pages

Monday, May 25, 2015

Schrödinger's Cat

The Wikipedian description:
Schrödinger's cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor detects radioactivity (i.e. a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison that kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.
We need to be especially aware that the Schrodinger's Cat experiment is a thought experiment, a satire, and a critique and not an actual experiment with a real cat. Which is to say that Erwin Schrodinger has never killed a cat in a box by using radioactive material or otherwise.

The scientist explains it thus:
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
from a translation that was originally published in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124, 323-38. [And then appeared as Section I.11 of Part I of Quantum Theory and Measurement (J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, eds., Princeton university Press, New Jersey 1983).]


Schrodingers cat.svg
"Schrodingers cat" by Dhatfield - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.


Schrödinger's thought experiment actually entered into the common ideaspace, however usually as a misunderstood principle invoked as cliche, metaphor, or trope.

I enjoy that it's employed as humor.  Essentially though it's a fair description of when an individual or institution fails to commit to a given dogma or a contrary one, when an outright explanation is far more worthwhile than a lack of controversy.  Essentially when one fails to suggest or determine for others if a state of being is certainly one or the other, then the metaphor is invoked and it is hardly charitable.

This t-shirt here is brilliant.  The undead cat, be it liche or zombie is used to suggest intelligence, at least on a superficial or beginning level.  Now, I understand the stuff of quantum mechanics thrown to the viewers on PBS.  This could suggest that I am intelligent.  Yet I'm no quantum mechanic.  Philosophy can be applied to the sciences but I cannot apply the science, expand  the science.  I'm layman in that field.  But in many respects the thought experiment is meant to explain a point to people like me, regardless.

Most importantly though, to me, is that this just plain opens the doors to humor.

Oh the jokes.

Someone is going to come along and make fun of this blog post.

and I deserve it.

Now the real reason I write stuff like THIS is not only to practice writing, as I must practice every day to at the very least entertain my fantasy of becoming a professional writer, but because I would rather link to my own definition of a given term than the wikipedia version.  I also want to believe that my own blog may be more reliable to ever-present for my purposes than any given university's page.... which is unreasonable to a degree... although while Michigan State University may outlive me by a thousand years they can eject a professor and his displays of work and definition any week or year.  That implies the professor's tenure has an exception.

Now I can explain the issue of Heisenberg and I certainly will at a later date.  I'm uncertain when that date will be.

Later I intend to visit this site as it explores the concepts further than I intend at this time.... and more importantly illustrates and exhibits the concepts.

In the meantime


Schrodinger's Cat by tatabatata on DeviantArt

























Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Game of Triggers

I don't know what this "trigger" bullshit is that is the Big Thing this year but yeah if you're freaked out by boobs, gay people, violence, blood, and a mixture of all of those don't watch GAME OF THRONES.

Or read them

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

we will never get rid of poverty

Although first of all.... Jesus plainly says we will never get rid of poverty. 

We will always have the poor, in His words. It was said so offhandedly and casually as if the sky was blue that it is inarguable.


However. We are still required to love as Jesus loved. 

I argue theologically that the point of feeding the hungry is less to eliminate hunger for the sake of the hungry but to demonstrate Christ's love.

Meaning that the reason for charity is less that the poor need charity but that people are poor so we have people to be charitable to.

We exist to love and worship after all.

Human deficiencies are caused by sin. But the reason God simply doesn't supernaturally feed them or erase our ills is also because of the free will that led to sin and deficiencies. We're supposed to demonstrate the love of Christ of our own free will.

Now the Church used to be a helpful organized entity and for the most part it still is.

Monday, May 04, 2015

shoot home invaders

from Rick Ector
Words: I just love the way the media plays with words when they report a story. For example, today one outlet stated that "A home invasion turned deadly." Since when was a home invasion a benevolent activity? If a person is ever so emboldened to come into your home uninvited and unannounced, the home owner should treat the invasion attempt as an attack on his safety and the safety of his family. Moreover, shooting a home invader is not "taking the law into your own hands." Once someone invades your home, the well-being of the occupants is not a concern. In fact, it is the ultimate disregard for the safety of any one legally present. Once a thug comes into your home, especially while you are there, there are only a handful of things that can happen. With exception of one outcome, all others are bad. Shoot home invaders. It is your duty. True story.


Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Gwyneth Paltrow ALS ice bucket challenge

I still think Gwyneth Paltrow, awful person in many ways, is awesome in a bikini.





Here is proof.

December 31, 2013 USMagazine



Yello - Oh Yeah



I have learned something today. I think it's the first time I ever heard the whole song in all years.

Martin Luther says Drink!



whenever the devil harasses you, seek the company of men or drink more, or joke and talk nonsense, or do some other merry thing. 
sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. 
we are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. 
so when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: i will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to. 

― martin luther

Stolen from somewhere:
Luther recommending sin? Well…he doesn’t mean adultery or stealing. What Luther is talking about here is something C.S. Lewis talks about in Chapter 14 of The Screwtape Letters: the particular temptations that come to the person who is aware of his/her own righteousness. Even if it is an awareness of love, forgiveness or humility– all bring the possibility of self-centeredness and pride. 
But Lewis (and Luther) were especially aware of the spiritual dangers of trying to not sin. Yes…trying to not sin. 
Since encouraging people to try and not sin is a major occupation of confused evangelicalism, Luther sounds strange. But it’s clear what he means: we can’t get caught in the trap of trying to generate our own righteousness, even in the name of obedience. Luther’s encouragement to sin just to spite the devil is his provocative way of suggesting a Christian TRUST CHRIST and have confidence in justification by faith. So much so, that instead of living in a state of perpetual self-examination, we live with the freedom to be less than perfect. 
Isn’t sinning intentionally a really bad thing? A Christian’s attitude toward sin must be based on a thorough acceptance of the fact that our depravity isn’t going to be erased by efforts. Even our righteousness and obedience are thoroughly tainted with sin. Luther says we need to take the sting out of the devil’s condemnation with a willingness to be human, and rejoice that God loves us and Christ died for us. 
Let Luther bother you a bit. Particularly if you are starting to get miserable in this Christian life, and wonder where the laughter and honesty are among Christians. We can find it again, but it comes with embracing justification by faith existentially, and not just as a doctrine.


I agree

black guy versus a bear

Monday, April 27, 2015

God does not accept us as we are

"Frankly put, God doesn’t ‘accept’ us as we are, because what we are is fallen and flawed sinful people. God loves us as we are, but God is insistent that we all change, repent of our sinful inclinations and ways, and become more like Christ. A loving welcome by Jesus does not exclude incredible demands in regard to our conduct, and indeed even in regard to the lusts of our hearts. As it turns out, God is an equal opportunity lover of all humanity, and also an equal opportunity critiquer of all our sin, and with good reason— it is sin that keeps separating us from God and ruining our relationship with God. "This is why the only proper Biblical approach to everyone who would wish to be ‘in Christ’ and ‘in the body of Christ’ is that they are most welcome to come as they are, and they will be loved as they are, but no one but no one is welcome to stay as they are— all God’s chillins [children] need to change. Welcoming does not entail affirming our sins, much less baptizing our sins and suddenly calling them good, healthy, life giving."   -- Ben Witherington