Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Cancer and Quantum Theory

cancer.jpg

Schrödinger’s hypothetical cat and the quantum idea that observation or measurement of an event alters the event can be used to explain why some people die of cancer and others do not.

Everyone, virtually everyone, has cancer in their bodies.

Once a cancer is observed (measured) or found and acknowledged it is altered by the finding (observation) and become active, in a detrimental way, just as Schrödinger’s cat is dead or alive once the box in which it was (figuratively) encased with a vial of radioactive poison is hypothetically broken.

cat33.jpg

It takes an observation of the cat in the box to determine if the cat is alive or dead after the radioactive vial is broken. Before the observation, one doesn’t know if the cat is alive or dead, and the cat is, according to quantum theory, neither alive nor dead until it is looked at – observed, measured.

Once a cancer is found – and, again, everyone has a cancer in their body – the observation of it will activate the cancer in a deleterious way.

Just as Schrödinger’s cat will surely be found to be dead, once it is observed, one’s cancer will surely become deadly once it is observed.

The idea that early detection stems cancer’s advance is a canard. Early detection merely shortens the life of those who have the detection.

There is, however, a quantum possibility that one can, just as Schrödinger’s cat could (hypothetically), collapse the observation – in quantum physics, it’s a “wave” that is collapsed – and not have a killer cancer.

Consciousness of a positive kind might deter further growth of a cancer or put it in remission.

Some people do this, and prayer, as a deliberate conscious act, might also be a positive element in keeping cancer contained.

But it is the detection of cancer and it’s measurement that brings on the deadly aspect of the cancer; that is, the cancerous growth is accelerated by its observation.

Those who don’t have a medical examination, but who have a cancer within, will not be affected by the cancer in an abnormal way. They will die naturally, late in life, with the ordinary malfunction of human organs and the vicissitudes of old age.

So if you think you should have an MRI, think again. Quantum theory is your out.

10 comments:

Epinoia said...

The poison is radioactive? Who told you that?

RRRGroup said...

E:

"Introducing Quantum Theory" by J. P. McEvoy and Oscar Zarate [Totem Books, NY, 1997, Page 146].

RR

Epinoia said...

The poison is triggered by a radioactive event.

RRRGroup said...

E:

And so the poison and the cat become radioactive, right?

You zero in on a niggardly point and miss the gist of our post, as usual.

RR

Epinoia said...

No, the radioactivity is merely added to the thought experiment in order to obtain a degree of randomness. There is a radiation detector which determines whether the very small amount of radioactive material decays or not. In the thought experiment, there is a 50% chance it will, and thus trigger the detector. And there's a 50% chance it will not.

All of that is, as you say -- beside the point. You may call it a 'niggardly point', but I suppose that might be a bit of your ego lashing back.

RRRGroup said...

E:

Is the cat dead or alive? That is the point.

The poison is triggered by radioactive decay -- cause and virtual (or supposed) effect.

Your point subverts the argument, sophistically.

It's like not seeing the forest for a tree.

RR

Epinoia said...

The so-called 'randomness' of the experiment is a physical event -- the decay of radioactive material.

It may seem that such material decays completely randomly -- yet it may be 100% predictable if we were to learn more about radiation some day.

The thought experiment NEEDS randomness -- and randomness tends to be not-so-random when explored further. And if the experiment doesn't have its randomness, then the state of the cat can be known without opening the box.

RRRGroup said...

E:

I think the hypothetical that Schrodinger concocted is a little more complex than that.

Randomness isn't the essence of the "experiment."

What about the observation of the event(or an event)?

That affect what happens to the event....and seems to me to be the more important aspect of what we posted.

RR

Epinoia said...

There may exist a universe in which you are correct, but I dare say it's not the one I am currently operating in.

The cat knows whether it is alive or dead. There need not be an observer involved in the so-called determination. Indeed, if the cat is inspected and found to be dead, one might very well conclude that it died 3 hours ago by the degree of rigor which has set in. It didn't just die when the box was opened.

Likewise, cancer, and its horrible effects, will exist quite apart from any attempts at observing it. It doesn't need an observation in order to exist -- it will do its dirty deed, whether detected or not.

Now if you want to get into the side issue of whether or not the treatments for cancer are worse than the disease, that's worth discussing. But suggesting that we can all be disease-free simply by pretending we are is foolhardy. In fact, I doubt that you actually believe it yourself. Would you have sex with someone who merely BELIEVED he or she was HIV- ?

RRRGroup said...

E:

Shrodinger's cat scenario is complex and weird, and made more so by the "measurement affects events" postulation, so to take this further is tiring.

Cancer exists in everyone I suggest, and once it is found (observed, measured) by examination and is acknowledged by the now created patient, it becomes a reality that has to be dealt with.

The psychological make-up of the person with the observed cancer plays a part but, as you note, the cures exacerbate the cancer, and make it worse, since the body is ravaged by the medicinal procedures (tortures almost) it is subjected to.

Cancers not known (not observed or found by doctors) do not have the same detrimental affect....that's my opinion.

Having sex with an unacknowledged HIV-infected person may -- and I accent the word "may" -- subject one to HIV also.

If the HIV is then observed, measured by doctors in either person, I suppose the results will be detrimental as those with cancer, but the dormancy of cancer seems more benign than that of HIV so the argument would have to take on different parameters, and I'm moving on to other conjectures.

RR