Re: Question for religious parents

In article <1141497023.353887.90160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"cjorp@xxxxxxxxx" <cjorp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

dragonlady wrote:
In article <1141455604.381336.273340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"cjorp@xxxxxxxxx" <cjorp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

dragonlady wrote:

The point is, if the quantum phsyicists are right, by logical extension,
the cat MUST be simultaneously dead and alive.

Even to me, this conversation is clearly pointless to continue. You
either didn't read those quotes, didn't understand them, didn't think
people with the day job of thinking about the logical consequences of
quantum theory had anything meaningful to say about the logical
consequences of quantum theory, or were in a really big hurry to tell
me that I was wrong.

Or you didn't read what I actually wrote. Yes, I know the cat isn't
both dead and alive -- what Schrodinger was doing with his thought
experiment was taking what, *according to him at the time* was the
logical extension of what the quantum physicists were saying. I'm just
saying it's an interesting thing to contemplate. Sort of like a zen
koan.

What you actually wrote was. "by logical extension, the cat MUST be
simultaneously dead and alive." But that is not true. By logical
extension, since it looks like a contradiction is entailed, something
went wrong.

They knew it was wrong *because* it appeared to generate a
contradiction. Like I said earlier, they didn't say, "Oh, look how zen
we're being!" They said, "Boy, something's wrong here."

If that's what zen koans are like, they aren't really contradictions,
and believing both sides won't get you any truth.

Zen koans are not about paradox or contradiction -- they are about
expanding your mind by imagining the unimaginable -- the most famous is
"What is the sound of one hand clapping?" They are not intended to be
solved with logic -- and, in fact, if you answer them, then you are
contemplating them in the wrong way.


I'll take Socrates as an authority over Fowler; thanks.

Depends -- on what topic?

On non-contradiction. Frankly, I think you're trying to make an
argument from authority, as you keep saying "Read Fowler" rather than
making an argument about why believing a contradiction would be a
useful way of thinking critically. I've been trying to explain my
position without resorting to any authorities to back me up. Either
the argument stands on its own, or it doesn't.

I did cite two quantum theorists who disagree with the claim that the
cat is both alive and dead, since you said you were interested and
well-read on the topic of how quantum mechanics might relate to
religious belief.

In spite of what you obviously think of me, I would undoubtedly do quite
well in your class. I'm quite capable of doing the sort of work you
value.

It'd be nice to see that, rather than just have you insist it's true.

Is that how you approach your students when they persist in not agreeing
with you? I could use your approach successfully, and pass a test on it
-- and still disagree with you.

I know I am capable of knowing what is true in a factual, provable way
and what is not (the difference between having evidence and having
proof). I know that, when it comes to things for which there can be no
proof, I am capable of holding a belief (based on the evidence) without
thinking that those who disagree with me are necessarily wrong. It is
an odd thing, perhaps, and it has taken me a long time to get here --
but here I am.

That you can't understand how I can do that is fairly irrelevant.

You are obviously well read and well educated, as well as highly
rational. I don't know if your inability to understand how I do this
(or, perhaps, to believe me) is because my descriptive skills are
lacking (hence the referral to Fowler, who does a better job of
describing the rise of the ironic imagination than I can) or a lack of
imagination on your part.

Or maybe its the sort of thing the mystics address when they say some
things cannot be addressed in words. In that case, it is something you
won't believe unless and until you experience it. It doesn't really
matter. *I* know I'm not an idiot, whatever you may choose to think.

I have enjoyed this conversation -- and am leaving for a while. Don't
know if I'll have much access to the internet for the next couple of
weeks, but when I do, I'll check back in.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question for religious parents
    ... the cat MUST be simultaneously dead and alive. ... consequences of quantum theory, or were in a really big hurry to tell ... extension, since it looks like a contradiction is entailed, something ...
    (misc.kids)
  • Re: QM Measurement Problem
    ... of classical interference, where one thing gets together with another ... That is not the way quantum systems work - ... cat that you could not tell was alive or dead. ... collapse into one or the other, or more likely into a very sick cat. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Schrodinger, his cat, and the submarine ride
    ... Unfortunately there were not any to fit the cat, ... At exactly an hour he opened the box, and as quantum mechanics tells us, ... change that he was sad it was dead. ... dioxide are also in a superposition as well, and they collapse into one ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Understanding Schrodingers cat.
    ... It can only prove that the cat in the box has a 50% chance ... of being alive or dead. ... Schrodinger used a quantum act to trigger the ... weed out all random states of a quantum system. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Anyone here seen Brokeback Mountian yet?
    ... Charles Soto wrote: ... >> Unless the cat was already dead, that would be a contradiction in terms... ...
    (rec.motorcycles)