Philosophy Now Forum

Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is meaningless -proven by colin leslie dean

dean shows Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is meaningless as he cant tell us what dead is what alive is

but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life"

so basically Aside dont you think it strange that after say 85 years none of the worlds greatest geniuses have bothered to ask what Schrodinger means by dead means by alive or the geniuses ask does dead mean?
what does alive mean? -this is the power of consensus trance


without science knowing what life is then dead and alive have no meaning" Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is meaningless

Colin Leslie Dean critiques Schrödinger's cat thought experiment by pointing out the problem that Schrödinger never clearly defines what "dead" or "alive" actually means. Dean argues that since there is no consensus on the definition of life—echoed by Wikipedia's note that no universally agreed definition of life exists—Schrödinger's thought experiment becomes essentially meaningless, as it relies on ambiguous and undefined concepts of life and death.

This critique highlights a deeper philosophical problem: despite about 85 years since Schrödinger's proposal, there has been little explicit inquiry among many physicists or scientists into what "life" and "death" truly mean within the context of the thought experiment and quantum superpositions. As you suggest, this can be seen as an example of the "power of consensus trance," where assumptions remain unexamined because of widespread acceptance.

In essence, without a clear scientific or philosophical consensus on what it means for a cat (or any system) to be "alive" or "dead," Schrödinger's paradox loses some of its intended rigor. Dean uses this to argue that the experiment’s meaning is diluted because it presupposes definitions that remain unsettled and ambiguous in science.

The Wikipedia article on life also supports this uncertainty, stating there is "currently no consensus regarding the definition of life" due to its complex biological, philosophical, and thermodynamic aspects.

Thus, Dean’s point is not only about the limits of the thought experiment itself but about a broader issue: the foundational concepts of "life" and "death" lack clear definitions in science, undermining some classical interpretations and discussions surrounding Schrödinger's cat and quantum measurement problems.

This critique calls attention to the philosophical and definitional gaps underlying much scientific discourse around life and quantum mechanics.

Dean the core essence is that Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is fundamentally affected by the lack of a precise, agreed meaning of "alive" versus "dead"—a situation unchanged even after many decades.


In essence, without a clear scientific or philosophical consensus on what it means for a cat (or any system) to be "alive" or "dead," Schrödinger's paradox loses some of its intended rigor. Dean uses this to argue that the experiment’s meaning is diluted because it presupposes definitions that remain unsettled and ambiguous in science.


Thus, Dean’s point is not only about the limits of the thought experiment itself but about a broader issue: the foundational concepts of "life" and "death" lack clear definitions in science, undermining some classical interpretations and discussions surrounding Schrödinger's cat and quantum measurement problems.

This critique calls attention to the philosophical and definitional gaps underlying much scientific discourse around life and quantum mechanics.

Dean the core essence is that Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is fundamentally affected by the lack of a precise, agreed meaning of "alive" versus "dead"—a situation unchanged even after many decades.Thus making Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is meaningless

see

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ything.pdf

or
https://www.scribd.com/document/4553726 ... Everything

if life and death have no meaning, every imprisoned murderer should be released...

-Imp

It's a thought experiment and was never meant to be taken literally. Schroedinger himself came up with it to demonstrate the absurdity of quantum mechanics.

I wonder what burials and cemeteries are for. You bring the decomposing bodies home and sit them at the dining table, it's not like they're dead or anything, we never even defined death. They're not alive either and never were, nor are you, that's equally meaningless. Those crazy burial-ists crack me up.

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 9:12 pm It's a thought experiment and was never meant to be taken literally. Schroedinger himself came up with it to demonstrate the absurdity of quantum mechanics.

Not quantum mechanics, but a specific interpretation of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger introduced the thought experiment in his paper "The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics". The argument was basically that, if you believe particles can literally be in two places at once, then you can cause a chain reaction from that particle which would affect a cat, and this would require you to believe that the cat, since its state depends upon a particle that is in two places at once, would also have to be in two places at once. Schrodinger thought believing cats can be both death and alive at the same time is absurd, therefore we should not believe particles can be in two places at once.

People commonly falsely conflate superposition with "in two places at once." Superposition is just a mathematical property where you add two waves together. The fact you add waves together in quantum mechanics does not prove particles are in two places at once. That requires an additional metaphysical interpretation of what the mathematics is actually representing.

