|
2 registered members (Ayumi, 1 invisible),
584
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76297
07/13/06 23:28
07/13/06 23:28
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Here's the thing, we're going to forever go in logic circles (an endless loop if you will)
So my purpose in this thread was to have a friendly discussion on possible ways the universe could logically come into existence. But it seems you guys will come up with any possible reason not to actually discuss it. Its not that difficult. You outline ideas, potential problems, criticize them, and then come to a rational, logical conclusion.
It is possible, and logic NEVER leads you in circles. Otherwise it wouldn't be logic. If your thinking leads you in circles, its because your thinking isn't logical.
Quote:
because if you say that things cannot be created uncaused, then god needs a cause, and since god is by definition omnipotent, and you state that things can only become/create less complex things, there can be no cause - which makes your logic contradictory, and no god more likely.
You're getting ahead of yourself. Let's agree on a few principles first. Don't worry about God just yet, let's focus on the natural, and then we can think about God.
1). There cannot be an infinite regress of events because then time would be infinite.
2). If time is infinite, we'll never exist because at any point infinitely past, we will still have an infinity to go before we exist.
3). Thus, the universe has a beginning.
Can we at least start here? Can you agree on these things? Don't worry about God just yet. We aren't running around in circles, we're just cutting off some dead end ideas about the universe.
Quote:
Kind of reminds me of an old myth that the world rested on the back of four giant elephants on a giant turtle. When asked what the turtle rested on, a head priest would reply 'it's turtles all the way down'
Yeah, that reminds me of the atheist's view of universal origins. 
Quote:
I have yet to see any evidence that an infinite regression of events is less plausable then an omnipotent being.
We'll get there, but first things first.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76298
07/14/06 13:30
07/14/06 13:30
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
For instance, the prophecy in Psalms centuries before Jesus was born about how He would die. In the psalms it says, "They peirce my hands and feet." Executing people on a cross wasn't even around back then. Please see my reference in the previous post. Later in that verse it talks about people drawing up lots for the clothing. Which is what happened to Jesus after being stapled to the cross. Kind of a strange coincidence.
I doubt you'll see this as 'proof' but its one of many reasons I find the bible to be likely. Amongst others are things we take for granted scientifically being shown to be true in the bible.
The oldest biblical text known is one from 60-70 years after christs dead, so off course this is no evidence whatsoever.
A prophecy in a text that's written after all those things supposedly happened is hardly a prophecy. 
Quote:
Even on a clear, light pollutionless sky, it certainly would not seem that there are more stars than sand on the beach.
Maybe, however based upon what can be seen (not just where I live), it's likely that there would be more stars than sand on the beach. And that's what this is about, not the exact amounts.
Quote:
[about the Greeks] Your source? It would be important to know when, amongst other things.
Lol, omg, maybe it's time to research a bit more into the Greek civilization, because the ancient Greek civilization was one of the greatest and those Jews were mostly just shepherds with hardly any scientific knowledge. The Greek civilization (aswell as the ancient Egyptian civilization) was definately before the nomadic jews you are referring to.
Archaeological records do not show any signs of larger organised groups of sedimentary populations in those periods, nor any records of any scientific knowledge, as opposed to the Greeks and Egyptians. So, infact it's more justified to ask YOU to come with your sources here instead.
Quote:
Read my source. The verse talks about people sleeping and working at the same time which is the important aspect of that verse.
Yes, nightshifts maybe?  Lol, okey just kidding.
Quote:
But my point was that you can't say with certainty that creationism has no evidence, because you don't know all possible evidences. That doesn't mean creationism does have evidence, but it means you need to 'check' your comments about what you think you know.
No, you are wrong here. There is no evidence, saying there might be evidence doesn't change this and has no value either. He didn't state there 'never will be evidence' unless I've missed something, so his comment was perfectly okey.
Quote:
Its difficult not to make the connection between what we know for sure to be true because of science, and what they knew to be true through God.
Compare that to the ripoff of Jewish belief, Islam. The Quran says semen comes from the chest. This is what happens when someone is just pulling stuff out of their butt. They make incorrect assumptions, and they certainly won't consistently get scientific principles right thousands of years before we know for sure it really is right.
You should study the Quran and biology first before copy & pasting stuff from those pro-christian/anti-islamic pages. 
They say this: '"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:" S. 86:5-7'
Now where does it mention semen comming from the chest? The Quran simply states that man is created from the ejaculated fluid, which is emitted from within the abdomen. Infact semen consists of the secretions of several glands but only 5 per cent comes from the testicles, so they aren't as far off as you think, they are at least 95% right here .
