On the Etiquette of dying

[Sparko]

Wouldn't you be able to smell if the cat died?

[grmorton]

I don't think I have ever heard that suggestion before. But that would constitute an observation. I think technically, the box has to be air tight

[Cow Poke]

I don't think I have ever heard that suggestion before. But that would constitute an observation. I think technically, the box has to be air tight

That pretty much guarantees a dead cat. AND will contain the smell!

[Mountain Man]

At the weekend at the Ranch with Glenn - I don't remember who said it, maybe Jim - "always go back to the cross".

I use that frequently in preaching -- we can get all caught up in debate and argument and supposition - YEC vs OEC vs whoever, but "always go back to the cross".

As Christians, it's always important to remember the things on which agree rather than focusing on the things where we disagree, especially when they are not central to the Christian faith.

[Cow Poke]

As Christians, it's always important to remember the things on which agree rather than focusing on the things where we disagree, especially when they are not central to the Christian faith.

The essentials, yes. And one of the most divisive issues in the Christian Church is the Holy Spirit - the very one who is supposed to help us love one another and be in unity.

[rogue06]

As Christians, it's always important to remember the things on which agree rather than focusing on the things where we disagree, especially when they are not central to the Christian faith.

I've always been a supporter of the sentiment expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, although incorrectly, attributed to St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]").

While it does indeed appear to have been a view that Augustine held^[1] it seems to actually originate with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis in 1617. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing.

Too often we get all hung up over the unessentials -- the things on which our salvation doesn't rest upon.










1. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

[JimL]

No, I don't JimL. That is why I quote living guys like Weinberg, Rosenblum and Kuttner and others to let them say what the truth is.

Well you quote the few that may agree with you perhaps, but very few believe that consciousness has anything to do with what is real.

It is stated independently of me and no one has to depend on me, they can depend on the experts in the field.

I think that what you mean to say is that "they can depend on your prefered experts in the field."

And your statement is not quite true, there still are a few of the Copenhagenists around,

I'm sure there's a few, very few.

but the beauty of Rosenblum and Kuttner's book is that they go though every quantum interpretation, from many worlds, to decoherence to Bohm's pilot wave and show how each of them require an observer. No one gets away from the consciousness in quantum. That is why Weinberg's quotation was so important in the OP.

What does that even mean, what is it exactly that you believe requires a conscious observer? Do you think the cat never dies even if no one ever looks?

Of course, from what I hear about you you won't understand any of this.

Yes, like Sparko, I see you don't understand the block universe scenario either.

[grmorton]

Well you quote the few that may agree with you perhaps, but very few believe that consciousness has anything to do with what is real.


I think that what you mean to say is that "they can depend on your prefered experts in the field."


I'm sure there's a few, very few.


What does that even mean, what is it exactly that you believe requires a conscious observer? Do you think the cat never dies even if no one ever looks?

Yes, like Sparko, I see you don't understand the block universe scenario either.

For transparency sake, Jim what is your degree in? It sure doesn't seem to be physics. since you don't seem to understand the mathematical nature of fields like the magnetic and gravitational field. Mine? I have a degree halfway between bachelors and masters in physics. Instead of Bachelors of Science, my degree reads Bachelors of Physics. I had to take a whole lot of extra hours of physics to get it. Then I did a year of grad work in Philosophy of science, but didn't finish that degree--had a son and needed to go to work making more than a philosophy degree would allow.

So, what is the basis upon which you believe you know physics?

[Sparko]

I don't think I have ever heard that suggestion before. But that would constitute an observation. I think technically, the box has to be air tight

It would be the box announcing the decision. Since the observer never went and opened the box to check on the cat, it should still be in a state of superposition, meaning it could NOT emit a smell unless the cat had actually died. At which point it would not be in superposition and would emit the smell that alerts the scientist.

[Mountain Man]

I'm reminded of cats always landing on their feet, and bread always falling buttered side down, so that if you attach a slice of buttered bread to the back of a cat, the two forces will be in conflict, and the cat will perpetually rotate in midair.

Incidentally, there is an explanation for the bread phenomenon: it has to do with the size of the average slice of bread, and the height of a typical countertop. It works out that at freefall speeds, there is only enough time for the slice of bread to make a half rotation before hitting the ground.

