what happens when people begin to
>> regard mathematics as more real than reality and fantasy replaces
>> physics.
>>
>>
> No, it's not a case of that at all. The issue lies with an incomplete
> perspective. Schroedinger's dilemma has been resolved by the idea of
> *quantum decoherence* and the concept is not at all a part of some
> fantasy land.

Ah, it's jargon that makes math more real than reality!

> But since the poster often brings up this particular criticism of
> mathematics in general, we take the opportunity to rebut his nonsense.

Forgive me if I take this opportunity to rebut your nonsense. Just who is
"we" here?

> Mathematics has long been purged of "fantastical" items. No serious
> mathematician ever speaks of infinity or the infinitesimal. These
> notions have been replaced by the *limit* and by the *differential*,
> both of which are founded in strict realism, and both of which form the
> basis to our current science.

While it is the correct mathematical description to speak of limits, that
in no way changes the undefined nature of the end points or the
"fantastical" nature of mathematics. Mathematics is ENTIRELY a product of
imagination. I can imagine anything I choose. Even "fantastical" things
like the square roots of minus 1. There is NO requirement to align with
ANY reality. Self-consistency is the only requirement. Even systems with
diametrically opposite assumptions can coexist side by side. Hence
experiment and not math form the basis of true science (as to what
"current science" is about is another question)

> Regarding quantum mechanics, any unreality only creeps in by virtue of
> philosophical interpretation. If left to itself, the mathematics of the
> quantum quite naturally and supremely accurately leads to a statistical
> methodology that is no different, in its essential features,
> from that used in life insurance or gambling.

So your idea is math is real, and physical interpretation is unreal? Well
that sure has the cart before the horse. You think imaginary waves in
"nothing at all" is not "unreality"? It's bad enough that QM is the
science of ignorance given that all that is known is probabilities, but
even worse are relationships with no reasonable connection to everyday
observations. It's not only all unexplained, People like Chris have the
arrogance to assert that it's not even POSSIBLE to explain it!

You do remember what the "short form" of saying something is "impossible"
is:

> So where is the origin of the poster's complaint? It is only within the
> chaotic refuse of his supercilious mind.

Your assertions have just been demonstrated as untutored and spurious,
yet you persist in your fantasies. I'm guessing that in your imperious
insolent mind anything you SAY is real, BECOMES real to you. Sure.

[Chris Richardson]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 04:49:13 +0000, benj wrote:

>
> Mathematics is ENTIRELY a product of
> imagination. I can imagine anything I choose.
>

This is dead wrong. Imagination can inspire mathematics but it
cannot create it. There are many, many things within the realm
of analysis, for example, such as the "pathological" functions,
that no human intelligence could ever conceive. Rather these things
arise of their own accord out of the logical imperatives that humans
merely *discover*.

A poignant case was the *discovery* that all point sets of cardinality
N1 (aleph-1) are perfectly equivalent, in spite of any dimensional
considerations. This *discovery* both defied human imagination and
threatened the logical foundation of all mathematics. It caused
the great Georg Cantor to exclaim: "I see it but I cannot believe it!"
and was not adequately resolved until well within the twentieth century.

Mathematics is *discovery* far more than it is imagination or creativity.

(Don't mention non-Euclidean geometry, which is the usual example given
for the "mathematics as imagination" argument. I am referring to more
fundamental mathematical ideation, which underlies even the abstract
and free-form "games" to which you allude.)

>
> There is NO requirement to align with
> ANY reality. Self-consistency is the only requirement.
>

Self-consistency is an attribute that we can never imagine or create
but only discover, and, in this sense, self-consistency *is* reality.

>
> Even systems with
> diametrically opposite assumptions can coexist side by side.
>

They can coexist only within a "meta" system that thereby includes
them both while nullifying, in essence, their contradictory nature.

It is a subtle point, but we cannot have knowledge about any system
unless we inevitably erect an infinite recursion of higher order
systems.

To exert power over nature, which is the goal of science, we must
carefully circumscribe what is admissible.

