Say there is a one foot, by one foot, by one foot airtight box. It is completely seamless, except for the opening. You can not see inside of the box, or through the box. Say you have a kitten, exactly one third the volume of the inside of the box. If a similar kitten, of the same breed, age, and weight, can survive one minuet and thirty seconds with absolutely no oxygen, and the remaining space inside of said box could be filled with enough oxygen to take one minute for the similar kitten to consume, then would the first kitten be hypothetically dead the second it is sealed inside of the box? Is the kitten not both dead, and alive until it is known that the kitten is in fact dead, or alive upon opening of said box? If the kitten is both existing, and not existing at the same moment in time, within an approximate two minuets and thirty seconds of time elapsed from the initial sealing of the box, what would that make the kitten? Would said organic being become inanimate? Or vise versa? What would that make the kitten before it was placed inside said box? If the actual existence of the object can be changed at will, than does it really exist in the first place? was it always a hypothetical question? What does that make human beings?
That's just retarded. You didn't make it clear when/if one or both kittens would be sealed in, but either way, there would be dead kitten/s in the box after 1.30 without air. It doesn't matter whether or not you can see them, you've just killed innocent kittens. If you want to get into discussion about existence and perception, there's no need to string together some incoherent bullshit about killing kittens.
I hate when you do that, and you open the box, and there is no cat. Then the race of super powerful cat creatures from the future sends an assassin...
If you are a human observing the box from the outside, you could say that the cat is already dead before she actually dies. However, you cannot say that the cat is both alive and dead from an observer's perspective unless the cat actually has a chance of surviving after the determined time limit. If you deprive a cat of oxygen for beyond the limit that you know a cat can survive without oxygen, she has no chance of survival. She is already dead to you, that is assuming the cat has no possible way of affecting your perception while inside the box. In Schrödinger's thought experiment, the cat has a chance to survive. Dead or alive, these are the two possible states. If I am reading it correctly, your example has only the possibility for death. If you are the cat, then the idea that you are already dead before you die couldn't be more wrong. This doesn't make the idea incorrect, though- It highlights the role perspective plays in an observation.
You're missing the point entirely. Schrodinger's experiment is a quantum system because it involves a process that takes place on the quantum level - the decay of a radioactive isotope. Your example is not a quantum system. It's just a cat in a box.
The maximum limit a cat of similar breed, age, and weight, could survive in this situation would be 2 min, 30 sec, which is the same amount of time the kitten in the actual experiment is given. There is a possibility of life, though slight. It is based on the schrodinger's cat theory, but I have focused more on the details of the hat before it was sealed inside of the box...I like your awsner best so far, compared to the rest of the fuck wits that got all butt-hurt over me hypothetically asphyxiating baby cats. Thank you
If our 2:30 sec (lifespan) was predetermined, then yes you could say that we are already dead. However we could die any given time before that. Even after that. What's to say the kitty didn't decide to take his last breath of fresh air and hold it in for 30 sec while inside the box, thus elongating his "life" by 30 seconds? Or just panicked inside the box and broke his neck against a wall trying to get out, within 30 seconds?
It doesn't matter. That dude was pointing out several absurdities scientists were trying to say back in the day. So it's kind of funny that this question is still being asked in the first place. It's just absurd.
[quote name='"simmer"'] It doesn't matter. That dude was pointing out several absurdities scientists were trying to say back in the day. So it's kind of funny that this question is still being asked in the first place. It's just absurd.[/quote] To show it to others that are ignorant to it's existence, ie: me, yesterday.
Kind of like the Terminator except for catciety (cat society) In regards to the question at hand...who cares about the box, save the cats