From: goldenfieldquaternions@gmail.com   
      
   On Sunday, November 25, 2018 at 3:17:12 PM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:   
   > On Thursday, 15 November 2018 09:19:17 UTC+1, Jos Bergervoet  wrote:   
   >> On 11/9/2018 8:38 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:   
   >   
   >>> What I understand is that when I look inside the box that there is   
   >>> 50 - 50% chance that the cat is either alive or dead.   
      
   This result is really not that different from Bell's theorem on the loss of   
    classical probability distribution in the violation of inequalities. There   
   are Alice and Bob and their helpers, where if Alice gets a tails on a coin   
   toss she prepares a state in |-> and if she gets heads she prepares   
   1/sqrt{2}(|+> + |->). Now if this state is entangled in an EPR pair   
   (say in the singlet state) with Bob, he then reads an output that is   
   either |+> or with a .25 probability each a |+> or a |->. The helpers   
   watching this situation will report on the coin toss and the states, which   
   will depart from Alice and Bob's observations. This means the quantum   
   outcome will disagree with the coin toss results of .5 probability   
   head/tails, which is a classical expectation used to prepare the   
   quantum states.   
      
   This result does mean that if QM is universally applied then outcome have   
   no strict objective basis, and if outcomes are thought of as objective then   
   QM is not universally applied. This indicates there is no way QM can be made   
   ψ-epistemic or ψ-ontic in a way that gives either consistency of QM   
   universally or that there is an objective basis for measurements that   
   is not subjective. ψ-epistemic and ψ-ontic interpretations are then in   
   some way complementary ways of thinking about QM.   
      
   LC   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)