Is this artificial and arbitrary? Yes it is.

Is this unreal? No, it is not.

>
> So your idea is math is real, and physical interpretation is unreal?
>

I originally said *philosophical* interpretation.

QM is merely a calculating tool, but yet it seems to cry out for some
justification. The attempt to bring QM into the realm of human understanding,
where it really does not belong, is the cause of much grief.

You obviously have a problem with the word "real." No, mathematical concepts
are not "real" in the sense that we can carve them out of wood or stone. But
they are "real" in the sense that they are immanent in nature -- and thus they
are beyond ourselves.

Only a psychotic, lost in his infantile dreams, can create his own mathematics.

>
> It's bad enough that QM is the
> science of ignorance given that all that is known is probabilities,
>

Probabilities are a form of determinism as much as classical trajectories.

During every presidential election, we all witness the determinative power
of probabilities.


> It's not only all unexplained, People like ***** have the

> arrogance to assert that it's not even POSSIBLE to explain it!
>

What does it mean to explain something? Do we want to know "what,"
"when," "how," or "why?"

In the case of QM, we want to get accurate values for energy, etc.

For everything else we throw it to the philosophers.


So, having said all of the above, I will conclude with this:

If there should be any criticism of mathematics it should be directed
to the fact that mathematics is wishy-washy and woefully impotent.

The majority of our equations (and thus the majority of our understanding)
cannot be solved. Even the motion of a simple pendulum cannot be
explicated using our gigantic edifice of established mathematics.
The practice of physics is suffused with the so-called "special" functions
that are merely a cover for our pathetic mathematical powerlessness. For
thousands of years humans have labored over mathematical development but
have achieved only few and sporadic results. Any honest assessment will
perceive mathematics as a tremendous human failure.

But it is the best that we got, and therefore we keep it.

[Chris Richardson]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 04:49:13 +0000, benj wrote:

>

> Even "fantastical" things
> like the square roots of minus 1.
>

It is amazing. Every sentence that this guy utters just overflows
with absurdity. Unfortunately I have nether the time nor the inclination
to expose the finest details of his supreme ignorance, but this one little
quip does deserve some attention.

The square root of -1 is not in the least fantastical, nor could it
ever be conceived by the human mind.

It may *appear* to be fantastical, but that is only because the so-called
complex numbers, which is the *only* number system, was historically not
discovered, or realized, until after everything else.

Our educational system reflects this history because it withholds a study
of the complex numbers until late in a student's career. This is a terrible
mistake. The complex numbers should be introduced at the very beginning
of education because they are the *only* number system that is conceptually
complete for the mathematical continuum (and everything that is based on
that continuum).

But to claim that sqrt(-1) somehow arose in the dream of a drunken Italian
back in the 14th century is to completely ignore the context of development
in which the imaginary unit was an inevitable *discovery*. In other words,
the complex numbers had always been *immanent*, but only a certain necessity
was able to force them into the attention of human beings.

Also unfortunate is the rather clumsy symbolism that was initially employed
to express the quantity. But with modern notation the imaginary unit
is concisely represented as "i" and is established in the ranks of all
other legitimate -- and very real -- mathematical numbers.

It's just like pi. Look at a circle. Pi is there. Pi is present
in many other places as well.

But human civilization may never have had *discovered* pi. If this had
been so, pi would still exist and pi would still be very *real*.

In fact, even if all human beings were to suddenly die and vanish,
pi, and the sqrt(-1), would still continue happily in real existence.

QED

[benj]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 08:09:04 +0000, Chris Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 04:49:13 +0000, benj wrote:
>
>
>> Even "fantastical" things like the square roots of minus 1.

> It is amazing. Every sentence that this guy utters just overflows with
> absurdity. Unfortunately I have nether the time nor the inclination to
> expose the finest details of his supreme ignorance, but this one little
> quip does deserve some attention.

Please excuse us Chris for failing to recognize your massive genius and
total knowledge of all things in the universe. I do hope everyone is
ready to bow down and pay homage to your obvious superiority over the
rest of the "useless eaters" on the planet.

