In order to understand/ get your head around what is happening with Schrodinger's Cat I think you need to put the whole experiment into a larger context..........the following is my explanation of what the larger context might look like.
We know from quantum experiments that everything in the universe is composed of atoms, including us. We also know that the observable world, or the accumulation of atoms that make up the observable world is not always what we think it is. For example the colours we see are not inherent in the objects observed, science would suggest they have no colour until they are illuminated by white light from the sun containing the full colour spectrum. The atoms of the object either absorb or reflect certain wavelengths of light and these are picked up by the human eye and brain which interprets the information as certain colours.
We learn to name these perceptions when we are young. This interpretation is done by the rod and cone mechanism in the brain. However we know through further experimentation that there are more colours involved in the colour spectrum than those we can perceive with our eyes and brain. We know there is infra red and ultra violet light which we can only see with the help of instruments. There may be more that we don't yet know about.
We have a similar limitation with sound. It would seem that as humans we can only perceive a certain range of sounds, even though we now know, through research, that there are other sounds at the upper and lower range of frequencies that animals can hear and we can't. There may also be a case for saying that our sense of smell, taste and touch are likewise limited to within a particular bandwidth due to the limitation of the receptors in our brain.
It would seem that these limitations vary between ourselves and the animal kingdom. Maybe brain size is not so important but rather how well it is configured for the survival of the particular species. There is evidence now that birds have receptors in their brains that allow them to navigate on their annual migrations via the earth's magnetic field. We don't know if we, as humans, have this capability. It is seems to be a skill outside the limits of our brain's anatomy.
If we extrapolate from these notions of limitation to our perceptions of the world then we could say that there are a whole range of possibilities 'out there' that are unknown to us and that we are only aware of in a limited form and a one dimensional opinion. If we think about something as mundane and predictable as the sun rising every morning. For most of us it is comfortable to think that it rises in the east and sets in the west. However if we think about it a bit more we realise that it is only true if we position our place of observation on this planet. If we move our point of observation to the moon or beyond we now know that in fact the sun only rises from the perspective of the earth, from further out in the universe it is easily observed that the earth turns on its axis towards the sun, the sun doesn't move around the earth, (this was considered heretical thinking at one period of history). Whether the sun rises above a fixed point in the morning or the earth turns to face it, is therefore a matter of perspective.
It would seem that everything we perceive within our limited perceptual framework is subject to comparison and relatedness. We seem to be innately programmed to make contrasts. We cannot perceive darkness unless we know about light, we cannot understand wetness without knowing dryness or good without evil, etc etc. We seem to need to define opposites to bring our perception into focus, we are constantly making judgements , consciously or not to understand our world. We seem to be 'hard wired' to do this and it may be part of our survival mechanism to decipher what is a threat to our existence and what will benefit our development. We learn, develop and refine this process throughout our lives.
We could easily say that we are 'constrained' by our own interpretation of the limited information that comes in through our nerve cells………... and we don't know that we are constrained. Our view of the world or our focus of attention may be a bit like a torch beam or a searchlight in the dark. If we are the carrier and director of the torch we can perceive what the light focuses on, but we are oblivious to what else is beyond our beam of conscious attention. There is a theory in quantum physics and some branches of philosophy, that the very act of focusing our attention on something brings it into being, or at least recognition, like moving the torch around in the darkness. This then begs the question, did we create it with our beam of consciousness or did it exist already and we just highlighted it, or is it both, in that what we perceive already existed and we not only highlighted it, but also defined it, differentiated it, judged it and categorized it to make it understandable.
Which brings us back to Schrodinger's cat. Maybe the cat in the box is in a state like the darkness beyond our torch beam of consciousness, it may be there but until we see it or hear it and pass judgement on it we cannot say if it is alive or dead. It is in a state which is undifferentiated by observation by our consciousness. However, it does not mean that the cat isn't in some 'state' but just one that we have not yet categorized and therefore recognised as either dead or alive.
Taking into account the bigger picture behind this paradox is to my way of thinking the way to make some sense of the puzzle, it is the hypothesis of a possible explanation, and, as with all hypotheses, is open to destruction.
To have glimpses of the bigger picture it helps to observe our thoughts, the stream of consciousness which flows continuously through our mind via our brain cells firing and which interacts with the incoming information from our senses. It is so continuous and all pervading inside our head that we are mostly consumed by it. We think we are 'it'. We construct our own reality and filter our view of the world through it. It is sometimes called 'the stream of consciousness'. If we meditate or find a peaceful setting and cease the chatter inside our head it is possible to observe the workings of this stream and to realise that we are not just this stream but something outside of it and we can in fact be an observer, not a simple task but a rewarding one. The stream appears to 'happens' to us because we are in this molecular body structure and this state of consciousness. How much of it is simply ruminations of accumulated life experiences and thought processes and how much of it may come to us from 'outside of our torch beam ' is a point of much speculation. There have been recent discoveries of higher level processing cells in the brain called microscopic tubules which may well prove to provide an interface for access to another state, which at a more gross cellular level we have no knowledge of. We may be connected to it through our DNA, who knows it may even dictate our Karma!
So……. given that it would seem we have our limitations of perception and that we seem to be hard wired to differentiate and make judgements, it is easy to see why, on first encounter, the paradox of Schodinger's cat exists.
