You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

satt comments on Schroedinger's cat is always dead - Less Wrong Discussion

-14 Post author: PhilGoetz 26 August 2011 05:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (56)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: satt 26 August 2011 07:45:18PM 4 points [-]

If observing a dead cat causes the waveform to collapse such that the cat is dead,

Unless I've misunderstood the Copenhagen interpretation, it doesn't. (Then again, it's not a brilliantly well-defined interpretation to start with.) It's not that one observes X and therefore compels the wavefunction to collapse to state X rather than state Y; it's that observation provokes collapse to a random eigenstate, and the result of the collapse determines the result of the observation (not the other way round). As such, you can't derive the statement that P(D) = P(D) + P(M)(1-P(D)), and so there's no constraint forcing P(D) = 1.