And thank you for taking time out from your obviously busy and important
schedule to to deign to impart a little wisdom to your lesser beings.

> The square root of -1 is not in the least fantastical, nor could it ever
> be conceived by the human mind.

Ah I get it. NOTHING is fantastical to the mind of God which is the ONLY
thing that could conceive of something like the square root of minus 1!
It sure appears to be fantastical to us lesser humans!

> It may *appear* to be fantastical, but that is only because the
> so-called complex numbers, which is the *only* number system, was
> historically not discovered, or realized, until after everything else.

Ah! Mathematics isn't "invented" or made up in someone's mind, it is
"discovered"! Just where is this place where square roots of minus one
are laying about on the dirt waiting to be discovered? I'd like to hear
more about it! If you could please find the time, could you place one or
more square roots of minus one in a box and UPS them to me. I'll send you
my address.

> Our educational system reflects this history because it withholds a
> study of the complex numbers until late in a student's career. This is
> a terrible mistake. The complex numbers should be introduced at the
> very beginning of education because they are the *only* number system
> that is conceptually complete for the mathematical continuum (and
> everything that is based on that continuum).

So you say math is a "continuum" and totally self-consistent over that
"continuum"? An interesting premise. But since you know everything there
is to know, could you please tell us lesser beings if parallel lines meet
at some point or do they never meet. Both things seem to be in the
"continuum" and yet are contradictory.

> But to claim that sqrt(-1) somehow arose in the dream of a drunken
> Italian back in the 14th century is to completely ignore the context of
> development in which the imaginary unit was an inevitable *discovery*.
> In other words, the complex numbers had always been *immanent*, but only
> a certain necessity was able to force them into the attention of human
> beings.

OK, Chris. So a drunken Italian didn't just stumble on that place where
square roots of minus one lie on the ground. So maybe you were the one
who discovered it. No doubt SOMEONE would have tripped over those numbers
had you not discovered them for us. I guess you are correct. That does
make their "discovery" inevitable.

> Also unfortunate is the rather clumsy symbolism that was initially
> employed to express the quantity. But with modern notation the
> imaginary unit is concisely represented as "i" and is established in the
> ranks of all other legitimate -- and very real -- mathematical numbers.

Wait a minute. How are ANY numbers imaginary or otherwise "real". (and
that is of course in the sense of having an existence in our conscious
reality rather than in the mathematical meaning) NO numbers are real
things. "Two" isn't a real thing it's an abstraction of the set of all
couples. The number two is just a symbol for that abstraction. Your
transference of those abstractions to reality is fantasy of the highest
order.

> It's just like pi. Look at a circle. Pi is there. Pi is present in
> many other places as well.

Is pi real? Are circles real? Do circles even exist? If circles don't
exist, how in hell can pi be anything but a figment of some drunken
Italian's imagination? Pi it NOT "present" in anything! Pi is an
abstraction and mental construct. To think it exists is mathematical
ignorance of the highest order.

> But human civilization may never have had *discovered* pi. If this had
> been so, pi would still exist and pi would still be very *real*.

So where did they "discover" Pi? Were Pis laying about with the square
roots of minus one in the same place you "discovered" them? How about
throwing a couple Pis in that UPS box for me, dude!

> In fact, even if all human beings were to suddenly die and vanish,
> pi, and the sqrt(-1), would still continue happily in real existence.

If the moon does not exist until someone looks at it, it's certainly
clear that pi and square root of minus one do not exist if there are no
humans to think about them! That is simple modern physics.

And then with a flourish Chris smugly and arrogantly types:

> QED

Having demonstrated exactly nothing but is own human hauteur.

You're welcome.

[benj]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:25:13 +0000, Chris Richardson wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 04:49:13 +0000, benj wrote:
>
>
>> Mathematics is ENTIRELY a product of imagination. I can imagine
>> anything I choose.
>>
>>
> This is dead wrong. Imagination can inspire mathematics but it cannot
> create it. There are many, many things within the realm of analysis,
> for example, such as the "pathological" functions,
> that no human intelligence could ever conceive. Rather these things
> arise of their own accord out of the logical imperatives that humans
> merely *discover*.