(link)
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76299
07/14/06 13:52
07/14/06 13:52
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
1). There cannot be an infinite regress of events because then time would be infinite.
2). If time is infinite, we'll never exist because at any point infinitely past, we will still have an infinity to go before we exist.
3). Thus, the universe has a beginning.
Can we at least start here? Can you agree on these things?
Principially it is a good idea to find a basic point of agreement from which you can start a discussion. You only should then better choose statements that are not so obviously illogical.
According to your thinking, the number "0" can never exist because you had to go over infinite many negative numbers before reaching "0". I would agree that our current universe had a beginning. However thinking that this is the only universe and there is nothing else before or afterwards is not logical, but religious.
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: jcl]
#76300
07/14/06 22:46
07/14/06 22:46
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
The oldest biblical text known is one from 60-70 years after christs dead, so off course this is no evidence whatsoever.
A prophecy in a text that's written after all those things supposedly happened is hardly a prophecy.
If the oldest text was 60-70 years younger than christ, what was He quoting His entire life? You would think people would be immediately skeptical of a Messiah who was quoting a text that didn't exist.
Maybe you mean that the oldest copy of the texts is that old. I don't know that that's true, but the originals are much younger than Jesus.
Quote:
Maybe, however based upon what can be seen (not just where I live), it's likely that there would be more stars than sand on the beach. And that's what this is about, not the exact amounts.
I don't see how that pans out. Let's do some math. I'm a little rusty, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Let's say we take the view of the sky as a literal dome (not just a 2d view of indefinitely large 3d space).
For simplicity's sake, let's say this dome is half of a sphere, so we can come up with a simple surface area estimated by what it might look like from the ground.
From the view of the ground, this 'dome' might have a radius of, let's just say 7 meters. You can contest this if you want since none of this is exact, but I think I'm being generous (remember this isn't the actual radius of the sky, its what it might look like from the ground). I also think I'm being generous by giving it the surface area of half of a sphere, since you normally don't see all the way to the horizon. Now, let's calculate the surface area of this dome.
The surface area would be (4 * pi * 7^2) / 2
Which is about...308 meters squared (rounded up). So, now let's say we can see five stars per square centimeter, we would see 500 stars per meter squared.
Which gives us the ability to see 154,000 stars overall. How many grains of sand might one say make up a beach? Trillions? That would be reasonable, I think.
154,000 is 0.0154% of just 1 trillion. That's not even close. Again, forgive my math, I've been out of school for a couple of years (until this fall).
So let's be more generous and say we can see 20 stars per centimeter squared. That's 2000 stars per meter squared. Which overall is 616,000 stars. Which is 0.0616% of 1 trillion.
Quote:
and those Jews were mostly just shepherds with hardly any scientific knowledge.
Which would make it more amazing. The reason I'm asking for a source is because timing is very important and because specific claims shouldn't be made unless they can be scrutinized. Its not like specific details of ancient greek science is common knowledge.
Quote:
Archaeological records do not show any signs of larger organised groups of sedimentary populations in those periods, nor any records of any scientific knowledge, as opposed to the Greeks and Egyptians. So, infact it's more justified to ask YOU to come with your sources here instead.
I've already provided my sources, and Israel has never been a large nation. Many of these beliefs were not held by other nations, sometimes even America/Europe until further scientific investigation took place. So, most of this Greek stuff doesn't apply or matter. If the Greek's got something right, you would think we wouldn't need to relearn some of those things.
Quote:
Yes, nightshifts maybe? Lol, okey just kidding.
Quote:
No, you are wrong here. There is no evidence, saying there might be evidence doesn't change this and has no value either. He didn't state there 'never will be evidence' unless I've missed something, so his comment was perfectly okey.
Both of your comments are wrong. Nobody can know all evidences. Its really not a major point here, I'm just criticizing these 'grand' claims you guys make. Either you know all evidences and you know there is no evidence of creation, or you don't and all you can say is that there is no known evidence of creation. Which is at least a legitimate claim because then you aren't ruling out any future evidence, or evidence that you don't know of, or ignore.
Quote:
You should study the Quran and biology first before copy & pasting stuff from those pro-christian/anti-islamic pages.
They say this: '"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted - Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:" S. 86:5-7'
Well then what about these verses?