When Heisenberg originally formulated quantum mechanics, he did not use Schrodinger waves. He instead evolved the desired observable backwards until the interactions were all accounted for, and then applied it to the initial state to evolve to a final state in one stroke. Schrodinger initially hated this, derided it by saying, "I cannot believe that the electron hops around like a flea," as Heisenberg's formalism just has the states jump from interaction to interaction without a continuous transition in between, and Schrodinger developed his wave equation to try and "fill in the gaps."

In Schrodinger's work "Science and Humanism", he criticizes the notion of interpreting quantum waves as representing the particle literally spreading out into multiple places, arguing that trying to use it "fill in the gaps" was a mistake and inevitably ends in nonsense. While Heisenberg's formulation has particles hopping from interaction to interaction, Schrodinger said that the wave formulation might get rid of the hops in between interactions, but it introduces a new one at the moment of observation, and he saw no reason as to why observation should play a fundamental role in the theory.

He goes onto explain how observation requires interaction, and so by definition you can never empirically observe what is going on in between observations, so believing that there are continuous transitions is a metaphysical standpoint that is not actually verifiable empirically. Very similar ideas to this would later develop into relational quantum mechanics, which gets rid of the special role for observation/measurement by treating particles as if they stochastically hop from interaction to interaction without anything in between, and only meaningfully have properties in relation to each other within an "event" (an interaction).

amihart wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 11:17 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 9:12 pm It's a thought experiment and was never meant to be taken literally. Schroedinger himself came up with it to demonstrate the absurdity of quantum mechanics.

Not quantum mechanics, but a specific interpretation of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger introduced the thought experiment in his paper "The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics". The argument was basically that, if you believe particles can literally be in two places at once, then you can cause a chain reaction from that particle which would affect a cat, and this would require you to believe that the cat, since its state depends upon a particle that is in two places at once, would also have to be in two places at once. Schrodinger thought believing cats can be both death and alive at the same time is absurd, therefore we should not believe particles can be in two places at once.

People commonly falsely conflate superposition with "in two places at once." Superposition is just a mathematical property where you add two waves together. The fact you add waves together in quantum mechanics does not prove particles are in two places at once. That requires an additional metaphysical interpretation of what the mathematics is actually representing.

When Heisenberg originally formulated quantum mechanics, he did not use Schrodinger waves. He instead evolved the desired observable backwards until the interactions were all accounted for, and then applied it to the initial state to evolve to a final state in one stroke. Schrodinger initially hated this, derided it by saying, "I cannot believe that the electron hops around like a flea," as Heisenberg's formalism just has the states jump from interaction to interaction without a continuous transition in between, and Schrodinger developed his wave equation to try and "fill in the gaps."

In Schrodinger's work "Science and Humanism", he criticizes the notion of interpreting quantum waves as representing the particle literally spreading out into multiple places, arguing that trying to use it "fill in the gaps" was a mistake and inevitably ends in nonsense. While Heisenberg's formulation has particles hopping from interaction to interaction, Schrodinger said that the wave formulation might get rid of the hops in between interactions, but it introduces a new one at the moment of observation, and he saw no reason as to why observation should play a fundamental role in the theory.

He goes onto explain how observation requires interaction, and so by definition you can never empirically observe what is going on in between observations, so believing that there are continuous transitions is a metaphysical standpoint that is not actually verifiable empirically. Very similar ideas to this would later develop into relational quantum mechanics, which gets rid of the special role for observation/measurement by treating particles as if they stochastically hop from interaction to interaction without anything in between, and only meaningfully have properties in relation to each other within an "event" (an interaction).

Thanks AI. You have clearly missed my point. You can learn and grow from this. You're welcome.

^ I would say there is no need to be an asshole, but there is a need, as humans generally are evil by their nature. It is something you cannot help, and growing to understand this makes the personal attacks less upsetting, as I understand it is just your instinct and largely not controllable. Just muting you and moving on.

janeprasanga wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 8:39 pm dean shows Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is meaningless as he cant tell us what dead is what alive is

One thing I notice is several topics started, then abandoned. Post some controversial title and walk away. This is actually typical for many members here, so I have a hard time saying it's out of line.

The thought experiment has zero to do with the nitpickly line dividing a live from a dead animal.
Almost all the posters nevertheless jump onto this irrelevant issue. One pertinent response:

amihart wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 11:17 pm The argument was basically that, if you believe particles can literally be in two places at once, then you can cause a chain reaction from that particle which would affect a cat, and this would require you to believe that the cat, since its state depends upon a particle that is in two places at once, would also have to be in two places at once.

This is relevant. The cat is optional. It could be that the particle causes a pancake to be flipped or not. It would be in superposition of cooked on one and both sides. The cat is just a macroscopic example, and yes, they've put macroscopic things in superpostition, but only by isolating it with conditions that would certainly kill any animal.

