Schrodinger's Cat
There is an idea in physics regarding "Shrodinger's Cat". A cat is in an opaque box with a mechanism connected to a radioactive substance which has a probability of decaying, emitting certain radiation. When the mechanism is activated by the decaying of the radioactive substance, it knocks into a bottle of chemical in the box, breaks it, and the chemical kills the cat. So in technical terms, a particle is in 2 states simultaneously until a measurement is performed. That is, the cat is in 2 states (life and death), because there is the probability of the substance decaying and then there's the probability that it will not, until we look in to determine it's state. The consciousness of the observer will thus collapse the state of the cat(particle) into 1 - life or death.However, there is this question of whose consciousness? Does it have to have consciousness in order to collapse into 1 state? Consciousness should not matter, does it? Does everything need consciousness in order to exist? Does the universe need us to be conscious of it so that it exists?That's where the idea "Wigner's friend" comes in, but nevermind about that.
The thing I want to say is that it's interesting what consciousness is and as in the questions above, do we really need to be conscious of things around us for them to exist? So we need to be conscious of that building outside our window for it to exist. And the table we write on, and the keyboard I am touching now. All these are so solid, how can they not exist? When we can see the item, like that building outside my window, we know that it is big and steady. But then if we need to be conscious of it for it to exist, then what is that building anymore? Is it even there? It is scary to think that if we are not conscious of an item, it is just not there - disappears.
We can see these items so we know their supposed properties, so close your eyes and touch them with your fingertips. What do you feel? What is your impression of these items? I sound a bit confusing here. What I'm probably trying to say is that, we see things and we know what they are but we don't know what they are made of, the feel of them, the sturdiness, the softness. We don't register the hard surface of our tables, or the concreteness of our buildings and our walls.
Isn't it the same for humans as well? Sometimes we see and we know, but we don't register. Reminds me of Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye.
posted by tstar @ 12:33 AM
2 Comments:
your first part is really confusing... nvm. I can understand the second part which is what your first part is trying to illustrate.
they say, seeing is believing, but there is also something known as illusion. A few months ago I went to the Spook Show, which is actually a magic show by a pastor. They did things like cutting arms, stomache, etc.. so real until I nearly threw up... So, seeing still means believing?
On the other hand, we don't need to personally do something to believe it. You don't need to eat a donut to know that it is sweet, and you don't need to do mating to know that it can breed... (another way to say sex and baby...)
ok going out of point...
isn't this 2 diff points? illusion, which is not real, and real things but which we do not register. btw, i almost went to that show...
yes, we don't need to do smthing to believe it, coz we know already, but we just accept that it is sweet or what-not and then we dun truly experience what is tat meaning. it is like if we've never seen the thing b4 in our lives, we wld base our judgement of e object on our touch, and it wld b a completely diff thing, which we wld never know how it is like.
argh, i sound confusing. nevermind!
hehz..
Post a Comment
<< Home