He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4)
First off, sperm is hardly a drop. Anyone old enough to have 'discovered' himself knows this. Or those males who have had intercourse with a female would also know. A drop is a small quantity of liquid upon which gravity has caused to 'drop' towards the earth. Now, I'm not going to dispute the use of language, its really not important. But semen does not originate in the chest (how else would you describe between the backbone and the ribs?) That much is clear. There are no two ways around this. You can say that the testicles originate in the groin before descending, but they don't descend from between the ribs and the backbone.
Let's examine the origins of the other 95% of semen.
1). Seminal vesicles - Located straight into your body about the middle of your butt cheek. Not between the backbone and the ribs.
2). Prostate gland - Even lower (closer to the testicles) than the seminal vesicles.
3). Bulbourethral and urethral glands - located around the urethra, branching off from the portion that is located within the penis. In other words, even worse than the testicles.
Really, I've always found it quite curious that christianity is indefensible, but those who dislike, disagree with, or despise christianity rarely fail to defend Islam. I don't get the connection.
Quote:
According to your thinking, the number "0" can never exist because you had to go over infinite many negative numbers before reaching "0".
That's a completely misrepresentative metaphor. Let's try it this way.
Subtract infinity from zero. Then from that number (whatever it would be), start counting up one number at a time, every second for eternity until you reach zero. How long will it take you? So in a sense, while zero exists, it can't be counted to sequentially from any number that is infinitely less than zero.
Quote:
I would agree that our current universe had a beginning. However thinking that this is the only universe and there is nothing else before or afterwards is not logical, but religious.
Mmm, yes, because its easy to see these other universes all over the place. It would be logical to assume that they exist.
In fact, you might then be able to answer a question for me that I haven't heard answered yet. QM theory states that because anything is possible at the atomic level, there's a universe for every possible outcome. But why? Just because anything is possible in our universe, doesn't mean that the other possibilities have occured.
There's probably a theoretical reason for it, but I haven't heard it yet.
I'm not saying that logically there can't be anything before our universe. What I'm saying is that whatever came before our universe logically didn't exist forever, or it runs into the same problems mentioned above.
Unless there's a way for this preuniverse or alternate universe to do a sequential series of things without the aid of time. I would like to hear how that is possible.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/14/06 23:02.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76301
07/15/06 06:50
07/15/06 06:50
|
Anonymous
OP
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
OP
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I've already provided my sources, and Israel has never been a large nation. Many of these beliefs were not held by other nations, sometimes even America/Europe until further scientific investigation took place. So, most of this Greek stuff doesn't apply or matter. If the Greek's got something right, you would think we wouldn't need to relearn some of those things.
Are you suggesting that since these things had to be relearned after the greko-roman era, they did not know them? Look up greek or roman science. Google it.
The reason we had to relearn these things is quite simple. The rise of christianity combined with other factors destabilized the roman empire, most documents were thus destroyed. Next, the church's ascension after the decades of ensuing chaos allowed it to clamp down on scientific development (which would challenge it's assumptions) through limiting education and literacy to priests. This went on for centuries.
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
#76302
07/15/06 21:26
07/15/06 21:26
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Are you suggesting that since these things had to be relearned after the greko-roman era, they did not know them? Look up greek or roman science. Google it.
I wasn't talking about all of those examples, just some things. Specifically universal entropy. Very recently, people thought the universe could just go on the way it is now for all eternity.
And I'm not going to research all of Greek and Roman science just for the few examples that are even relevant. If your claims aren't based on your (possibly faulty) memory, or they actually have a source, then you should be able to provide it. I don't ask evolutionists to back up all of my creationist claims for me.
Quote:
The reason we had to relearn these things is quite simple. The rise of christianity combined with other factors destabilized the roman empire, most documents were thus destroyed. Next, the church's ascension after the decades of ensuing chaos allowed it to clamp down on scientific development (which would challenge it's assumptions) through limiting education and literacy to priests. This went on for centuries.
I looked up the fall of the roman empire and it appears stagnation had more to do with it than anything else. But that's an internet search, which I'm sure is no more reliable than whatever atheist christian-bashing site you got your information from.
In school, they focused more on the peak of Rome than its fall. But I'm sure they didn't attribute the fall of an entire empire to christianity, while ignoring all of the economical, political, environmental, social and etc. issues that apparently were overridden by christianity because its such a huge influence. You can't see it, but I'm rolling my eyes right now.
Quote:
Next, the church's ascension after the decades of ensuing chaos allowed it to clamp down on scientific development
In what way? This claim is so vague, that I wouldn't even know how to take it except I'm sure you have a distaste for anything to do with God (as is apparent by your use of language).