As for your comment, what was the state of the interpretation at the time? No current interpretation suggests something actually being in two states at once, but rather that the thing is in superposition of those two states. Not sure if the thinking back then would not have worded it that way. Some interpretations (DBB) say there is no superposition, there is but the one real state. Most interpretations are not realist like that.

Noax wrote: ↑Fri Aug 22, 2025 1:52 am

janeprasanga wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 8:39 pm dean shows Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is meaningless as he cant tell us what dead is what alive is

One thing I notice is several topics started, then abandoned. Post some controversial title and walk away. This is actually typical for many members here, so I have a hard time saying it's out of line.

The thought experiment has zero to do with the nitpickly line dividing a live from a dead animal.
Almost all the posters nevertheless jump onto this irrelevant issue. One pertinent response:

amihart wrote: ↑Wed Aug 20, 2025 11:17 pm The argument was basically that, if you believe particles can literally be in two places at once, then you can cause a chain reaction from that particle which would affect a cat, and this would require you to believe that the cat, since its state depends upon a particle that is in two places at once, would also have to be in two places at once.

This is relevant. The cat is optional. It could be that the particle causes a pancake to be flipped or not. It would be in superposition of cooked on one and both sides. The cat is just a macroscopic example, and yes, they've put macroscopic things in superpostition, but only by isolating it with conditions that would certainly kill any animal.

As for your comment, what was the state of the interpretation at the time? No current interpretation suggests something actually being in two states at once, but rather that the thing is in superposition of those two states. Not sure if the thinking back then would not have worded it that way. Some interpretations (DBB) say there is no superposition, there is but the one real state. Most interpretations are not realist like that.

The so-called 'superposition' is just the 'eternal flowing state', which is sometimes referred to as 'now'. But, because of 'the way' the human brain works the so-called 'superposition state' is not yet fully understood and able to be distinguished fully, by you human beings

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 9:12 pm It's a thought experiment and was never meant to be taken literally. Schroedinger himself came up with it to demonstrate the absurdity of quantum mechanics.

I thought you were big on Many Worlds. If many worlds is a viable view, we absolutely do take the thought experiment literally.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 2:23 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 9:12 pm It's a thought experiment and was never meant to be taken literally. Schroedinger himself came up with it to demonstrate the absurdity of quantum mechanics.

I thought you were big on Many Worlds. If many worlds is a viable view, we absolutely do take the thought experiment literally.

That's not what I said. I said that was the reason Schroedinger came up with it. Perhaps I could have worded it better. The OP seems to be more about taking issue with the use of the word 'alive' and what it means to be 'alive' rather than the thought experiment itself (although he doesn't seem to have the same problem with the word 'dead'. Hmmm...). It's true that we have never come up with a truly satisfactory definition for 'life'.

I don't know if you've seen a TV series called Dark Matter. It's about Many Worlds. It's very good.

accelafine wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 7:48 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 2:23 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Fri Aug 08, 2025 9:12 pm It's a thought experiment and was never meant to be taken literally. Schroedinger himself came up with it to demonstrate the absurdity of quantum mechanics.

I thought you were big on Many Worlds. If many worlds is a viable view, we absolutely do take the thought experiment literally.

That's not what I said. I said that was the reason Schroedinger came up with it. Perhaps I could have worded it better. The OP seems to be more about taking issue with what it means to be 'alive' rather than the thought experiment itself. It's true that we have never come up with a truly satisfactory definition for 'life'.

I don't know if you've seen a TV series called Dark Matter. It's about Many Worlds. It's very good.

Yes he made it to illustrate absurdity, but just leaving it at that makes it sound like you also agree not to take it literally. I'll check out dark matter

It's nonsensical to say the thought experiment is meaningless just because of its use of 'dead' and 'alive'. The same experiment could be used with a countless number of different scenarios. Sean Carroll likes to say 'asleep' or 'awake' because he likes cats

Age wrote: ↑Wed Aug 27, 2025 11:43 amNo current interpretation suggests something actually being in two states at once, but rather that the thing is in superposition of those two states.

Schrodinger was specifically criticizing the idea that things can be in a "smeared out" or "blurred" state (depending upon the translation), i.e. that the superposition of states is an actual physical state of the particle, as if the particle literally exists as a linear combination of two different locations.

Imo logically it's not that something is in two states at once, but that it's in two states and neither at once. So there is an alive cat and a dead cat and a lack of an alive cat and a lack of a dead cat. That's what smearing out should mean.