Schrodinger's Cat (±x)
Joseph S R de Saram CISSP provides thought-provoking insights into Military Intelligence and Law Enforcement, how they operate beyond (as opposed to above) the law, and how their various antics foreseeably lead to the destruction of Fundamental Human Rights. Updates are in progress so check back regularly – verified articles end with √. Please feel free to LIKE and SHARE…
20180118 UPDATE – NEW FORENSIC EVIDENCE HAS BEEN RECOVERED CONFIRMING THE STRONG ASSOCIATION OF GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE AND CHESHIRE CONSTABULARY IN THE THEFT OF DATA AND/OR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE CRIME 🙂
I AM UPDATING THIS ARTICLE SHORTLY.
Erwin Schrödinger was born in Vienna on August 12 1887, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933. He is best known for his work regarding quantum theory, particularly about his thought experiment involving a cat in order to explain the flawed interpretation of quantum superposition. This leads to various aspects of everyday scenarios that we face which are often not considered correctly…
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics essentially states that an object in a physical system can simultaneously exist in all possible configurations, but observing the system forces the system to collapse and forces the object into just one of those possible states. Schrödinger disagreed with this interpretation.
Schrödinger wanted people to imagine that a cat, poison, a geiger counter, radioactive material, and a hammer were inside a sealed container. The amount of radioactive material was minuscule enough that it only had a 50/50 chance of being detected over the course of an hour. If the geiger counter detected radiation, the hammer would smash the poison, killing the cat. Until someone opened the container and observed the system, it was impossible to predict the cat’s outcome. Thus, until the system collapsed into one configuration, the cat would exist in some superposition zombie state of being both alive and dead.
Of course, Schrödinger claimed, that was ridiculous. Quantum superposition could not work with large objects such as cats, because it is impossible for an organism to be simultaneously alive and dead. Thus, he reasoned that the Copenhagen Interpretation must be inherently flawed. While many people incorrectly assume Schrödinger supported the premise behind the thought experiment, he really didn’t. His entire point was that it was impossible.
While it is true that modern experiments have revealed quantum superposition does work for tiny things like electrons, larger objects must be regarded differently.
In the thought experiment, until the box was actually observed, the observer would not know the actual position. Something similar is present during investigations, in which the parties who are investigating are mere observers rather than directly linked to an event.
A case might get ‘stronger’ at various points in time, as more ‘information’ or ‘evidence’ appears which supports the predetermined conclusion. At the start of the experiment, the cat may be moving a lot having just been put into the box, whereas towards the end it might be more subdued. But to draw the analogy that it is dead would be flawed.
But would people really want a cat dead? Yes they would…
Deriving pleasure from the [often perceived] misfortune of others is known as ‘Schadenfreude’ and is a phenomenon prevalent in South Asian and Anglospheric countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom. A related theme is ‘Tall Poppy Syndrome‘.
Individuals exhibiting Schadenfreude often have a greater sense of elation from seeing their adversary fail, than themselves doing well. Once members of a Groupthink define a party as ‘bad’ then that person is demonised and becomes the focus of their hatred.
The issue with the Groupthink is that there is little critical evaluation or reassessment of that which they are doing due to the desire to seek conformity.
Investigations and Questionable Evidence
During investigations it is clear that parties prefer a negative outcome to make their task worthwhile, rather than the facts. Often investigators are paid to achieve specific results, for example in the case of ‘Is my husband cheating on me?’, the investigator might seek to achieve the wife’s desire of ‘yes he is’ rather than ‘I am not sure’ or ‘your husband has joined a book-club’.
If the investigator is not sure, then the wife will conclude ‘the investigator has failed’ and ‘perhaps my husband is cheating on me’. Investigators invariably focus on achieving the client’s desired outcome only by obtaining materials and information that support their objectives, however flawed they might be, rather than that which confirms the actual position.
As such investigators are often over-zealous in their approach and ‘do whatever they need to do’ to obtain the desired results. Associated parties are allowed and encouraged to lie, as long as there are sufficient layers between different groups and plausible deniability.
After a while they will fail to actually investigate and merely follow the course that a previous investigation ran, drawing incorrect analogies; this is an effect of specialist training or forensics, for example.
Often this results in a blinkered approach and more seriously it gives rise to a failure in full and frank disclosure as evidence that does not support the flawed approach is disregarded completely.
