Okay, what I am implying is that there has been no evidence what-so-ever that a macroscopic object such as a hair or any substance far exceeding Planck's constant to somehow arrive inside a vacuum container without any plausible explanation. Of course, we can consider quantum mechanics here and suggest that it's possible over a very long period of time for some macroscopic object to appear inside the vacuum container, but it would take well over the time the universe has existed to observe such a quanta effect, and even then it's still unlikely.

_________________
Brandon

Are you guys sure that you are not fooling around with Schrodinger's cat without noticing it?

Ted

Are you sure you're not taking Schrodinger's cat too literally?

_________________
Brandon

Is the vacuum requirement really required, or is it just a limitation placed arbitrarily?
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Brandon,

What evidence do you have that Schrodinger's cat never shed any hair?

Ted

The environment would have to be controlled in order to remove all other factors and possibilities. So yes, the environment would need to be sterilized in some form, and a vacuum container is probably the best way to go about this. Here's a neat story, which has some fact to it within science:

Take a cup of water from the ocean and mark each molecule so you can identify it (somehow). Then pour it back into the ocean. Come back a few years later and get another cup of water from the ocean. You will notice that at least a dozen of the molecules from the original cup are in your new cup. A small number, but it goes to show how much the environment can be affected. To make this experiment work accurately, you would have to remove or limit any of these possibilities from it.

Let us ponder, is the same true for hair as it is for the water argument? Yes, it is. So there needs to be some limitation placed on the environment, either by putting in molecules that are purified, or having no air what-so-ever to remove Brownian motion, as well as any other factors that could arise due to it.

I wouldn't dare want someone saying "Wow, it teleported here!" without having some sort of limit on the environment in which it was located.

_________________
Brandon

Ted, I can't even count how many times physicists throughout the decades have done experiments that could give evidence to Schrodinger's cat leaving hair behind, however, this has never been observed in any of the experiments we've done that deals with vacuum containers, vacuum fluctuations, or even the famous double slit experiment which most of you assume to know. I would be in shock if one day they (scientists) said while doing an experiment on the Casimir effect, that some random hair from a cat showed up in the experiment. It just doesn't happen, at least not in the time we exist.

_________________
Brandon

Is mbt wrong then?

In what regard?

_________________
Brandon

i wondered if that was your standpoint. can not be proved, can not be true. I could have asked that more directly.

-kristian

(edit: I made a short research and found this pretty quick, hope it's ok that I enter it here:

Brandon: "Also I want to add that when you say, "There is a Conscious System", you say it as if there is proof of it, like, solid proof. I believe in a sense this is true also, but I can't prove it. I can only believe it. My reason for being here is making more sense of this CS and how it could be possibly more obvious in the nature (again whatever you wanna call it) that we as individual units of consciousness live in. Honestly, Susskind's idea is just an idea and I don't take it as fact, or even Planck's constant as fact, or science, the big bang, or MBT. I understand that it is centered in this PMR, these ideas. "Conscious System" is far greater. I am open to any belief and ideas as long as it makes sense and is more than obvious to me." http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5376

My own definition on logic is 'something is logic if, and only if, it makes sense to me'.)

BrandonHedberg,

all joking aside, I can give a very precise answer to the questions you raise: PUP (Psi Uncertainty Principle). Look it up here in the forum, since this has been addressed a lot of times already.

If we are going to drop the jokes, all it takes in a Virtual Reality for a hair, short and curly or long and wavy, from Schrodinger's cat or your own balding pate, to appear in a vacuum chamber no matter how prepared and watched is for two things to coincide:
1. An Intent of sufficient strength that it happen.
2. That the CS attest to sufficient value that the PUP be turned off for the interim.
That is the nature of the VR model. What your expectation says based upon your beliefs is another matter entirely.

Ted

Considering that there is little to no information on the subject of PUP found on the internet (well, besides here, a couple blogs related to Tom's work, and Tom's trilogy), I am not willing to take that into account. Obviously way more research of this so-called PUP needs to be done for Wikipedia, or any credible (not saying wiki is credible) source to acknowledge it. If you want to give me a precise answer to the questions posed, or whatever, at least give me stable and reliable information rather than from one book out of millions of books, or here at an open forum, where we could potentially talk about flying spaghetti monsters if we wanted to. I am however willing to take into account Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which has a huge stack of information for it found on the internet. And even then UP doesn't fall into this experiment of a macroscopic object such as a hair.

_________________
Brandon

No. I can believe whatever it is I would like to believe. I use evidence and work of many human beings to gain my beliefs, and sometimes my intuition. However, I don't take one source as fact when all other sources say something else. Now, my beliefs on MBT are that yes it's going somewhere. Is it the end of the line? No. Do I think sometimes stuff is made up for it to make more sense? Yes. I could say 1+3=2, and if I gave enough supporting evidence for it, you would believe me too, regardless of where this evidence came from. All I have to do is have it make sense to you and lo-and-behold, 1+3=2.

_________________
Brandon

".. attest to sufficient value.." Can you be more clear?