>other particles. So even assuming that quantum-physics apply to beings and
>objects large than about 5 molecules at most, their elemental particles


Problem being, that quantum physics DOES apply to objects larger than 5
molecules, (BTW, how did you arrive at that number anyway?)  Trust me on
that one, the only difference being that as the mass increases the time
duration of quantum phenomenon (the really fun stuff) is so minute, that
effects simply have an extremely high improbablity of occuring. Note I
didn't say impossibility.  That's why you never hear of people 'tunneling'
through cars in other collisions. It's not impossible, just highly
improbable.

Yes, I am avoiding using jargon, because I want everyone to understand.  If
you really want the jargon hold on and I dust of my degree in Physics.  Now,
what's really fun is partical wave motion,....

>unobserved. Applied to the problem of Schrdinger's cat, this would mean an
>ACTUAL cat would be either alive or dead, not something in between. And it


No, in the theory it's not something inbetween, it's both, both
possibilities exist with equal validity until the cat is observed by an
outside phenomenon.

>until the nucleus decomposes (correct word?), which would mean it's dead


yes, correct word, (depending on which scientific phenomenom you're
describing)

And nucleus decomposition and radioactivity wouldn't mean it's dead or alive
actually.

>> Everybody is overlooking the advantages of self-observation here.
>>
>>         Henry J. Cobb   hcobb@slip.net          http://www.io.com/~hcobb
>>     I observe myself, therefore I am.


Brian P. Henson
otaku@gate.net
OMG WebRing
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/1640/amgring.html


"I observe women, therefore I am pervert"