Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> At any rate, the relevant part of the wave equations here is really 
>> the fact that they describe the probabilities of the outcomes of 
>> measurements.  
> 
> Right. And the question is "what's a measurement" in this case. That's 
> the outstanding question.  Since measuring a superimposed state can give 
> you an answer different from any possible "outcome" per se, figuring out 
> when a "measurement" has occurred is the problem.

Exactly why I phrased my sentence the way I did.  The Schrödinger 
equations don't directly say anything about what state the cat's in, or 
even if it's in a deterministic state or not -- it's how you treat the 
process of measurement that does, and that's a philosophical questions 
rather than a scientific one at this point (and thus not part of QM 
proper but of its interpretation).

More specifically, AFAIK there are some interpretations of QM which give 
the cat a deterministic state, and others which don't (and I assume 
others which regard the question as meaningless).  All are in agreement 
with he Schrödinger wave equation, so it's not the equation that's the 
issue here.


>> and stating that the cat in superposition before measurement and 
>> "collapses" when we open the box is only one such possible explanation.
> 
> For us, maybe. Not for the cat.

Indeed, but I don't understand what this has to do with the Schrödinger 
equations, since it seems (as I mentioned) to be only a problem with the 
Copenhagen interpretation.  Perhaps I'm missing what point you're making?

Post a reply to this message