Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
The idiots of Quantum
say that a cat can be
simultaneously dead
and alive !

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 04/26/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

    1.0   Cat Theory 101

    Does Schrödinger’s cat exist inside the box? If so, is the cat alive or dead?

    This seeming paradox has maintained relativists at the edge of their seats for three quarters of a century. It is time to
    put this ridiculous issue to rest.

    You place a cat in a hermetically sealed box that has a radioactively-induced device. Nothing, not even light can get in
    or come out to interfere with events or convey information. If the device is triggered, the cat dies. Otherwise, he lives.
    The probability of either event happening is 50%.

    Now comes the million dollar question asked by overpaid mathematicians: Is the cat alive or dead, or half dead, or half
    alive?

    It turns out that, when all is said and done, we must open the box to verify your guess anyway, which to relativists
    means that the cat’s reality is in fact determined by your verification:

    " when the box is opened, that part of the universe containing the observer and
      cat is split into two separate universes, one containing an observer looking at
      a box with a dead cat, one containing an observer looking at a box with a live
      cat." [1]

    " while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of
      the states 'decayed nucleus/dead cat' and 'undecayed nucleus/living cat'...
      only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave
      function collapse into one of the two states." [2]

    This conclusion prompted a skeptical Einstein to bark at his co-religionists that he would like to think that the Moon is
    there when he is not looking at it.

    The troubles derive from the mathematicians' misconception that statistics and probability have something to do with
    physical events, and that knowledge and verification have something to do with existence. Einstein realized late in his
    life that this was a serious problem in Mathematical Physics:

    " Most of them [the members of the mathematical establishment] simply do not
      see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something
      independent of what is experimentally established." [3]

    By then, however, Einstein had already lost face with the mainstream, so his warning fell on deaf ears.

    The result is that today the mathematicians explain away every experimental shortcoming of particles with statistics.
    For instance, they have allowed themselves to believe that the 'position' of an electron around the nucleus or a
    photon’s path through a slit is a matter of probability. As an analogy, they argue that actuaries base insurance
    premiums on death and accident statistics. Therefore, although we cannot predict when you are going to die nor
    through which slit the next photon will pass, this doesn’t prevent us from understanding the big picture: multiple
    photons.

    Those who fall back on this ridiculous analogy simply have to tell you which point on the actuary's chart is you! If the
    cat died inside the box, statistics and probability won’t bring it back. A bet, not the cat’s actual state of health, is what
    is subject to the laws of probability. Democracy has no power to change the past.

    In Science, the problem is a no-brainer. We begin by clarifying that there’s no such thing as a dead cat! In Science,
    there is a noun, an object  we identify with the word cat. A cat is an object because it has shape. To determine if a cat
    exists, we need to confirm that it has location. If it does, the cat exists by definition and not because an idiot of
    Quantum says so. The cat exists or doesn’t inside the box irrespective of opinions.

    For the purposes of Science, the word exist is not a verb, but more like an adjective or an adverb. The word exist
    clarifies that the object has location. Location is a static concept (adjective), yet this qualitative parameter requires
    extrinsic references (adverb). Therefore, whether exist is an adjective or an adverb is ultimately settled by defining
    the categories adjective and adverb precisely.

    I prefer to think of exist as an adjective because there is no motion involved during existence. Exist  doesn’t come in
    degrees nor is it incremental nor constant. Matter does not come into existence gradually nor surreptitiously from the
    void nor can matter spontaneously cease to have physical presence in space or be phased slowly out of existence.
    Matter only has the ability to transform and displace. The hydrogen atom that formed part of a dinosaur yesterday
    today forms part of a leaf and tomorrow part of you. What exists, exists only in the present.

    Nevertheless, the adjective exist is qualitatively different than the adverbs alive and dead. For the purposes of Science,
    alive and dead are deemed to be adverbs because they embody a process or relation. Dead means that the subject
    was alive and is now dead. Alive means that the cat is still not dead or that it began to live sometime in the past. Dead
    implies the opposite: that the cat was alive some time in the past. We cannot explain either concept with only one
    frame from our movie. The ET cannot look at a single photograph and understand dead. Unlike with exist, dead and
    alive each had a beginning, a frame that we inadvertently reference in retrospect when we use these adverbs in
    conjunction with the noun cat. In contrast, it is irrational to say that you 'came into existence' in Science. The word
    exist may only be used in present mode. In Science, there is no such term as existed. The proponent is inadvertently
    using the word exist in lieu of the verb lived. He is really trying to say that the subject lived some time in the past.

    Furthermore, exist refers to inanimate matter, whether it is in relation to the atoms that constitute you or a rock, while
    dead and alive alludes only to the motion of living entities. A cat may be dead or alive. A rock  is perpetually inert.

    Well, under these definitions it is now clear. Observers, testimonies, knowledge, belief, and information play no role
    whatsoever in deciding these matters. The cat is dead or alive by definition just like he is black, grey, or white by
    definition. We don't decide that a cat is blue by looking at it with our eyes because everybody will see something
    different. We define the color blue as a specific frequency. If the fur reflects this frequency, the cat is blue by definition
    even if everyone in the room is blind.

    Most people erroneously believe that you can have an opinion about whether the cat is blue. What they have trouble
    understanding is that a scientific fact differs from a personal opinion in that it requires rigorous definitions. Personal
    opinions are important only in the religion of Mathematical Physics where they cannot live without their beloved
    observer and his measurement.

