Schrödinger’s Cat

Schrodinger's Cat:

By definition, a world of parallel expression of measurable manifestation would become manifestly measurable only if, when, and where it were to become measurable to some level of informational recordation  (consciousness) to measure them.

Particulars of people and things do not exist as such, entirely apart from relational perspectives.  The unfoldments of such relationships and perspectives are not entirely pre-defined.  Rather, they are unfolding.  "Your" true unfolding relationship is not with other mortal perspectives, but with the empathetic interests of the Reconciler, by which "you" and "they" may be unfolded and defined in potentially innumerable variations.  "You,"in your connections, are legion.

If Schrodinger's Cat exists in a different state in a different parallel world, it would only be because the Reconciler effects Consciousness with respect to such world.

************

Schrödinger’s Cat:

During my daily shower, I got to contemplating Mark Twain (Did he really say (?), “For every durable piece of nonsense, there is an irrational frame of reference in which it is consistent”)?

Anyway, I looked up some wiki’isms at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger_cat.....

A thought occurs that physicists may be failing to make a serious effort to integrate a role for conscious observers (i.e., “perspectives of consciousness,” or “sensors of collapsed uncertainties”). Perhaps they fail because they imagine no measurable or scientific way to proceed.

But, what if the meaning of “conscious observers” were understood to relate not just to perspectives of intellection, but also to capacities to sense, detect, and effect exclusions among patterns (i.e., that which we merely assume to be marked only by inanimate, “unconscious,” purely physical reactiveness)?

Suppose it is not material physics that is “entangled,” but perspectives of consciousness (which happen to be entangled in sharing a same algorithm for how they mark their relations)?

Suppose that which we take to be superimposed in a mix of indeterminacy is not potential states of “physical matter,” but potential choices to be synchronized among “perspectives of consciousness”?

If that which holistically synchronizes has capacity to collapse choices based on feedback summed from among particular perspectives, then not every possibility needs to be chosen or made to exist “in some world.”

IOW, the body of Schrodinger’s cat would not be required to exist in innumerable states spread among a multiverse of possibilities. This is because a body of physics has no independent existence apart from signifying for a state of synchronization among perspectives of consciousness.

IOW, insofar as the consciousness of the cat were entangled with the consciousness of its owner, there need be only one combined state, i.e, the owner would either be happy (cat alive and conscious) or sad (cat dead).

Issues:
(1) Does any test rule out such an approach?
(2) Could such an approach leverage means of quantifiable formulation (as by “lensing” among “primitive units of exclusion”)?

What would Mark Twain say?


****

Re --- Spooky action at distance among entangled particles:

If particles do not exist in themselves, but are only illusory byproducts and derivatively representative markers of entanglements of perspectives of consciousness, then what affects one person at a distance may have significant simultaneous effects on persons closely entangled with his perspective of consciousness.

Do scientists working on a same problem often share nearly simultaneous “aha” moments? If so, there may be some higher validity to transcendental meditation and prayer.

But, interpretation of statistical validity would inherently necessitate subjectivity and intuition, since consciousness itself, by definition, is subjective and not completely objective.

So, unless and until indirect means can be developed to leverage (or "lens") some method for more reliably correlative measurement, empiricists will obviously be disposed to remain bored by such a notion.

****

Dave,

Actually, I am suggesting no multiverse need exist. All states that collapse to the macroscopic detection or consciousness of observers may do so in just one universe, which synchronizes the experiences of perception.

The quantum fuzz of indeterminate possibilities may consist less in "actual matter" than in a sea of "immaterial choices."

If the consciousness of the Cat survives, there need not be any alternative state in any alternative universe where the cat does not survive. If so, it may be that it is not the material bodies of the owner and his cat but the entanglement of their consciousness that sequences forward within a single universe of conceptual experience.

There would be no alternative universe for the state of a dead-cat-body because neither physical matter nor the body of the cat exists independently of entanglement with consciousness.

The main difference in being hit by a train in an awake state versus a dream state is that, in an awake state, other perspectives of consciousness are entangled with your perception of the train. In aware state, your perspective of consciousness is killed as a correlate of the entanglement. In dream state, you may merely be startled awake.

****

Re: "In dream state, you may merely be startled awake."
I know.
You're thinking, "What if the dreamer is driving across a train track in his sleep."
Answer: He goes to train heaven.