"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life"
so basically Aside dont you think it strange that after say 85 years none of the worlds greatest geniuses have bothered to ask what Schrodinger means by dead means by alive or the geniuses ask does dead mean? what does alive mean? -this is the power of consensus trance
without science knowing what life is then dead and alive have no meaning" Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is meaningless
Colin Leslie Dean critiques Schrödinger's cat thought experiment by pointing out the problem that Schrödinger never clearly defines what "dead" or "alive" actually means. Dean argues that since there is no consensus on the definition of life—echoed by Wikipedia's note that no universally agreed definition of life exists—Schrödinger's thought experiment becomes essentially meaningless, as it relies on ambiguous and undefined concepts of life and death.
This critique highlights a deeper philosophical problem: despite about 85 years since Schrödinger's proposal, there has been little explicit inquiry among many physicists or scientists into what "life" and "death" truly mean within the context of the thought experiment and quantum superpositions. As you suggest, this can be seen as an example of the "power of consensus trance," where assumptions remain unexamined because of widespread acceptance.
In essence, without a clear scientific or philosophical consensus on what it means for a cat (or any system) to be "alive" or "dead," Schrödinger's paradox loses some of its intended rigor. Dean uses this to argue that the experiment’s meaning is diluted because it presupposes definitions that remain unsettled and ambiguous in science.
The Wikipedia article on life also supports this uncertainty, stating there is "currently no consensus regarding the definition of life" due to its complex biological, philosophical, and thermodynamic aspects.
Thus, Dean’s point is not only about the limits of the thought experiment itself but about a broader issue: the foundational concepts of "life" and "death" lack clear definitions in science, undermining some classical interpretations and discussions surrounding Schrödinger's cat and quantum measurement problems.
This critique calls attention to the philosophical and definitional gaps underlying much scientific discourse around life and quantum mechanics.
Dean the core essence is that Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is fundamentally affected by the lack of a precise, agreed meaning of "alive" versus "dead"—a situation unchanged even after many decades.
In essence, without a clear scientific or philosophical consensus on what it means for a cat (or any system) to be "alive" or "dead," Schrödinger's paradox loses some of its intended rigor. Dean uses this to argue that the experiment’s meaning is diluted because it presupposes definitions that remain unsettled and ambiguous in science.
Thus, Dean’s point is not only about the limits of the thought experiment itself but about a broader issue: the foundational concepts of "life" and "death" lack clear definitions in science, undermining some classical interpretations and discussions surrounding Schrödinger's cat and quantum measurement problems.
This critique calls attention to the philosophical and definitional gaps underlying much scientific discourse around life and quantum mechanics.
Dean the core essence is that Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is fundamentally affected by the lack of a precise, agreed meaning of "alive" versus "dead"—a situation unchanged even after many decades.Thus making Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is meaningless