> Mathematics is *discovery* far more than it is imagination or
> creativity.

Well your idea that all things (and I mean ALL things) already exist in
some form and are merely waiting to be "discovered" by men (meaning
mankind, natch) is interesting. It is an idea which goes along a
deterministic reality. If followed through we see that not only would
everything already "exist" but also the future is invariant. It's the
universe as some huge machine grinding it's way to total chaos. Cute.

Also bullshit. The reality of freewill and human choice is pretty much
accepted even within the framework of causality. And as soon as you admit
of this the future is no longer deterministic but mere probability. And
"discovery" goes out the window.

> (Don't mention non-Euclidean geometry, which is the usual example given
> for the "mathematics as imagination" argument. I am referring to more
> fundamental mathematical ideation, which underlies even the abstract and
> free-form "games" to which you allude.)

> To exert power over nature, which is the goal of science, we must
> carefully circumscribe what is admissible.
>
> Is this artificial and arbitrary? Yes it is.
>
> Is this unreal? No, it is not.

Wait a minute! So now you say everything is real or "waiting to be
discovered" yet you also admit of things that exist OUTSIDE of your so-
called "reality". Not only do they exist outside of it but you
arbitrarily exclude them to keep your little world safe, sane and
logical. Only that act makes your whole structure illogical. And that
makes your fantasy unreal.

[Martin Brown]

Pi is one of those fundamental constants that it would be *very* hard
for any society that had invented the wheel not to discover.

As ultimately would Euler's pretty equation e^(i.pi) + 1 = 0

Though other civilisations would use different symbols but the
mathematical concepts exist whether or not we have discovered them.

I expect civilisation could work perfectly well without some of the more
esoteric mathematics of transfinite numbers though.

However, Clifford algebras may well provide more fundamental constructs
for describing modern physical theories than complex numbers. Various
groups are experimenting with this approach with some success.
Short summary with refs online:

http://www.av8n.com/physics/complex-clifford.htm


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Chris Richardson]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:46:08 +0000, benj wrote:

>
> Ah! Mathematics isn't "invented" or made up in someone's mind, it is
> "discovered"!

Now you are getting it.

The branch of mathematics that is formally known as "analysis" is
pure discovery as every practitioner will readily concede.

Other "branches" of mathematics, such as algebra, some will claim
are acts of human creativity. But if the process of creation is
examined carefully, it is realized that such "creation" is tantamount
to an increasing generalization based on pre-existing, or pre-discovered,
forms. Function "spaces" or the theory of "groups" are just two examples
of this pseudo-creativity (which is actually discovery).

> Just where is this place where square roots of minus one
> are laying about on the dirt waiting to be discovered?

You actually answer this question yourself:

>
> NO numbers are real
> things. "Two" isn't a real thing it's an abstraction of the set of all
> couples.
>

This is *immanence* and it *is* an actual reality.

Given a set of premises there is only one conclusion that is
permitted based upon the indwelling logical necessity.

Furthermore, *any* intelligent entity, not just the human,
could discover this conclusion because the necessity
is beyond any such intelligence. In this sense the
conclusion is very, very real.

>
> So you say math is a "continuum" and totally self-consistent over that
> "continuum"? An interesting premise. But since you know everything there
> is to know, could you please tell us lesser beings if parallel lines meet
> at some point or do they never meet. Both things seem to be in the
> "continuum" and yet are contradictory.
>

The basis for mathematics is the number "continuum" which is the
idea of an unbroken dimensional extent. We cannot model the world
without it.

Although the continuum is, well, continuous, is has been "broken"
or disaggregated into a set of distinct entities which we formally
call the complex numbers. The real numbers, although distinct, together
create an unbroken "continuum" which may seem to be thoroughly impossible
and even paradoxical but that's the inhuman beast known as mathematics.

