Hi. For the sake of arguing i will write one last time, then no matter what i will not reply to this thread. first quote; Thought is "carried" on matter: that does not mean the thought itself is matter. May i ask how do you carry a thing that doesn't have a substance? Do you suggest that computer data storaged as bytes which are carried by electrons does not have a mass? I think not. What's the difference between a thought and a data? I know that photons does not have a mass but they are relayed nonetheless if i have to play devil's advocate here but that's not my argument.
""What the Bleep Do We Know" is not a documentary: it's a piece of new age trash that has nothing to do with science (and if you Google you'll find the few scientists that were involved have since complained that their words were edited and their meanings were twistec to suit the non-scientific premise of the video."
Yeah one scientist complained and there are fallacies in that "so called" documentary i know that thank you i can think for myself and i assumed that the native story is too good to be true and there are other non-scientific claims but i also think that it's worth watching if you're a layman to qp and "new age trash". My point is what's your problem with new age and pseudoscience and why are you here if you do not slightly tend to believe the unbelievable? Very much of the topics in here have no support, they are just theories, some scientific, some not. You ask me to support my argument but you do not support yours either. I cannot post a link here but if you could go up a few posts namely the post eleven and click here link, on page two you also fail to support yours.
And again you miss the point: Schrödinger's whole argument was to demonstrate the ridiculousness of that interpretation: cats cannot alive and dead at the same time.
I think you are mixing interpretations, that was the copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger's was something like this;
Schrödinger's famous thought experiment poses the question, when does a quantum system stop existing as a superposition of states and become one or the other? (More technically, when does the actual quantum state stop being a linear combination of states, each of which resembles different classical states, and instead begins to have a unique classical description?) If the cat survives, it remembers only being alive. But explanations of the EPR experiments that are consistent with standard microscopic quantum mechanics require that macroscopic objects, such as cats and notebooks, do not always have unique classical descriptions. The purpose of the thought experiment is to illustrate this apparent paradox. Our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states; yet the cat, it seems from the thought experiment, can be such a mixture. Is the cat required to be an observer, or does its existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues. In a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950, he wrote:
You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gunpowder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.
Thank you again for replying to my questions and argument. I hope everything will be answered one day.
P.S. And if "what the bleep do we know" is an epic fail, could you suggest me a good hard scientific documentary that explains the qp fundementally and realistically.
