Schrodinger's Argument Essay

Schrodinger’s experiment illustrates a cat locked inside of a chamber with no viewing holes except for a hatch. Inside the container, there is a flask filled with poison and a radioactive source that emits radioactive particles unpredictably. When the emitted radiation is detected, the flask of poison spills and kills the cat. If the hatch is closed, there is no way for one to tell if the cat is dead or alive. So, technically it would be correct to say that the cat is both dead and alive. It is not until the hatch is opened, and the result observed that the cat’s fate is decided. Without opening the hatch, the state of the cat is in superposition, it is the act of one viewing the result that reality is forced into one possibility. The act of …show more content…
Even after critically analyzing many resources on the field of metaphysics, I am only grazing the surface of an extremely deep and intricate study. Therefore, I see no reason to attempt and answer the ever so difficult questions of metaphysics. I only intend to propose a procedure I would use to take on the problem set. Firstly, using reason as the equation to answer questions of metaphysics is a waste of time. Removing reason gives three other known methodologies that can be used to attack questions of metaphysics. These methodologies are Empiricism, Idealism, and what Kant would define as Transcendental Realism. By defining these constraints, we are able to derive a more specific equation. Looking at each, and going against Kant’s ideology, it would appear that Empiricism is the most consistent when it comes to deducing knowledge about our natural world. Idealism and Transcendental Realism, like reason, used to be good methods to answering questions in the past, but now both contain many flaws and limitations when they are used to analyze modern claims. Idealist fell silent after doctors found methods of keeping a braindead human being alive. The inconsistencies of Transcendental Realism arise when one adopts the belief that our senses only provide us with a distorted perception of our true reality. If this is the case, we have no …show more content…
We’ve concluded that using reason, empiricism, idealism, and Transcendental Realism get us nowhere, so we need to determine a new never before used methodology to gain any type of ground in the field. It would make no sense for us to abstractly try to come up with a new method we previously have no experience with. So instead, we should attempt to juxtapose a concept we’re familiar with to some of the unfamiliar concepts of metaphysics. Again, contrasting Kant, I believe the approach that makes the most since would be to use our advances in empiricism as a reference point. Even though the empiricist approach does have flaws, it has been the most consistent in our search of knowledge about our natural world. Additionally, to compare metaphysics to empirical observation, we must consider metaphysics to uphold both an a priori and a posteriori inquiry. ¬¬¬¬This can be inferred from how concepts of metaphysics do not involve possibilities, but real things that we as humanity have deduced from empirical observations. In other words, if metaphysics concerns itself with looking at the essence of our natural world, and we use empirical investigation to find truths of our natural world, then metaphysics must have some place in the method we use to derive concepts of our natural world. This common ground between metaphysics and empiricism must be an a posteriori