That's is what I meant by the "continuum" of complex numbers and it does
possess a definite structure and properties, all of which have been
discovered by human investigation.

In such a continuum, "parallel lines" would actually be equations of
a certain form. (We don't talk about "lines" in the modern world.
We only speak of equations. "Lines" were the feeble concepts of an
ancient civilization.)

These equations do not intersect in certain spaces (or point sets),
but we can choose to "complete" or "extend" the space to include
points at infinity. (Some call this the projective plane.) When
this is accomplished, all the equations now have simultaneous solutions
(i.e. all parallel lines will meet). There is no contradiction. The
issue is that some spaces are more "complete" than others.

There are many reasons for wanting to "extend" the space, but we
would be getting far off from our original track to consider these
reasons.

We would also be getting off track to consider another fundamental
number system: the integers. Although the integers are a subset
of the continuum, they also can be considered separately, but when
we do so, serious problems will arise. The ancient Diophantine
equations are an example of "mixing" particle concepts, or integers,
with the continuum.

Again, unfortunately, this is a vast topic that cannot be adequately
covered here.

>
> "Two" isn't a real thing it's an abstraction of the set of all
> couples. The number two is just a symbol for that abstraction. Your
> transference of those abstractions to reality is fantasy of the highest
> order.
>

Here we find the gist of the disagreement.

The "two-ness" of an aggregate is an attribute which can be
discovered by *any* intelligence. Indeed, there is some evidence
that even non-human animals can discern the number of objects
in certain collections, i.e. can count. So obviously, the idea
of a counting number, that is, "two-ness" or "three-ness" and
so on, does not depend on our human existence. The "number"
is actually there for any intelligence to discover.

We humans can discover more than lower animals, but there is
certainly a limit to our intelligence. This means that there
exist relations which we cannot discover, in the same way that
a lower animal cannot discover, for example, a quadratic
relationship or the number pi.

So, to conclude, there is no need to transfer the abstraction
to reality in some act of human creation. The abstraction
is already there. Just ask your pet dog or canary. (Don't
bother with your goldfish; he doesn't know.)

>
> Is pi real? Are circles real? Do circles even exist? If circles don't
> exist, how in hell can pi be anything but a figment of some drunken
> Italian's imagination? Pi it NOT "present" in anything! Pi is an
> abstraction and mental construct. To think it exists is mathematical
> ignorance of the highest order.
>

Circles are immanent virtually everywhere.

When things move to where they are not, such as when when we spill
a drop of liquid onto the floor, or when that drop diffuses into
the surrounding space, a circle (or sphere) is formed.

When I swing a bolas above my head, voila, there is a circle.

In the same way that we discover "three-ness" we, or any other
intelligent being, will discover the circle, and hence pi.

If pi is a mental construct then it must pre-exist in the brain,
in the same way that grammar or parental instincts pre-exist.
We all should catch a glimpse of pi whether or not we ever consider
a circle. But this never happens. No one ever dreams of pi.
We discover pi as an indwelling relation the in same way that we
discover a skeleton when we tease apart an animal body.

>
> If the moon does not exist until someone looks at it, it's certainly
> clear that pi and square root of minus one do not exist if there are no
> humans to think about them! That is simple modern physics.
>

As I already mentioned, just ask your dog. Ask a farmer's horse.
They can count. They can understand "two-ness," and they existed
long before the humans evolved from the apes.

Perhaps we will one day make contact with other intelligent beings.
(This is extremely unlikely but not completely impossible.)
If/when this happens, what will we talk about? We'll talk about
pi, of course, and all of the other mathematical objects that
we each have discovered. Then we'll share a laugh over the
mathematical reality deniers.

Just like wild flowers or juniper berries, mathematics is there
for the picking.

[gelbe...@gmail.com]

Dead !