More training ‘should’ result in a better investigator, but does that translate to a better investigation? No not necessarily, and training can impact negatively upon correct interpretation of evidence and scenarios.
Specialist Firearms Training and Cognitive Bias
I knew various police officers from 1992 onwards who were in the specialist firearms section of the Metropolitan Police Service, known as SO19.
An interesting issue arose in which the more training was provided in terms of making the decision of when to use deadly force, the greater the subsequent inability to recall peripheral aspects of the event. Tactical officers in live operations ended up being poor witnesses and lost scenic information, and yet they were making decisions on the live operation as it was unfolding.
Another issue is that when more training was given to officers to determine whether deadly force was required or not, there was a cognitive bias in classifying the situation as one in which deadly force was acceptable, resulting in less fallout if something went wrong. In recent months a police pal on LinkedIn confirmed this as well.
Incorrect Classification of the Scenario
An excellent example which occurs time and time again is when a batsman is given LBW in cricket. Often the batsman plays off the back foot and the ball hits him below the knee-roll. He thinks to himself ‘oh that ball stayed low’ and ‘that is why I am now out’ as he shakes his head and trudges to the pavilion.
Only after watching the replay he realises that he should have not gone onto the back foot. If he had played on his front foot then the ball would not have been perceived as ‘being low’ and would have hopefully been dispatched for a few runs. His initial interpretation and concomitant mistake about the ball height are the issue.
In the aforementioned experiment, people who are merely observers or investigators will only find out the correct position upon the opening of the box. Until that time they may well have deluded themselves into thinking that their position is correct and/or strong, since the Groupthink and sycophants around them will reinforce their thinking. The desire to please their client as well as schadenfreude play a part in the direction that an investigation follows, even if it is incorrect from the outset.
Is there anyone who knows the correct position of the cat at an earlier point in time? Yes there is only one, and that is the cat himself! But no-one has chosen to ask the cat – and in fact it is not in the interest of the investigator to ask the cat as it might cut such an experiment short, and thereby reduce the amount of money derived from a lengthy multi-jurisdictional investigation 🙂
Cat-lovers might hope that the cat is alive at the end of the hour. Cat-haters might be hoping that it would be dead. The proportion of people wanting one outcome over the other would vary as the investigation proceeded due to their desire to align themselves in a politically-useful fashion.
Joe is a Cat
Let us say that I am the cat. Many people, 95%, want me to fail and only a few people, 5%, want me to succeed. Bearing in mind that cryptographic work and defence is a niche market, then the clients who like me and who actually know what is going on, demonstrates 5% vs 95% – not much and certainly not the popular vote in terms of numbers.
However given that 5% of the people are controlling 95% of the global power then the people that like me, actually equate to 95% in power terms 🙂
Sail a ship into any iceberg and you will find that 90% is below the surface. Look at the ‘popular’ part of the internet and compare it to the ‘dark web’ – the former is not even 1% of what is actually out there but many people are deluded into thinking that Facebook and LinkedIn plus the sites indexed by Google is all there is. They are sadly mistaken 🙂
The greater the ability of a person in terms of conceptual abilities and intellect, the greater the number of parties with inferior intellect beneath them. This is not arrogance, it is a statement of fact.
It is laughable to think that someone operating at Grade C is going to have a better understanding of a particular matter than someone operating at Grade A+++, regardless of how many stakeholders have bought into their beliefs. This is classic Dunning-Kruger Effect.
(a) clandestine projects are obfuscated for reasons obvious enough, but simply because the observer cannot see them, it does not mean that they do not exist;
(b) those who are not directly involved in a project cannot possibly provide an opinion on the nature of that project;
(c) those who do not have my level of conceptual abilities and intellect will not succeed against me in matters where the determinant of eventual success is based on intellect;
(d) until someone actually asks me (and I may or may not explain), the position will remain unknown (if I have not forgotten of course);
(e) breaking my neck and wiping my evidence was a truly bad move…
Joseph S R de Saram CISSP FBCS MIEEE MIScT MINCOSE MACS Snr CP
PS apologies to various adversaries – you should have checked your facts at a much earlier point in time. But here are some songs to cheer you up…
London and Kent
Cheshire – no music but the image for my post is a Cheshire Cat 🙂