posted 01-27-2009 12:09 AM            

In a previous thread we established that Schroedinger's cat must be a Zombie-cat, because that is the only parsimonious way to reconcile quantum theory with the materially unlikely phenomena of a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time. Remember, the superposition of cat states is { alive | dead } in the same way that jewelry can be { stolen | not stolen } at the same time while jewelry business owners can exist in the superposition of { loss | no loss }. Its all about possibilities.

A remaining question pertains to the superposition of Zombie-cat states. The problem is that the superposition of a non-Zombie-cat is alive and dead at any particular time, while the collapsed/observed position will be alive or dead. In contrast, the observed/collapsed position of a Zombie-cat would also be alive and dead. Because Zombie-cats are alive and dead in their collapsed position, the superposition of Zombie-cat states must exist along some dimension other than alive and dead.

This might require some further exploration of role of consciousness in the experimental context. The cat is already assumed to be a conscious or semi-conscious being: conscious because it is alive, semi-conscious because (feline superiority complex notwithstanding) the cat represents a sub-human degree of awareness.

In Schroedinger's proposed experiment, it is the hydrocyanic acid that determines the state of the cat, through the biological phenomena of death/change of consciousness. Remember though that a Zombie-cat is already dead, yet also not dead, in its collapsed waveform state. Hydrocycanic acid might therefore have little effect on a dead and not-dead cat, aside from some minor superposition of hissing/not-hissing states.

It is known (or assumed) that most Zombies will attack any person they see or notice, presumably with the goal of eating the victim's brains and/or transmitting the Zombie state to the victim. So, a more informative Zombie-cat in a box experiment would involve implications about the superpositions of { notices you | doesn't notice you } or { wants to eat your brains | hasn't thought about it yet } - which may or may not be equivalent and interchangeable descriptions of the superposition of Zombie-cat states. It would seem that under some experimental circumstances the simple superposition states of { notices you | doesn't notice you } may encompass the other superposition of { wants to eat your brains | doesn't care }.

The inconsistency of the Zombie-cat explanation becomes clear when we consider that any superposition that includes the state of { notices you } or { wants [anything] } requires an assumption of some form of consciousness. Because Zombies, including Zombie-cats, are, by definition, dead (and alive) we are forced to reconcile the state of consciousness for a dead thing. Consciousness for Zombie-cats, like all Zombies, remains largely un-studied and therefore unknown.

A word on safety: though the mechanism and acuity of Zombie vision and other senses is also largely unknown, conventional wisdom suggests that it is wise to stay somewhat distant from them.

So, while the impact of poison might be negligible, it can be expected that opening the box to observe the state of the Zombie-cat would result in the collapse of { notices you | doesn't } to { notices you }which would expectedly correspond with the waveform collapse of { wants to eat your brains | doesn't care } to { wants to eat your brains }. We have a further problem though, in that any Zombie, including Zombie-cats, that notices a non-Zombie human (or possibly other animal) would automatically want to attack.

What is missing from this experiment is adequate opportunity to observe random variability in the collapse state of the Zombie-cat. This is because it might be expected that it will always want to attack the observer when the box is opened. Any suggested modifications are welcome, such that we might include the possible variant in which the box is opened and the Zombie-cat can be observed in a collapsed state in which it doesn't care to attack the observer. It is possible that some technological solution such as remote cameras, perhaps not available to Schroedinger during the 1930s, would allow the observation of a Zombie-cat in a box without alerting the Zombie-cat that it is being observed – thereby preserving the variability of possible Zombie-cat states, specifically the state of { wants to eat your brains | doesn't care }. Under remote observation conditions, the superposition of { notices observer | doesn't notice } becomes somewhat uninformative while the superposition of { wants to eat your brains | doesn't care } may be more useful to the experiment.

There is still much to do before the annual John Couch Day BBQ and celebration.

R

Disclaimer: no animals were harmed during this quantum thought-experiment.