[grmorton]

I'm reminded of cats always landing on their feet, and bread always falling buttered side down, so that if you attach a slice of buttered bread to the back of a cat, the two forces will be in conflict, and the cat will perpetually rotate in midair.

Incidentally, there is an explanation for the bread phenomenon: it has to do with the size of the average slice of bread, and the height of a typical countertop. It works out that at freefall speeds, there is only enough time for the slice of bread to make a half rotation before hitting the ground.

Love it

[TheLurch]

I have enjoyed this Lurch, but TW is a real time stealer--worse than facebook, cause to answer questions I feel I should always do some digging and that takes far too much time--time I am not willing to have stolen from me. While you are not like ol' JimL, there are far too many JimL's here wanted to suck time and attention when they don't know what they are saying. And that goes both for those on the atheist as well as YEC side of this. Life is short my friend, manage your time wisely.

How you spend your time is obviously your business. I'll just try to clarify a couple of things in response to your last post.

One is that you keep saying "the quantum experts" when it's more accurate to say "some quantum experts". I've never disputed that some very prominent physicists agree with your position. I'm just pointing out that not all of them do.

The second thing is that you keep talking about entanglement with an observer as if it's physically meaningful. If you say, for example, the polarization of two photons are entangled, then someone well versed in quantum mechanics can tell you mathematically what that means. When you say "entangled with an observer", nobody's entirely sure what that means, and there's no math there. There's also the issue that observers are not quantum systems and don't have polarization, so it shouldn't be possible to entangle them at all.

So, i don't understand what that means scientifically, or what makes it scientifically preferable to "the measurement was done, the wavefunction collapsed, but we don't know what the result was".

[grmorton]

How you spend your time is obviously your business. I'll just try to clarify a couple of things in response to your last post.

One is that you keep saying "the quantum experts" when it's more accurate to say "some quantum experts". I've never disputed that some very prominent physicists agree with your position. I'm just pointing out that not all of them do.

The second thing is that you keep talking about entanglement with an observer as if it's physically meaningful. If you say, for example, the polarization of two photons are entangled, then someone well versed in quantum mechanics can tell you mathematically what that means. When you say "entangled with an observer", nobody's entirely sure what that means, and there's no math there. There's also the issue that observers are not quantum systems and don't have polarization, so it shouldn't be possible to entangle them at all.

So, i don't understand what that means scientifically, or what makes it scientifically preferable to "the measurement was done, the wavefunction collapsed, but we don't know what the result was".

I am about to take off from here--too much time, but I will respond. There is math for entanglement--it is the same math that you are familiar with. The problem is that we don't experience entanglement. THat is the problem. We should if quantum applies universally--that is what Von Neumann was pointing out in his book. The thing there is no math for is collapse. Wave equations, like the Schroedinger equation, merely show how the wave evolves with time, but there is no mechanism to collapse the wave to a Dirac delata function for where the particle is (or something very close to a Dirac delta function. In geophysics, we would call that a deconvolution operation, but there isn't one for quantum and it doesn't work very well in seismic processing. Furthermore, you should remember that all matter can act like a particle and a wave. Our masses make the wavelength which would be representative of us, a very high frequency. DAvisson & Germer experiment. Clearly no one has seen that with a human but we have seen it with all other forms of matter and there is inherently no reason it shouldn't apply to us. And researchers are putting larger and larger objects into superposition. I am having to type these rather than copy and paste. HTTPS://www.nature.com/articles/35096524 They entangle two groups of cesium atoms with 10^12 particles. Julsgaard et al, Nature, Sept 2001

Or Ockeloen-Korppi et al, Entangled massive mechanical oscillators Nature 556 (2018 p. 478-482

So far no limit to entanglement and plans are underway to entangle a tardigrade

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-entang...croscopic.html

[grmorton]

I am waiting to see if JimL tells us his qualifications with regards to physics. I think he is the atheist equivalent of Jorge. My bet is he will dodge the question, but I might be wrong

[Cow Poke]

I am waiting to see if JimL tells us his qualifications with regards to physics. I think he is the atheist equivalent of Jorge. My bet is he will dodge the question, but I might be wrong

Jim Googles stuff. His degree is in Googliography.