Schrodinger's Cat : Wanted Dead AND Alive

Theories, thought experiments, propositions and their likes are misinterpreted by many (A subtle Syllogistic Fallacy) to be looked upon as textbook tools, which not only incarcerates their own thinking, but also the true potential these theories hold, in simplifying life and in answering many questions. From dilemmas you cannot come out of to public behaviour, they can be answered using simple extrapolation of these laws into the situation you are in.

A dog is a man's best friend (or so they say), but the Cat, is surely his best guide...

Schrodinger's Cat, the classical thought experiment suggested by the great Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger. The paradox goes like this. A cat is confined in a closed box (Not interacting quantum mechanically with the surroundings), and the box has a flask of hydrocyanic acid, which is broken as a result of a random quantum mechanical event like disintegration of a radioactive element. Now, the question is, whether the cat is dead or alive, inside the box. The answer is, there is a finite probability of the cat being BOTH dead and alive at the same time, which cannot be told until the box is opened and looked into. This experiment has a Copenhagen interpretation which says that the system stops being a superposition of states (dead AND alive paradox) when it is subjected to observation. This is a Quantum decoherence of sorts, which prevents the independant states to interact with each other. This de-coherence means that when the observer is about to view the cat (which is initially split), the system splits into 2 paths, the observer facing a dead cat and another with an observer facing a living cat. This is in accordance to a multiworld theory.

"Schrodinger's Cat" is a very good reply I find to most questions asked by people regarding life, situations and happenings. From trivial issues to contemplating whether the mess food is edible or not, the answer can be found out by "opening the box", i.e, to taste it firsthand, to people contemplating relationships, and whether they will work out or not. The latter is a more complex propositions and the number of variables involved is virually infinite.

Relationships are complex happenings (Occam's Razor CLEARLY suggests we must not include too many variables in our assumptions, like most people do while listing their "expectations" from their partners. It is a fallacy, and leads to states much more complex than contemplated due to chaotic changes brought in by minor disturbances in the details.) Coming back to the "Cat", it holds a lot of answers compensating for the questions it raises.

If you don't know what someone thinks of you (its now good AND bad), if you are undecisive as to whether the ATM is working or not (it is both functional AND being repaired), and EVERY similar dilemma is a superposition of states, which according to the Copenhagen interpretation will split into a state of existence which is unique. Although, the result may not always be in your favor. The food may still be bad, the ATM still non functional, the hostel bathroom geyser STILL * sigh * not switched on, but what I do in such cases is congratulate another Quantum Mechanical "me" which bifurcated into the desirable situation, and now happier than me, for I am pretty sure "he", or rather "they", must be doing the same whenever I am in a state of benefit and they are not. * I add a sympathetic look for every time "I" suffer for "my" benefit *

Before you read this post, there MUST have been a thought in your mind regarding whether or not it's worth reading. I do not know whether the cat was dead for you, or alive. But you approached the situation JUST as Schrodinger did. By opening the box.

We all think scientifically, only are a times too blind to notice it. I intend to draw parallels between theories and our applying them subconsciously in life.
Our world doesn't govern science, science govern's it. So enjoy its beauty and elegance, in EVERY walk of life. Like I do.

PS: Were I in Schrodinger's palce, my thought experiments would have a dog as a subject for sure. They scare me, no ends...

Vitruvius.