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 01-27-2009 03:17 PM            

I am new to this board, but I have read many of your posts and find them at times to be way out there, but this one I thought OK I'll bite.

If I am understanding the first portion of this post, I think you are right in that I too believe that the jewlery was taken by a zombie-cat, not one of the employees of the store.

With that said, I have a few questions as I have not yet tested any zombie-cats, I have however tested a few police applicants that were zombie-like. Anyway to the questions...would you run a ( stim / no stim) before running a (CQT/not a CQT)type test. Or would you forego the [stim / no stim] and run an [R&I / not an R&I].

If you run the [CQT/not a CQT] would that be the [best choice / not the best choice] as I'm sure that all zombie-cats, [dead /not dead] have [read / not read] the LBTLD as found on [AP.org / not AP.org].

Just curious as to how you would aproach this one.

posted 01-27-2009 03:56 PM            

Welcome aboard! What technique(s) do you currently utilize in applicant screening? My two cents, always run an ACQT before an examination (see Kircher, Packard, Bell, & Bernhardt, 2001).

------------------
Ben

posted 01-27-2009 05:13 PM            

Started running R&I just out of Poly school in 2003, but about 2 years ago switched to running LEPET, which it is a must to run an aquaintance.....was just throwing some of Ray's [humor/not humor] back at him.

BTW looking forward to the 2 of you being down in my neck of the woods next month doing your presentation on DLQT and OSS.

Anyway it has been enlightning reading everyones views on here. I look forward to more conversations with ya'll.

"No matter who says what, don’t believe it if it don’t make sense." (Bix Bender)

Willis

posted 01-28-2009 10:08 AM            

I'm not completely convinced about the Zombie-cat stealing the jewelry - justing using the Schrodinger thing to illustrate that there might be a { theft | no theft } at the same time, along with a { loss | no loss } condition.

As for polygraphing any kind of Zombie, I'd want to see the data first.

It would seem that achieving psychological set, and fear of detection, might be difficult with a Zombie. In fact media portrayals suggest they aren't too much afraid of anything. On the other hand, an examiner might experience some fear of detection, due to the whole { wants to eat your brains } thing. Asking a Zombie to refrain from that impulse during testing might require some form of physical restraint. Also, Zombies are not know for clear and articulate communication, and are thought to simply groan a lot.

Clearly, these problems need more attention before proceeding.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 01-28-2009 03:28 PM            

Look it up----very creepy stuff. Cancer cells can on rare occasions mimick ordinary cells (most already know that), form bonds like regular stim cells, and make a sort of living-dead tissue to complete organs. Some animals have been found with entire phony organs that do not die, but do not function properly either. It has been theorized that Dick Cheney possessed such sinister building blocks within his physiological makeup.

posted 01-31-2009 06:46 PM            

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 01-31-2009 07:01 PM            

Taylor, am I wrong???

I ain't kiddin' !!!!

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 01-31-2009 07:02 PM            

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

posted 02-03-2009 05:37 PM            

However, a Zombie might be somewhat dissociative for pain, and might just pull free and sacrifice a bit of skin, or even an appendage, just to continue pursuing a target.

Duct tape sounds much better, and might help with the need for some physical restraint during testing.

Only 5 days, and counting, until John Couch day.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-04-2009 05:46 PM            

quote:

---

ay, whatcha doing this year for John Couch day? Big BBQ? lol

---

2/8/09

the usual stuff...

• BBQ some animal carcass on the back porch
  
• attempt to raise the dead
  
• taunt the local poltergiest
  
• tell all the worst zombie jokes we can think of
  
• try not to burn the house down
  
• try to think of anyone who misses John Couch
  
• neighbors will tell John Couch stories re his porn collection, catching cats in leg traps, chain-sawing a perfectly healthy gian silver maple, and shooting the neighborhood dog with a cross-bow
  

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-07-2009 07:48 PM            

he collected his smut, shot cats and such
and burned from his grill----youch!

taken from:

Mountain Zombie,
A self-love story that ends at a bbq
(or does it?)