I am certain this has been asked before many times before since the cat in the box first did not come out, and I am just overlooking it. And I am using the cat in the box for the exact purpose it was orginally created as I understood, to simplify the concept to its very base pieces to allow quick and easy discussion and understanding. So cat in box both alive and dead till observed, then it assumes either one or the other state at the moment of observation. My question is, how is it that the observed which has multiple states available is what is assuming a state and not the observer with it's single perception that chooses a state to perceive? So basically how can you be sure that the cat isn't always both alive and dead and through what ever unknown factors a perception of a state is chosen. Could this make the random seeming event of which state is chosen possibly predictable by switching the focus from the observed with all its quantum weirdness over to the observer and what is effecting the choice of perception. Could that then be taken from possibly predicting which perception is chosen and carry it on into controlling which perception is chosen? Would it even be relevant to be able to predict or choose which is precieved? And back to the cat in his box, if the cat is always both alive and dead, should that be taken into account when calculating the actual mass of the cat? Instead of just calculating the mass of the cat in the precieved state, now that he is both alive and dead all the time, would the way his mass is actually calculated need to be changed to account for his existing in both States, simultaneously? To account for what is really there and not just what you precieved as being there? And would it now be possible to get constantly changing result from the same cat in the same box opening and closing the box? Alive, dead, alive, dead.