Wanted: Schrodinger's Cat, Dead AND Alive

I've always been fascinated with the idea of Schrodinger's Cat. For those who don't know what that is, I'll elaborate:

Picture a cat. In a sealed box. A box with an odd-looking machine inside. This machine will randomly dispense poisonous gas, which would instantly kill the cat. Well, not quite randomly. There's a nifty little gadget called a Geiger counter hooked up to the gas chamber. A Geiger counter is a device that detects certain particles passing through it - particles so tiny or volatile they can pass through matter; X-rays, for instance. The idea is that when the box is opened, the cat will be either dead or alive.

However, the interesting bit is that before the box is opened, the cat is said to be both dead and alive. This is because, due to the random nature of the machine, we cannot determine for sure whether the cat is dead or alive without opening the box. But ah - whoops! If we open the box, we may well change the state of the cat, and therefore, still be none the wiser about whether the cat was actually dead or alive before we opened the box.

It can be likened to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, one of the most interesting facets of modern physics and/or science in general. It states that no quantity can be fully measured to perfect accuracy - not only because we have no method of recording a measurement of infinite precision, but also because the act of measuring itself, on such a microscopic scale, changes the quantity being measured.

Insert random Heisenberg joke here:

Heisenberg is out for a drive and is going quite fast, when a cop pulls him over.

"Do you have any idea how fast you were going?" the cop asks him.

Heisenberg replies, "I might have, but blast you, you just had to go and measure it!"

Another conundrum that provides great food for thought is quantum physics. Without going into much detail, the idea is that small packets of matter (the smallest known, in fact) called quanta, are constantly going in and out of existence. This changing state is governed solely by probability, and the act of observing a quanta forces it to collapse into one of its probable states. In other words, until you look directly at something, it may or may not be where you think it is. It's probably reasonably close - but its exact shape and details of its existence (such as viscosity, temperature, and structure - things all determined by its atoms and hence, its subatomic quanta) are not set in stone until you actually observe it. When observed, each particle must collapse into one of the possible states, according to the probability of each.

This probability is identical to, say, rolling a six-sided die. Half of the time, the numbers 4 through 6 will be rolled. One third of the time, the numbers 1 or 2 would be rolled. Lastly, 3 is only rolled one sixth of the time. If these three outcomes have the same probability as the appearance of different states of a certain quantum particle, then one state will occur three times more often as the others - the state that appears half of the time (rolling 4, 5, or 6). The second state, rolling 1 or 2, occurs twice as often as the third state (rolling a 3). So each time you view this quantum particle, you've just rolled the six-sided die, and the particle you see (its location and properties) are determined by rules of probability, much like those discussed here.

Premeditated Toxicity

One of the most fascinating paradoxes I've ever come across is that of the poison gambit. For lack of a more standard name, I've chosen that one. Or, if you like, premeditated toxicity. Or perhaps better yet, "Who Wants To Die A Millionaire?"

It's a sort of contest. You will win a million dollars (or pounds or the currency of your choice) if you can simply intend to drink a toxic substance - a poison guaranteed to take your life. Note carefully the specific phrasing used - you don't have to actually drink it. You only have to intend to drink it. The contest might therefore involve some sort of waiver for legal purposes saying that you agree to drink the poison and that if you do, the host company cannot be held liable for the consequences of your own intent and actions based on that intent. The exact details of this are unimportant.

The paradox is, can you intend to drink the poison, collect the money, and then later change your mind and not drink it, thus living on and being able to enjoy your reward? It's a very interesting thought experiment into free will. I believe I've resolved the paradox.

The answer is this: NO. You cannot actually intend to drink the poison, then later, decide not to. If you did this, your intention to drink the poison to begin with would not be valid, and your winnings would be forfeit. On a positive note, you wouldn't have to drink the poison and could continue on happily with your life (one million dollars poorer, nevertheless). Assuming there was a lie detector or that the contest had some other way to verify your real intent, you would be completely unable to "cheat the system" and lie about your intent to drink the poison.

However! It is actually possible to intend to drink the poison, claim the reward, and later, not drink the poison and live on to celebrate it. Yes it is! And this does not contradict what I have said in the previous paragraph. There is a subtle difference. It's true you can't actually decide on your own to not drink the poison, later. To claim the reward, you have to truly intend to drink the poison, and with every fiber of your being, know that you are going to drink it and die from it. However, there are two ways to get out of it - one improbable, and one reliable but dependent on the rules of the contest.

First, the unlikely way: something unforeseen has to happen, something you could not have predicted and that you had no hope of stumbling into. This event must somehow change your mind about whether you wanted to drink the poison or not. For instance, perhaps after going through a divorce, you felt alone and became severely depressed. You thought you could at least give your kids a better future by providing well for them, though you wouldn't live to see it. Then, after the contest is over, but before you drink the poison, along comes a stunning, single woman into your life and you fall in love and are no longer depressed, and you actually don't want to die anymore. You find a reason to keep on living. This would not break the rules of the contest, and your finding love would be a triple bonus: you now have the promise of a happy relationship, a lot of money, and a bright future with no obligation to actually drink the poison. You were sincere in your intent, because you had no idea such a great event would happen to you and so drastically change your outlook on life.

The other method is the cheap shot. This may not be possible depending on the specific rules of the contest, but let's assume that you are not told the specific date on which you must actually drink the poison. When you intend to drink the poison, you must fully and completely agree to drink the poison at some point in your future, barring any event that kills you in another manner. In which case, the winnings would not be forfeit - remember, you only need to intend to drink the poison - the actual drinking is merely an extremely likely consequence of your intent to drink it.

Have you already spotted the loophole in your mind's eye? You can intend to drink the poison, claim your winnings, and then indefinitely postpone the actual drinking of it. You fully intend to drink it, but since the actual date was not specified, you simply intend on drinking it so near the end of your life that its fatal result means almost nothing. Then again, if you wait long enough, you may actually die unexpectedly before you even had a chance to drink the poison. Either way, you're practically scot free. The only real caveat is that you do have to truly intend to drink the poison at some later date!

This loophole makes an interesting question of intent - how do you define an intention? Is it immutable as first conceived in your mind, or are intentions a malleable substance that can be formed and shaped on a whim? Food for thought, or at least for another post.