Quote:
through limiting education and literacy to priests. This went on for centuries.
Exactly, when God and the bible are put in the hands of regular people, it reduces the abuse of the bible. God was never meant for the powerful few. That's a good point.
In many cases, literacy was kept down so that people couldn't read the bible and know that certain things that were happening were wrong.
Which church is this by the way? You wouldn't be referring to the Roman Catholic church would you?
By the way. Are you a member here who keeps forgetting to log in? Or just a drifter?
Last point, what does any of this have to do with the discussion?
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 07/15/06 21:42.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76303
07/16/06 01:37
07/16/06 01:37
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
-->..For instance, the prophecy in Psalms centuries before Jesus was born about how He would die. In the psalms it says, "They peirce my hands and feet." Executing people on a cross wasn't even around back then. ??? about 1000 years before jesus was born this method was used to punish slaves and people who did something "anti-religious". romans, persians, phynicians and so forth used this very polular method. some used trees others used other methods. it was a very popular punishment because the death struggle takes a lot of days. alexander the great prefered some wooden piles, syrmantions preferd to undress you naked and wrap your body arround the heat of the sand. some where bound, others where nailed (if the culture allready invented nails) and even others where hung up. 2.) even more important is the fact that jesus was just one jesus in a big row of them. They all shared one thing: they where executed. here the problems of all prophets and martyrers start: with their death their ideas will die as well jesus from nazareth though had the brilliant idea to come back from the dead and this made him way more popular then the other ones. allowing to establish a religion on his interpretation of the current religion. you might say what you want about god or not but this was very well done (in any way )
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76305
07/16/06 02:29
07/16/06 02:29
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Maybe you mean that the oldest copy of the texts is that old. I don't know that that's true, but the originals are much younger than Jesus.
Yes, that might be, but 70 years is a long time and you can't proof wether the originals were 'much younger than Jesus', this is a statement based upon pure faith and faith only. I was looking at what we do can tell for sure, more or less (besides, a copy of what? another copy? or a copy from the original?).
Quote:
Both of your comments are wrong. Nobody can know all evidences. Its really not a major point here, I'm just criticizing these 'grand' claims you guys make. Either you know all evidences and you know there is no evidence of creation, or you don't and all you can say is that there is no known evidence of creation. Which is at least a legitimate claim because then you aren't ruling out any future evidence, or evidence that you don't know of, or ignore.
It's not about knowing all the evidences at all. It's about making claims that make sense.
Invisible or unknown evidence is no evidence. period. Considered the topic it's highly unlikely that there ever will be evidence about a creator, let alone creation. I don't think any 'future evidence finds' should limit our claims, because our claims are based upon what we KNOW NOW, not on what we don't know or might know later, you can't know if there will be any future evidence for sure either, so why bother following this reasoning?? I'm more or less a fan of relativism like you know, so I care less or at least different about 'truths'. Stating "there is no known evidence of creation" won't be of any more value, and is quite the same kind of statement-thing. Yes, it might seem more specific towards what we DO know, but when I'm using your reasoning, what's known to one person might not be known to others, so where does that leave us??
Quote:
So let's be more generous and say we can see 20 stars per centimeter squared. That's 2000 stars per meter squared. Which overall is 616,000 stars. Which is 0.0616% of 1 trillion
Again, it's not about exact amounts at all. The bible also stated 'more stars than sand on the beach', have any idea ho w many sand grains there are on the beach? Which beach? It doesn't say 'all beaches' and doesn't indicate how big the beach is. Eventhough our view is basically 2D when looking at the stars, we can distiquish a gradient and 3D-ish movement of stars when looking at the sky at different times. It's perfectly possible to estimate a enormous amount of stars to be out there by just looking at the sky. Infact the 'more stars than sand on the beach' statement is rather vague compared to what can really be seen!
Quote:
He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4)
First off, sperm is hardly a drop. Anyone old enough to have 'discovered' himself knows this. Or those males who have had intercourse with a female would also know. A drop is a small quantity of liquid upon which gravity has caused to 'drop' towards the earth. Now, I'm not going to dispute the use of language, its really not important. But semen does not originate in the chest (how else would you describe between the backbone and the ribs?) That much is clear. There are no two ways around this. You can say that the testicles originate in the groin before descending, but they don't descend from between the ribs and the backbone.
When it falls down, it's drops, in theory only about a drop is required for a succes. This is more a language issue than something else by the way. 'Between the backbone and the ribs' is said, and yes I expected you to come with those arguments, however just to show you how silly your bible and most of it's socalled literal explanations are, maybe those words were methaphorical for 'from the inside of the body'? This is also how a lot of muslims who are less extrem explain the text.
