so if there is a cat in a box and uh and you there is an apparatus inside the box that breaks a vial of poison depending on whether a certain atom decays or not and that that decay is a is a quantum event yeah it's not a

deterministic event as far as we know and random event yeah yeah random meaning we don't know how it'll so we call it random yeah but depending on whether it happens or not the vial of poison gets broken or not and therefore the cat

lives or the cat dies yeah exactly but if that is an as sealed box before we look at the box and measure whether the cat is alive or dead we don't know whether the cat is alive or dead yeah so the cat is in a superposition the cat is

both both alive and dead that's the idea yeah now um this final part of how the scenario is described I think is nonsensical the cat is not alive and dead um the the indeterminacy of nature before a measurement speaks of our inability to know to know what state

nature is in before we make an observation it it's not a statement that nature itself in some some kind of true atic superposition of all possibilities and the cat is alive and dead um so I would dispute that but it's funny that sorry to interrupt but it's funny that

uh I think you in an interview with Roger Penrose he said to me that Schrodinger himself intended this whole thought experiment to show sort of the craziness if you would take it this way right so uh and but then in popular culture we all see the thought

experiment as saying that the cat literally is dead and alive and that that is the implication of quantum theory and that has been popularized by the self-appointed, um, spokespeople of science, usually people who don't do any science, just talk about it, that the cat

is alive and dead or that particles are both waves and particles. No, no, no. Forget about all this, these statements go too far. The data doesn't allow us to make these statements. We have to be more cautious, but, um, in any case, what we do know is that every time

we look, we see physical nature, physical, between quotes, colloquially physical nature, in other words, the contents of perception, the stable, yeah, every time we look, we see nature in a defined state, yeah, and we are conscious, and our looking is a conscious process, yeah. So

what we do know is that when conscious beings experience the world around them, that world is in a defined state and not in a superposition, yeah. Under analytic idealism, all living beings are conscious, including bacteria. I think that I'm happy to hear, um, and so

is the cat, so the cat inside the box is experiencing whether the vial of poison was broken or not, whether the atom, radioactive atom, decayed or didn't decay, yeah. So what is inside the box is not in a superposition, but we, from the outside

are not aware of that. Now the question gets trickier if there is no cat inside the box, but there is a chemical that reacts with the poison and changes color, it can be pink or it can be blue depending on whether the vial, because that chemical is not conscious, so it

doesn't know it's made of consciousness, but it's not a dissociated, localized form of consciousness that has an internal dashboard of perception. In other words, it doesn't have its own physical world, that that has its own physical world. The chemical is not that.

The chemical does not have a dashboard, so the chemical has no physical world because the physical world is what appears on the screen of perception. Now, you could ask, is the chemical pink or blue before you make, before you open the box and you look, and now you have to say

theoretically, it's in a superposition. What does the superposition mean? It means that all we can say about it is to assign a probability to it being pink or being blue, but we cannot speak of its definite state because pinkness and blueness appear on the screen of

perception, and until there is a screen of perception to know what's going on, there is no pinkness and no blueness. You see, but the cat does have a screen of perception, so the cat is either dead or alive, and we just don't know now whether

the chemical is pink or blue, only becomes a reality um, when something perceives it because pinkness and blueness are contents of perception, and you cannot speak of pinkness and blueness before you open the box. So if you would reformulate the experiment this way, you would agree that

that's what you're saying, that that that that then I would agree that there is a seemingly fundamental limit to our ability to predict or know unmeasured states of non-living nature.

Schrödinger's Cat is Conscious and that Changes Everything | Bernardo Kastrup PhD

Scripts