Bender

Tomato tomato. How about "Everything stays in superimposed states". I never interpreted the many-worlds interpretation that (in my opinion pretty silly) way. What do you call the interpretation where all states do exist in our world? Yes. I see no conflict with my interpretation of the many-worlds interpretation.

How can superposition not feature in many-worlds? The thing with many-worlds is that everything remains in superposition. To me, the only difference between the two is how decoherence is explained: either by collapse or by the observer "joining" the superposition.

That's a matter of taste. Copenhagen doesn't explain anything that many-worlds can't. It is just a different approach. I would even argue that Copenhagen raises additional questions, such as the mechanism behind the "wavefunction collapse" or the line between the quantum world and the macroscopic world. Does the superposition of the phonon eg collapse when a particle interacts with it, or only when that particle interacts with something else afterwards?

Every interaction between the possible decay of the isotope and the opening of the box that has more than one outcome with a nonzero probability, causes the decoherence of superimposed quantum states (not sure whether I worded that 100% correctly, but I'm confident you get what I mean). I see no reason why you can't combine all those superpositions to one gargantuan state space. Someone referred to engineering where usually lots of modes/states/loads can be superimposed. I guess I was. I did suggest that the entire planet could get entangled with the cat. Moreover, Schrodingers cat only makes sense in a global wavefunction. I didn't know the term, though. Irrelevant : yes; pointless: certainly; but why does it make no sense?

IIRC, electric eels (and many other fish) release regular pulses to sense their environment. Perhaps you could breed one to release a pulse every second, and then a bigger one every minute.

Are you suggesting that a cat cannot be in superposition because the states are too complex to be written down? From wikipedia: That seems to imply decoherence does not spoil the superposition. That does not exclude the possibility that instead of these atoms going to a certain state, we as observers got entangled with the atoms. Exactly.

A possible explanation could be that yellow is really light brown, so you are comparing red, blue, green... and light brown. If we would compare brown, blue, green... and light red, the lightest colour would be light red.

Why not? Obviously the cat (and everything around it) can only be in superposition if the isotope can be. Please illuminate me. In my mind, there are billions of atoms interacting, and then the billion-and-first (billion-and-oneth?) particle arrives and spoils the party. Why? Ok. Is there any evidence that systems ever go to a single eigenstate? Either "none" or "a bunch", depending on whether systems revert to single eigenstates or not.

Isn't a decaying isotope in superposition as long as it doesn't interact? (and after that if wave functions don't collapse) Isn't that rather arbitrary? Who get's to decide which interactions count and which don't? That doesn't mean they collapse. The original description of the wave function of the cat collapsing when the box is opened, is indeed nonsensical. However, I would like to know why you think a cat in superposition is nonsensical. Obviously dead or alive are not quantum states, but they could be macroscopic properties of myriads of compex quantum states.

If it is wave functions you want, I'm afraid I have no formal education in QM and not familiar enough with the mathematics to write down the wave function of multi-particle systems, such as a decaying isotope. The experiment usually involves a decaying isotope to determine the fate of the cat. In a decaying isotope the alpha particle is either inside or outside the nucleus. Obviously, interaction is not a sufficient criterion for collapse, as is evidenced by two slit experiments with molecules or entanglement of phonons (where billion billion billion atoms interact in a crystal lattice) Besides, there is no evidence that wave functions actually collapse. It could be no more than a mathematical construct.

How doesn't it? I have the impression you want to get to some point, but I don't know what that point might be.

Suppose eg Radon 210 is used, which decays to Polonium 206. In the states with a living cat, the baryon number is 210. In the states with a dead cat, the baryon number is 206.

You asked for one quantum number that is different between the two humongous groups of quantum states describing dead of living cats. I provided one. Still not sure what you want with it.

I'm not sure where you are going with this, so I'll guess. What about the baryon number of the radioactive isotope used?

I must have missed that. I have not seen any claim that teleonomy doesn't exist.

Why should there be only one that is different?

Representing the cat as having two possible states is indeed absurd. It consists of a lot of particles and its state space is huge (with many, many different quantum numbers). However, roughly half of this state space will represent a dead cat, and roughly half represents a living cat. Of course, in a real experiment, the box is not completely isolated, so the particles comprising the experimenter and his equipment (and the rest of the Earth) will be entangled with the inside op the box long before it is opened. When discussing entangled particles, the focus is usually on two particles, because the entangled mess of larger systems is simply too complex. As far as I know, there is no way of knowing whether the cat can be simultaneously dead or alive, but if it is, it is on different states of our entire planet.

Studiot is now the fourth or fifth person here to point out that you misread it. That should make you think. I did. I carefully studied your sources, read the paper and watched the video. The conclusion is that you misinterpreted all of them in a way that reminds of New agers who use quotes from scientists to prove telepathy or homeopathy.

Why? One could also call it absurd that one group of particles can be in superposition (and macroscopic objects certainly can be), but when another particle joins in, it is suddenly no longer possible. Why can't the new interacting particle simply join the superposition?

This is getting repetetive and boring. Please stop misquoting respected scientists. Archeo-purpose is not real purpose, much like teleonomy, which is specifically invented to be able to use purpose-oriented language in the absence of purpose. If you want actual purpose, it is teleology you are looking for. Are you a new ager? Are you aware that you sound like a new ager?

You seem to be confusing thermodynamic entropy, which is a statistical property of many-particle systems, with the entropy used in the paper you keep linking to, which defines entropy as the amount of future histories available to single particles. The authors see similarities between how their algorithm works and how evolution works: trial and error, but any other deep connection is purely speculative. It is hardly the first time scientists have simulated complex emergent behaviour with a very stupid instruction set, so I don't see why this would be particularly special (apart from the ability to redefine certain problems in a convex way, which allows them to be solved more efficiently.). Your premise that evolution automatically leads to intelligence is further compomised by the fact it took so long for multicellular life to emerge. Beyond that, you seem to suggest this race for intelligence is maximised, ie as fast as possible, which raises the question why dinosaurs didn't get there. Many of them had free hands and they had hundreds of millions of years. Now if we for the sake of the argument assume this far-fetched premise is correct, that still leaves an even larger leap to purpose. For this final leap, you haven't provided the first step toward a tiniest hint of possible evidence, so it can only be a leap of faith. You seem to be the one doing the confusing. And please don't reply to this with the same Dawkins quote: nobody here shares your very liberal and apologetic interpretation of his words.

Unless wave functions don't collapse and you simultaneously see a living and a dead cat when you open the box. It is only absurd if you assume the cat is under superposition, while you are not.

1) Some pyromaniacs might attempt to, but as a species, that is clearly not the case. 2) I hope we have enough forethought to build in Asimov's laws so any AGI doesn't attempt to detonate all of our nuclear weapons. 3) Why do you think so? Nature clearly does not employ the entropy maximisation algorithm you linked to. I have never seen a pendulum spontaneously swing to an inverted position.

Because no God from any religion would be recognised as a god.

Defining God in such a way that nature proves it, would not be a meaningfull definition of God.