Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2
M
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2
Does a literary term exist for the following situation?
---
Someone thinks they have demolished an argument with reductio ad absurdum, but then their apparently-absurd conclusion is accepted anyhow, as a mere paradox.
---

An example of this would be the paradox of Schrondinger's cat. Schrondinger hated the idea of quantum superposition (a particle is in two states at once). He devised his thought experiment with the dead/living cat as a reductio ad absurdum argument against superposition. However, the physics community essentially turned it on its head, and said "yes, it seems to be paradoxical, but the cat is indeed both alive and dead at the same time, and superposition remains true."

I can think of some other examples, and would like to refer to these examples as a class. However, I imagine that there's already a literary term for situations like this. Much thanks!

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557
M
addict
Offline
addict
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 557
It's not an interpretation I've ever heard that Schrödinger (or anglicized to Schroedinger -- no n before the d) was trying to disprove something with his though experiment. Also, I don't think there's anyone who believes this is true as applied to cats -- Einstein wrote "Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation."

FWIW, I usually hear Schrödinger pronounced SHRAY-din-jer. Is that acceptable "English"? A professor of mine used to make me knutz by chattering on about Girdle and Gerta (Gödel and Göthe).

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2
M
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2
Oops, it's definitely not "Schro*n*dinger" :-) I don't know how I got that 'n' in there!

-Matt

p.s. - More Schrodinger comments for those interested...

That he was trying to show flaws in Heisenberg's idea (superposition) can be seen with some Googling; I was reminded of it recently while reading "Decoding the Universe", a book about information theory, which makes Schrodinger's hostility explicit. I found a reference to Schrodinger's paper introducing the cat paradox, and his tone is clear:
"One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, ..." [1]

The Einstein quote you included is part of a letter to Schrodinger, in which Einstein says, essentially, "You're the only one who gets it!" The problem is that Einstein and Schrodinger were in the minority. Einstein never, ever came to terms with the weird implications of quantum theory. It essentially left him out of the loop of particle physics research for the last few decades of his life.

Heisenberg's position, AKA the Copenhagen interpretation, was the dominant response to the cat paradox for about 50 years. (Since then, the majority view is that the cat quickly "decoheres" into either a dead or living state, due to thermodynamic leakage of information (so I gather, and speaking roughly)).

---
[1] E. Schrödinger, ``Die gegenwartige Situation in der Quantenmechanik,'' Naturwissenschaftern. 23 : pp. 807-812; 823-823, 844-849. (1935). English translation: John D. Trimmer, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 124, 323-38 (1980), Reprinted in Quantum Theory and Measurement, p 152 (1983).
Found at http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-3.html

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Schroedinger's thought experiment falls apart when you realise that the cat knows whether it is dead or not. It's like the tree that fell in the forest. The raccoons and deer and foxes all heard it fall.

As far as I'm concerned a paradox is merely a measure of our inability to completely understand a situation.

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 456
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 456
Shouldn't that be gögling?

Perhaps ignoratio elenchi in a derivative sense?


ÅΓª╥┐↕§
#162482 10/13/06 01:53 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
Quote:

It's like the tree that fell in the forest. The raccoons and deer and foxes all heard it fall.




Bwahahaha!

Berkeley tried to resolve the vertiginous implications of Cartesian idealism by stating that even without an observer everything persists in the mind of God. But who needs God! As Faldage seems to be suggesting, it is the uniform distribution of raccoons and deer and foxes through the universe that yields the real solution.

Bwahahaha!

Last edited by Hydra; 10/13/06 02:02 AM.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
T
veteran
Offline
veteran
T
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,529
Ha!

Both of the questions under question here are not in the least paradoxical; both questions are merely semantical.
It is strange that you white eyes, having pondered them for so long, have not yet resolved these two simple silly riddles.

Must I explain them?

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 631
themilum, if you are talking about the old "riddle" that begins "If a tree falls in the forest..." then I agree it is semantic, and hangs on the words "hear" and "sound".

If no one is there to "hear" it, then no one's auditory apparratus transforms the sound energy into nerve impulses to be perceived by the brain as "sound". Do the vibrations still travel through the air if there is no device there to measure them? Rephrased, the question becomes quite banal: "Can you know something has happened without having any evidence whatsoever?" No.

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Quote:

Rephrased, the question becomes quite banal: "Can you know something has happened without having any evidence whatsoever?" No.




That's not quite the question. The question is more like, if phenomenon A occurs and we know that, given an observer C witnessing the occurrence of phenomenon A, consequence B also occurs, will consequence B occur even if there is no observer C to witness it? Science is based on the assumption that the answer is yes. That this appears to fall apart in the world of quantum mechanics is a paradox

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
B
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
B
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Quote:

>>>As far as I'm concerned a paradox is merely a measure of our inability to completely understand a situation.




Aye! I think you are absolutely right there, Faldage. If you read scientific books, you'll find that many things that were initially classified as paradoxes have been sorted out once we got the knowledge and technology to understand them.

EDIT:

Ooo, and I forgot to add...also with knowledge and technological advancement, many things that we thought were cast in stone turn out to be incorrect - so it's not just the paradoxes that get booted about.

Last edited by belMarduk; 10/13/06 01:28 PM.

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,912
Posts229,283
Members9,179
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV, Heather_Turey, Standy
9,179 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 442 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,510
LukeJavan8 9,916
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5