I can't loose the feeling that physicists in general are a little anthropocentric in their understand... interpretation of the world - especially when it comes to "observing" Q.M. This has made me ponder about what perspective the cat in that famous experiment has. Unless we open the box, and thereby determine the state of the system, we can have no knowledge about the inside and thus to us the cat is dead or alive in equal probabilities. But since the system is completely detached from the outside, the cat too is trapped in its own reality and could aswell assume that the world has been blown to pieces. Unless it opens the box, it will never know. The essential statement in this experiment is that there are many realities in that box, and we will only get a random one, when we look at it - what reality we are likely to get, is determined by probability. What am I getting at? I'm saying that this experiment is utter nonsense and completly beneath any physical standard. So the cat is in there with its realities and we are outside with ours. Besides there is a marginal chance of the cat taking initiative and opening the box. But unless we open the box, we will never know whether the cat is opening the box from the inside? We are getting there, Schrödinger. So cat's perspective, atom doesn't decay. Cat surives. Cat opens box and comes out to a reality where the world has been sucked into a black hole at CERN (marginal chance of that happending from the cat's perspective, too). We are outside. Open the box after 2 hours. Cat is dead. Where the heck is that cat? Did it clone itsself and travel to another dimension and left it's dead clone behind for us to find? Disclaimer: Don't answer me with "your understanding of Q/M is utterly flawed, I can't help you", just because you are not capable of replying to the actual matter. I was granted this experience with just the last question I asked here about G/R. If you are of that ilk and are not readily willing to dive into a discussion about something you cannot look up in your favorite textbook: , to put it in internet terms. Yes, this doesn't require partial derivatives nor exponential functions nor gaussian distributions and it's Q/M nonetheless and the Copenhagen Interpretation is an Interpretation - something that can be discussed in more casual terms. So please, go ahead: Where did the cat go?