ND> Anyway, the theory was that the two
 ND> probabilities battled with each other until it was known what
 ND> happened. I don't see why it matters, since once we knew what
 ND> happened, the other probability wouldn't exist Nick Douglas,
 ND> newbie extraordinaire
 RM> You may be correct, it likely doesn't matter, but for the sake of
 RM> blabing I feel that we know what the radio active substance (radium, I
 RM> believe, was proposed for the hypothetical 
 RM> experiment) does to a living
 RM> creature, and we know how long it _should_ take for the cat to die of
 RM> radiation poisoning under such circumstances.  So, I think it would be
 RM> safe to estimate when the cat should die and add another five minutes,
 RM> and say " well the cat is dead", and then open the box to see the cat
 RM> being quite dead.  Besides, all one really had to 
 RM> do is listen for the 
 RM> cat howling in pain to subside to conclude that the cat is in fact 
 RM> dead,... ... then you could pull out that book called "101 Uses For A
 RM> Dead Cat", and have fun for few hours after the experiment.  Not much 
 RM> uncertainty there, IMO.
But before you hear the cat howl, or in any other probability event, the 
outcome is battled over before it is known. For me and most Americans, the 
outcome of, say, the Irish lottery, is still battled over, as are many 
events' outcomes that we don't know of. BTW, ever heard of the Internet 
Oracle?
Nick Douglas, entrapraneur (sp ?) and amatuer (sp again?) philosopher
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------