Hi Klax, seems like you are bumping up to the question of whether nature (reality) is thoroughly observable (measurable).
The argument is necessarily invalid. The conclusion is not necessarily wrong, however. The other options are that 1. There is a mistake in working through the argument, such that the contradiction can be avoided, or 2. At least one premise is wrong. Some component of the argument must be wrong, but which one or ones requires more information.
Ok… however, a statement is necessarily false if it is a contradiction.
Or we actually comprehend it. As shown by the double slit experiment, there are real world consequences to quantum superpositions. We can design experiments that demonstrate the existence of superpositions.
No one is talking about infinite anything.
Yes, at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the particle in the double slit experiment moves through both slits at the same time and in the same relationship.
To be truthful, you intuit what it is in its unobservable state.
Oh, if you are talking about cats which are unobservable by nature, why not consider an infinite number of cats?
We infer prior states based on experimental results. It’s called science.
They would collapse into a black furball.
Nice! They could also be bouncing back in a massive time dilation, even a universe of cats unto themself.
And what difference does a box make? Something to contain the cyanide? What about a transparent box? Sounds like transubstantiation science. It happens regardless of the fact that it doesn’t. Eh Martin? Unless of course you can get an Einstein Bose condensate cat.
He’s a walking contradiction partly truth and partly fiction
Taking every wrong direction on his lonely way back home
The topic reminded me of this great song by Kris Kristopherson
Full lyrics: Kris Kristofferson – The Pilgrim, Chapter 33 Lyrics | Genius Lyrics
Meant to address this to @Klax. Edited accordingly.
Apologetics Apostacy 101, lesson 1:
anyone holding a belief contrary to your interpretation of scripture does not just disagree with you but is logically incoherent and quite likely insane.
Hi Mark, let me know if you get this message and I’ll be glad to respond…
(Craig Keener may be one of my favorite apologists alive today, and while me and him would disagree on a couple things, he certainly defies many people’s expectation of what an apologist is)
Sounds like me
“But God…” (there’s a neat little book by that name by Casey Lute)
No problem, consider what I said to be an open invitation
Mark, I hope you don’t mind, if it resonated with me. I read it, before you addressed it more specifically. Actually, I encountered just this thing earlier today:
One of my brilliant husband’s favorite songs. We were just listening to this in the car the other day. It’s playing in my head now.
Am I mad? Are you kidding? Your endorsement of Phil’s post sent me looking for that song which I just very much enjoyed. (It also sent me back looking for the quote you had cited. So frustrating, the self righteousness of the true believer who is just trying to help mind the guardrails - never wondering if it might have been they themselves who flew off the more important track.). So thank you for directing me back to the song @jpm had recommended it. Very Dylanesque lyrics. Must have come out during one of those spells when I had my head under a rock. Learning it had also earned your and Scot’s endorsement tipped the scale toward filling in this hole in my cultural education. So thank you.
Found myself thinking of a passage from Crime and Punishment again which I quoted here shortly after I first started posting here but before it occurred to me to start the pithy quotes thread. The quote I shared follows the one this link takes you to.
It talks to me about how different sources speak to different folks at different points in their lives and only they can know when it is time for that part of truth in their lives. That is why I cannot support the nons who insist on their meager version of the truth without regard to where others may be in their progression though ‘the’ truth. I could never be a pusher for a single view of truth for all right now and forever for everybody because I know they’re on their own way to the truth which is actually a journey and not a destination. It is more important to me that everyone preserve their humanity and individual integrity on the only journey that can allow them to remain a peer in the realm of my fellow humans being human rather than singing my or anyone else’s tune to satisfy me.
Although a superpositioned alive/dead cat would be a practically infinite Einstein Bose condensate to be able to have multiple (understatement) eigenstates: With 10^23 atoms in a small cat, what are the combinations of alive and dead atoms?
As a non, me, Erik is making a counter-factual claim; there COULDN’T well be. There is no need whatsoever to invoke anything but nature to explain Jesus and the unrecognisable movement that claims Him as founder. Not the supranatural or some imaginary aspect of nature that isn’t warranted in any way,