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

Essentia Foundation

슈뢰딩거의 고양이 역설과 그 오해

슈뢰딩거의 고양이 사고 실험에 대한 설명: 방사능 붕괴와 관련된 메커니즘이 있는 상자 안에 고양이를 넣어 고양이의 죽음 또는 생존을 초래하는 실험입니다.

양자 이벤트의 무작위성과 고양이의 상태에 미치는 영향.

중첩의 개념: 관찰하기 전에 고양이가 살아있기도 하고 죽어 있기도 합니다.

고양이가 살아있으면서도 죽었다는 해석에 대한 비판; 불확실성은 진정한 중첩이 아니라 우리의 지식 부족을 반영합니다.

슈뢰딩거의 원래 의도와 실험에 대한 대중의 잘못된 해석.

입자는 파동인 동시에 입자라는 개념을 거부합니다.

관찰을 통해 자연의 상태를 정의할 수 있으므로 의식적인 관찰이 핵심입니다.

분석적 이상주의: 고양이를 포함한 모든 생명체는 의식이 있습니다.

상자 안에서 고양이의 경험은 외부의 관찰과 상관없이 고양이의 상태가 정의됩니다.

실험에서 의식적인 관찰자(고양이)와 무의식적인 요소(화학 물질)의 차이점입니다.

'지각의 대시보드'라는 개념과 무의식적 실체의 부재.

비의식적 요소의 중첩: 명확한 상태 대신 확률을 할당합니다.

지각의 내용으로서의 분홍색과 청색, 그 존재 여부는 관찰에 달려 있습니다.

고양이의 상태는 외부 관찰자가 알 수 없더라도 정의되어 있습니다.

현실을 정의하는 데 있어 지각의 역할을 강조하기 위해 실험을 재구성했습니다.

측정할 수 없는 비생명체의 상태를 예측하는 데 근본적인 한계가 있다는 데 동의합니다.