Again, it's not stated from the chest, but from between the backbone and the ribs, it is a difference, kinda ...
"It says simply that man is created from the liquid that is ejaculated. During coitus that liquid springs from the abdomen (“between the ribcage and the spine”). The semen contains many things. Between 95 to 98% of it consists of fructose, prostaglandin hormones, metal and salt ions, lipids, steroid hormones, enzymes, basic amines, and amino acids. All those are produced from the glands located in abdomen."
Besides, this is what the dictionary says about it;
Quote:
The Exact Arabic words are just four: “Khuliqa minm Maain Daafiq”
Khuliqa = created ; Minm = from
Maain = liquid, fluid, juice, water ; Daafiq = anything that flows out, gushes out, pours out, wells out, sheds. (From the Hans Wehr Arabic to English Dictionary)
Aah, so they were right afterall. Anyways, I don't really care to much wether or not they were biologically right, that wasn't my point. They have a similar construction of strategy to be able to defend against almost anything. JUST LIKE CHRISTIANITY HAS, and they are making the same kind of nonsense claims based upon some vague statements.
Quote:
I've already provided my sources, and Israel has never been a large nation. Many of these beliefs were not held by other nations, sometimes even America/Europe until further scientific investigation took place. So, most of this Greek stuff doesn't apply or matter. If the Greek's got something right, you would think we wouldn't need to relearn some of those things.
I guess it's because of stubborn people like you that knowledge get's lost and forgotten in the first place.
The fact that the Greek had certain knowledge doesn't mean suddenly the whole world had that knowledge, damn how shortsighted... And you'd be surprised how little actually has been 'relearned' by the people you are talking about, they were tribal sheppards, not engineers or math specialists or whatever. I don't say sheppards can't be clever, but it definately was no high civilization.
Quote:
Really, I've always found it quite curious that christianity is indefensible, but those who dislike, disagree with, or despise christianity rarely fail to defend Islam. I don't get the connection.
What exactly do you mean with this? Just because you fail to understand the Quran doesn't mean it's indefensible. You see, same pointless argument made that christianity always uses in it's defense.
Quote:
Exactly, when God and the bible are put in the hands of regular people, it reduces the abuse of the bible. God was never meant for the powerful few. That's a good point.
How could you even know, you are not God. Oww wait, the bible must have said so, right? Now I only wonder why it said these specific things that really can't be known ... not that it would ring any bells for you though.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76306
07/16/06 09:32
07/16/06 09:32
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
That's a completely misrepresentative metaphor. Let's try it this way.
Subtract infinity from zero. Then from that number (whatever it would be), start counting up one number at a time, every second for eternity until you reach zero. How long will it take you? So in a sense, while zero exists, it can't be counted to sequentially from any number that is infinitely less than zero.
Yes, I just wanted to point out how illogical your assumption was. You do not need to count up from minus infinity to reach zero. In the same way you do not need to wait an infinite amount of time for existing at the present moment, just as you do not weed to walk an infinite long distance for being at your present location. Yet, infinite numbers can exist as well as infinite time and infinite space. You can not reach a point in an infinite distance, but things can very well exist at that point.
I hope the difference is understandable.
Some aspects of infinity might appear counter-intuitive and difficult to grasp. If you're interested in infinity and want to make some _qualified_ statements about it, I can absolutely recommend reading "Infinity and the Mind" by Rudy Rucker. This is one of the best popular-science books, a really great read.
Quote:
In fact, you might then be able to answer a question for me that I haven't heard answered yet. QM theory states that because anything is possible at the atomic level, there's a universe for every possible outcome. But why? Just because anything is possible in our universe, doesn't mean that the other possibilities have occured.
Actually, that was not QM, but the Everett interpretation of QM. Today physicists normally prefer the Kopenhagen interpretation, which states that quantum events do _not_ create a universe for every possible outcome.
The motivation for the Everett interpretation was an attempt to explain the Schroedinger's cat paradoxon in a more intuitive way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedingers_cat
According to the Kopenhagen interpretation, the cat exists in a superposition of alive and dead. This superposition is destroyed as soon as the cat's isolation breaks down, and then the cat is either alive or dead, with a true random outcome.
According to Everett however, rather than containing a superposition the world is split in two, one with the living and one with the dead cat.
There is probably no experiment to decide between the Everett and the Kopenhagen interpretation.
|
|
|
|