[Chris Richardson]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:57:47 +0000, benj wrote:

>
> Well your idea that all things (and I mean ALL things) already exist in
> some form and are merely waiting to be "discovered" by men (meaning
> mankind, natch) is interesting. It is an idea which goes along a
> deterministic reality. If followed through we see that not only would
> everything already "exist" but also the future is invariant. It's the
> universe as some huge machine grinding it's way to total chaos. Cute.
>

Now you are starting to get it. There are some deficiencies yet,
however.

These things are discoverable by *any* intelligence, irrespective
of whether that intelligence actually exists. Humans have only
been around for a million years or so, but the reality precedes
our existence.

Why should a universal determinism be an undesirable prospect?
If the universe were totally devoid of governing principles we
would not even be here to ponder it all.

Determinism itself is not the issue, but rather the nature of
determinism, and this question has not yet been settled.

>
> The reality of freewill and human choice is pretty much
> accepted even within the framework of causality.
>

Accepted by whom?

Free will is a medieval concept, absconded entirely from Christian
dogma and the great Chain of Being.

Free will has been blown out of water by the science of psychoanalysis
and evolutionary biology. The human organism has attained a completely
different, and thoroughly mechanical and deterministic, character.

Free will is a dream and the wish-fulfilling fantasy of a deluded,
misplaced philosophy.

So, to wrap this all up:

Mathematics is discovered and not created. It exists independent
of any intelligence (not just human intelligence).

Contrary positions are based on seemingly self-contained mathematical
systems that bear no apparent relation to the physical world (i.e.
reality). However, such systems will conform entirely to a logical
structure that is itself abstracted from the physical world

There can be no systems that exist in true isolation or without
connection to what the deniers loosely term "reality."

Plato lives on again!

[benj]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:29:22 +0000, Chris Richardson wrote:

> So, to wrap this all up:
>
> Mathematics is discovered and not created. It exists independent of any
> intelligence (not just human intelligence).
>
> Contrary positions are based on seemingly self-contained mathematical
> systems that bear no apparent relation to the physical world (i.e.
> reality). However, such systems will conform entirely to a logical
> structure that is itself abstracted from the physical world
>
> There can be no systems that exist in true isolation or without
> connection to what the deniers loosely term "reality."
>
> Plato lives on again!

Holy crap! You are as big a nutjob as I am!

[Wally W.]

On 23 May 2013 08:09:04 GMT, Chris Richardson wrote:

>In fact, even if all human beings were to suddenly die and vanish,
>pi, and the sqrt(-1), would still continue happily in real existence.

If -1 tree in the middle of a forest has a root, and no one is there
to see it, is it real?

[Chris Richardson]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 19:55:58 -0400, Wally W. wrote:

>
> If -1 tree in the middle of a forest has a root, and no one is there
> to see it, is it real?

Let me answer that question by posing another:

Most people will never see their own asshole. Is their own asshole
real?

[benj]

Depends if your asshole is coherent or not. Most assholes I know aren't
coherent.

[Will Janoschka]

Ben I have a large box cotaning only the square roots of many, many
negative numbers. Where oh where can I ship them?. If you carefully
plant and water the roots, you can harvest negative square plants.
:)
>
Erwin, says Frow Schrodinger, What did you do to the cat?
It looks half dead.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

and, if it hasn't, I would not advize "opening the God-am box
at this late stage."

it is simply fuzzy math,
as shown by Kosko's "write-up of my suggestion
to his grad student in a coffee-house."

so, don't reify the God-am math, or
you may find yourself in the catbox.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/24/13 12:03 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Erwin, says Frow Schrodinger, What did you do to the cat? It looks
> half dead.
>

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/24/13 12:03 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:

> Erwin, says Frow Schrodinger, What did you do to the cat? It looks
> half dead.

Schrödinger's Cat - Sixty Symbols
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrxqTtiWxs4

[benj]

You tell us Sammy. If I roll a bowling ball toward the edge of a table is
there a finite probability that it well be reflected back at me?

Show us what you know Sam.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

it was just a joke of Schroedinger,
he wouldn't really do that to a cat -- but, if he did,
he would probably "open the God-am box,"
every once in a Blue Moon.