    In Science, you can also have any opinion you want as long as you keep it to yourself. You can believe in God if you
    want. But when you want to prove to others, you cross the scientific line. Now you must define the strategic words
    that make or break your theory if you want the juror to understand you. You cannot say that you carried out an
    experiment to prove the cat was blue and here are the results. You define blue as having a certain frequency and the
    cat is then blue pursuant to your definition. Whatever measurement you take is simply an approximation to reality,
    your level of ignorance of the true frequency. You can have an opinion about that because again it is irrelevant.

    In a similar vein, we must begin by defining dead and alive objectively. If the cat inside the box meets the requirements
    of dead, then it is dead irrespective of what we verify through an experiment. It is dead by definition and not because
    the coroner says so. In order to be objective (i.e., scientific), definitions must be formulated in such a way that they
    are observer-free. Otherwise, whether the cat is alive or dead or blue will depend on opinions, and the parties will be
    discussing the issue for eons. This is indeed the status quo with the Schrödinger Cat 'Paradox' today. Eighty years
    after Quantum Mechanics was invented, the stupid idiots  of Mathematical Physics are still placing their bets, arguing
    whether Quantum mathematics 'predicts' the true state of the cat when they open the box.
I hope for the
sake of all of us
that this cat is at
least half dead.



    2.0   Advanced Cat Theory

    There has been a twist to Schrodinger's Cat Theory that accurately illustrates how your tax dollars are ultimately spent.
    Cat Theory has now been taken beyond where any brain has gone before. Since Bohr and Heisenberg told them that it
    is impossible to know or form an image of WHAT light IS, the 'physicists' at the cutting edge had to find something else
    to do. So they spend their time (and your money) nowadays 'investigating' important issues such as time travel and
    Schrodinger's Cat Paradox. Cat Theory is especially critical to Physics because it has today moved to a new plane.
    Advanced Cat Theory now requires the cat to be the observer and to tell us whether he is dead or alive:

    " the quantum suicide machine... proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark... examines
      the Schrödinger's Cat experiment from the point of view of the cat" [4]

    This milestone in Quantum Physics is known as the quantum suicide problem. Until you've published a peer reviewed
    paper on quantum suicide, you really can't call yourself a scientist, much less  a physicist. The purpose of this seminal
    work is to decide whether Bohr's thought-provoking Copenhagen Interpretation or Everett's mind-boggling Many Worlds
    Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct.

    One individual who spends much of his time researching this ground-breaking issue of physics in his lab is Max Tegmark.
    Indeed, since Tegmark and his buddy Bostrom are both Swedish and have made such breathtaking contributions to
    science and physics, I think that it is just a matter of time before the Nobel Academy recognizes their intellectual efforts
    and awards one of them an Oscar or a gold medal or something. However, Tegmark's self-less dedication to Cat Theory
    has made me very suspicious of his activities, so much so that I have finally decided to turn him in to PETA so the animal
    lovers can investigate the activities of this individual.  Who knows how many cats he may have already fried in his zealous
    pursuit of this Holy Grail?

    Tegmark's specific contribution to Cat Theory is that he has proven (mathematically and scientifically, of course) that Many
    Worlds implies that conscious beings are immortal. I will let the experts explain in their own words so that I do not
    misrepresent their momentous findings:

    " An experimenter sits in front of a loaded gun which is triggered or not triggered
      depending on the decay of some radioactive atom... With each run of the expe-
      riment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist
      will die. [Thank God!] According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the gun will
      eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation
      is correct then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into one
      world in which he lives and another world in which he dies. After many runs of the
      experiment, there will be many worlds. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he
      will cease to exist... [Hmmm, you now have my undivided my attention.] However,
      from the point of view of the non-dead copies of the physicist,  the experiment will
      continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only
      be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds
      is correct, the surviving copies of the physicist will notice that he never seems to
      die, [What a bummer!] therefore "proving" himself to be invulnerable to the gun
      mechanism in question, at least from his own point of view." [5]

    I think that it is very fortunate that we have people such as Tegmark and Bostrom and Page sitting on secret
    peer-reviewing panels, sifting out the rubbish and deciding what gets published and what you should read. We
    certainly don't want your mind to be polluted with pseudo-science.

    Epilogue: James Higgo, the author of one of the Many-Worlds papers listed above believed that he was immortal.
    Unfortunately, he died in 2001.

    But did he really? The question still remains as to whether he just died in this Universe. Please e-mail me if your alter
    egos in a parallel universe see him around and get in touch with you at your weekly Quantum séance. I can also be
    reached by phone at:

M. Tegmark, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?  
arXiv:quant-ph/9709032v1 (Sep. 15, 1997).

D.
Page, Observational Consequences of Many-Worlds Quantum Theory,
arXiv:quant-ph/9904004v2 (May 3, 1999).
1-800-You Stupid Relativist
or
1-800-Einstein's Idiots

    Thank you in advance for your help in this important matter. On the one hand, I would be happy that it would confirm the
    Many Worlds version of Quantum. On the other, I would be sad that we would have nothing more to talk about in 'Physics.'
Okay folks. Let's keep things strictly within a
scientific regime. Remember that we have
limited funding for these momentous
experiments. In our first séance, we will
attempt to determine whether the cat is
alive or dead. Our second experiment will
attempt to prove whether
the cat thinks it is
alive or dead in
this universe.
We need to call Dr. Jones urgently so that he
can determine whether our friend is dead.