Those are my thoughts on the subject….for what they are worth.
Hazel.
We know from quantum experiments that everything in the universe is composed of atoms, including us. We also know that the observable world, or the accumulation of atoms that make up the observable world is not always what we think it is. For example the colours we see are not inherent in the objects observed, science would suggest they have no colour until they are illuminated by white light from the sun containing the full colour spectrum. The atoms of the object either absorb or reflect certain wavelengths of light and these are picked up by the human eye and brain which interprets the information as certain colours.
We learn to name these perceptions when we are young. This interpretation is done by the rod and cone mechanism in the brain. However we know through further experimentation that there are more colours involved in the colour spectrum than those we can perceive with our eyes and brain. We know there is infra red and ultra violet light which we can only see with the help of instruments. There may be more that we don't yet know about.
We have a similar limitation with sound. It would seem that as humans we can only perceive a certain range of sounds, even though we now know, through research, that there are other sounds at the upper and lower range of frequencies that animals can hear and we can't. There may also be a case for saying that our sense of smell, taste and touch are likewise limited to within a particular bandwidth due to the limitation of the receptors in our brain.
It would seem that these limitations vary between ourselves and the animal kingdom. Maybe brain size is not so important but rather how well it is configured for the survival of the particular species. There is evidence now that birds have receptors in their brains that allow them to navigate on their annual migrations via the earth's magnetic field. We don't know if we, as humans, have this capability. It is seems to be a skill outside the limits of our brain's anatomy.
If we extrapolate from these notions of limitation to our perceptions of the world then we could say that there are a whole range of possibilities 'out there' that are unknown to us and that we are only aware of in a limited form and a one dimensional opinion. If we think about something as mundane and predictable as the sun rising every morning. For most of us it is comfortable to think that it rises in the east and sets in the west. However if we think about it a bit more we realise that it is only true if we position our place of observation on this planet. If we move our point of observation to the moon or beyond we now know that in fact the sun only rises from the perspective of the earth, from further out in the universe it is easily observed that the earth turns on its axis towards the sun, the sun doesn't move around the earth, (this was considered heretical thinking at one period of history). Whether the sun rises above a fixed point in the morning or the earth turns to face it, is therefore a matter of perspective.
It would seem that everything we perceive within our limited perceptual framework is subject to comparison and relatedness. We seem to be innately programmed to make contrasts. We cannot perceive darkness unless we know about light, we cannot understand wetness without knowing dryness or good without evil, etc etc. We seem to need to define opposites to bring our perception into focus, we are constantly making judgements , consciously or not to understand our world. We seem to be 'hard wired' to do this and it may be part of our survival mechanism to decipher what is a threat to our existence and what will benefit our development. We learn, develop and refine this process throughout our lives.
We could easily say that we are 'constrained' by our own interpretation of the limited information that comes in through our nerve cells………... and we don't know that we are constrained. Our view of the world or our focus of attention may be a bit like a torch beam or a searchlight in the dark. If we are the carrier and director of the torch we can perceive what the light focuses on, but we are oblivious to what else is beyond our beam of conscious attention. There is a theory in quantum physics and some branches of philosophy, that the very act of focusing our attention on something brings it into being, or at least recognition, like moving the torch around in the darkness. This then begs the question, did we create it with our beam of consciousness or did it exist already and we just highlighted it, or is it both, in that what we perceive already existed and we not only highlighted it, but also defined it, differentiated it, judged it and categorized it to make it understandable.
Which brings us back to Schrodinger's cat. Maybe the cat in the box is in a state like the darkness beyond our torch beam of consciousness, it may be there but until we see it or hear it and pass judgement on it we cannot say if it is alive or dead. It is in a state which is undifferentiated by observation by our consciousness. However, it does not mean that the cat isn't in some 'state' but just one that we have not yet categorized and therefore recognised as either dead or alive.
Taking into account the bigger picture behind this paradox is to my way of thinking the way to make some sense of the puzzle, it is the hypothesis of a possible explanation, and, as with all hypotheses, is open to destruction.
To have glimpses of the bigger picture it helps to observe our thoughts, the stream of consciousness which flows continuously through our mind via our brain cells firing and which interacts with the incoming information from our senses. It is so continuous and all pervading inside our head that we are mostly consumed by it. We think we are 'it'. We construct our own reality and filter our view of the world through it. It is sometimes called 'the stream of consciousness'. If we meditate or find a peaceful setting and cease the chatter inside our head it is possible to observe the workings of this stream and to realise that we are not just this stream but something outside of it and we can in fact be an observer, not a simple task but a rewarding one. The stream appears to 'happens' to us because we are in this molecular body structure and this state of consciousness. How much of it is simply ruminations of accumulated life experiences and thought processes and how much of it may come to us from 'outside of our torch beam ' is a point of much speculation. There have been recent discoveries of higher level processing cells in the brain called microscopic tubules which may well prove to provide an interface for access to another state, which at a more gross cellular level we have no knowledge of. We may be connected to it through our DNA, who knows it may even dictate our Karma!
So……. given that it would seem we have our limitations of perception and that we seem to be hard wired to differentiate and make judgements, it is easy to see why, on first encounter, the paradox of Schodinger's cat exists.
Those are my thoughts on the subject….for what they are worth.
Hazel.
RSS Feed