.
.
-“schrödinger’s cat” is a ‘thought experiment’ – sometimes described as a ‘paradox’ – devised by austrian physicist ‘erwin schrödinger’ in ‘1935’-
.
(it illustrates what he saw as the problem of the ‘copenhagen interpretation’ of ‘quantum mechanics’ applied to everyday objects)
(the scenario presents a cat that may be simultaneously both alive and dead, a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur)
(the ‘thought experiment’ is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of ‘quantum mechanics’)
(‘schrödinger’ coined the term verschränkung (‘entanglement’) in the course of developing the ‘thought experiment’)
“death” is quantitatively binary (as in 0 = “alive” / 1 = “dead”)
(*see schrodinger’s cat for more on this fact of “life”*)
erwin rudolf josef alexander schrödinger
(1887 – 1961)
(austrian physicist)
(died @ age 74 of tuberculosis)
(set up premise of “schrodinger’s cat” in 1935)
(he was 48 years old)
in its simplest terms, it means that one cannot define a “state” by taking into account the respective probabilities of two mutually exclusive events (which this “state” fundamentally depends upon) occurring.
say there is a 50% chance of a radioactive atom decaying over the course of an hour.
if it decays, then it will set off a chain reaction that ultimately results in the release of a deadly acid that will kill a cat.
according to the conventional logic of ‘quantum mechanics’, this means that the cat will be “50% dead” at the end of the hour.
but one cannot apply an “expected value” to life.
or can we?
can a person be “half-alive?”
“half-dead?”
i suspect one can be partially alive/dead.
(in other words, life + death can be “quantified” based upon “length of suffering before death”)
(“suffering” being defined as the approach to death from “0” (perfect health) to “1” (death))
a living thing can travel back and forth along this spectrum until he/she reaches “1”…
therefore, “life” can be quantified over an infinitely positive range (all “real numbers”)
another question…
just as one can only reach “death” once before settling into a permanent death state, can one approach the ultimate state of “life” (at the other end of the spectrum) and settle into a permanent “life” state?
in equation format:
“quality of life” = (total length) x (length of happiness / length of suffering)
now define “happiness”…
(sexual fulfillment?)
(familial affection?)
(will to power?)
another “state” that cannot be easily quantified is “sexual attraction”.
when i first started studying the “laws” governing female heterosexual attraction (at age 18), i was convinced by an online sex columnist (a man) that a female’s interest in a man vacillates from “0% to 100%” and that once a female’s interest in a man drops below 50% then it will never go up no matter what the man does.
but over the years i’ve tended to take an opposing view.
either a girl is totally into you or she isn’t into you at all.
and so i save myself a lot of time + mental energy by breaking things down for the girl immediately.
if i sense that she doesn’t want to have sex with me, i simply attempt to verify that she has no interest in me.
even though this approach can backfire on an easily impressionable girl (aka “most girls”)
“you don’t really want to know me, do you?”
(a ‘schrodinger’s cat’ method of eliminating girls who ‘might be’ into you)
“once you knew they want nothing to do with you…”
.
.
*👨🔬🕵️♀️🙇♀️*SKETCHES*🙇♂️👩🔬🕵️♂️*
.
.
.
👈👈👈☜*“QUANTUM SUPER-POSITION”* ☞ 👉👉👉
.
.
💕💝💖💓🖤💙🖤💙🖤💙🖤❤️💚💛🧡❣️💞💔💘❣️🧡💛💚❤️🖤💜🖤💙🖤💙🖤💗💖💝💘
.
.
*🌈✨ *TABLE OF CONTENTS* ✨🌷*
.
.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥*we won the war* 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