James S Saints Concepts

Jakob · December 29, 2025, 1:26am

Here’s a piece of a discussion from 2013 outlining the basics of Affectance Ontplogy, and following that a number of links to threads where he discusses the issue teleologically in terms of self-harmony.

James S Saint:

As I have stated in the past, Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology is for designers, most especially in the fields of physics, psychology, sociology, and economics. Thus there is a limited audience who should have any interest in it. And yes, any logic based topic requires a greater degree of honesty, to both oneself and others, in order for the topic to advance and get to its higher assertions. This aspect is due to the fact that logic builds from lower premises to higher conclusions. Dishonesty along the way not only distorts the conclusion into fallacy, but also impedes any hope of getting to the final and finer points involved.

There are many ways to begin discussing RM, but I have found that constructing the ontology from it simplest concepts, although perhaps too simple for immediate use, is an easy way of getting it started.

As with any logic based proposal, it is critical, not merely preferred, that everyone involved agree to the premises of the proposed logic. In the case of RM, premises are chosen as definitions of ontological elements and chosen based upon the concept of rationality, ie. “it is rational to choose this definition even though other definitions are available”.

Thus to begin, the first premise proposed as a fact and also a definition;
P1) Existence ≡ the set of all that has any affect and exclusive of all that has absolutely no affect.

a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other

The rationality is proposed as even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time. So unless wasting time is the purpose (or creating confusion), it is irrational to accept the notion that something with absolutely no affect exists such as to be concerned with it. Or “why would you bother accepting that something exists, if you already knew that it would have absolutely no affect one way or another?”

So can we agree upon P1?

=================================================================

P2) The simplest ontology involving affect (ie. “causing change”), is “affect upon affect” or “causing change in the ability to affect”.

a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other

An ontology that has only one element, and in this case the only concern and very definition of existence, is as simple as one can get. In the case of “affect” being that element, action is inherently included, as opposed to perhaps having “material” or “mass” as the first element.

And P2?

====================================================================

P3) Potential to Affect, PtA = a situation that allows for the ability to affect.

In order for anything to have affect, it must have the potential to have that affect, thus affect must inherently have PtA.

Thus;
C1) All affect has PtA

a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other.

And P3 and C1?

Please respond in order to each assertion.

Pezer:

P3) This potential is itself affect.

A potential is a situation that allows for an affect to take place. It is a definition of a word to be used throughout.

A glass sitting on the very edge of a table has the potential to fall (in a probabilistic sense). The potential to fall is not the falling itself. The potential to act, the situation that allows for action, must exist in order for the act to come about.

P3) Potential to Affect, PtA = a situation that allows for the ability to affect.
a) Agree
b) Disagree
c) other ?

Pezer:

Why are we introducing the distinction this early on?

For the same reason everything else is being introduced - so that later discussions can proceed. It helps to introduce the terms BEFORE stating any logic involving them, doesn’t it?

You are not being fully honest here.

Please explicitly point out the instance of such accusations, if you are going to make them.
In what exact way am I being dishonest in your view?
… cuz I ain’t see’n it.

Pezer:
"The rationality is proposed as even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time. So unless wasting time is the purpose (or creating confusion), it is irrational to accept the notion that something with absolutely no affect exists such as to be concerned with it. Or "why would you bother accepting that something exists, if you already knew that it would have absolutely no affect one way or another?"

If potential to affect is not itself affect then, according to our own definitions, it not only does not exist but is a waste of our time. If it is affect, my question regarding the purpose of distinguishing it among other distinctions that will certainly arise later so early on stands, and should not have an unreachable answer.	
So you believe that looking at the map or figuring what you could say to deliver the most effect, “measuring your potential”, is a waste of time? If you are not driving or talking then looking to see where you are or paying attention to who you are talking to or what you are talking about, is not only a waste, but such things don’t even exist?

That would explain a lot of people’s behavior, but I’m afraid that I would have to disagree. In RM:AO, the situation, the “potential” is measured. The terrain is examined and exists regardless of whether it is being traversed.

But as I said first thing, this subject is for “designers”, people who think in advance concerning their potential to accomplish things. So obviously you are not interested and thus, you are right in that this subject is a waste of Your time.

Does someone care to explain to me how there can be affect without any potential to do so or within a situation where such an ability does not exist?

P3 is merely a clarification of the definition of the word “potential”.

Wiki wrote:
Noun
Potential (physics)

potential (plural potentials)

  1. Currently unrealized ability (with the most common adposition being to)
  2. (physics) The gravitational potential is the radial (irrotational, static) component of a gravitational field, also known as the Newtonian potential or the gravitoelectric field.[1][2][3]
  3. (physics) The work (energy) required to move a reference particle from a reference location to a specified location in the presence of a force field, for example to bring a unit positive electric charge from an infinite distance to a specified point against an electric field.
  4. (grammar) A verbal construction or form stating something is possible or probable.

Wiki wrote:
Noun

situation (plural situations)

  1. The way in which something is positioned vis-à-vis its surroundings.
  2. The place in which something is situated; a location.
  3. Position or status with regard to conditions and circumstances.
  4. The combination of circumstances at a given moment; a state of affairs.

As a side;

Rationality refers to the rationing of one’s actions or thoughts in accord to one’s goal. If a thought contains nothing that would affect one’s goal in any way, being rational means ignoring that thought because it has no position in any plan to be rationed into.

The conclusion C1 refers to the idea that if an affect exists, then it is inherent that the potential to have that affect must also exist. So even though we start with the notion that it is irrational to be concerned with anything void of affect, we have already inherently included (as per C1) that it must be rational to “also” be concerned with anything that has the potential-to-affect, to be later measured in terms of “PtA”.

Thus rational behavior involves;

attending to affecting that is currently going on, the present, and

attending to the potential for affecting, the situation that will lead to future affects.

The statement;
“The rationality is proposed as, even though other things can be said to exist under a different definition, being concerned with anything that has absolutely no affect is a pointless waste of time.”

is inherently proposing that the present situation that leads to future affects (the “potential-to-affect”) is not a pointless concern in the ontology because the current situation, the potential, directly implies the presence of affecting and in a sense, is a map concerning the current directions of affecting.

Does that help at all?

Pezer:
SP1: Potential to affect is an affect that conduces to future affects consciously, with intent.

Agree?	
“Conscious”???
We haven’t said anything concerning consciousness. And the only “intent” mentioned is the intent of forming an ontology based upon what has actual affect and ignoring anything proposed as has no affect.

Some people argue that God must exist because He created the universe that can be seen all around. My first response would tend to be, “Perhaps, but what has he done lately?”

My point would actually be that if “God” currently has no affect whatsoever (as proposed by Nietzsche), then God would not exist. Perhaps God existed long ago (the Big Bang proponents), but it isn’t rational to be concerned with anything that doesn’t exist today regardless of whether it had existed 13.4 billions years ago.

But other than that, “consciousness” is NOT a part of this… yet.

The concept so far is merely that if anything exists then it is affecting (“has affect”) or at minimum has the potential to affect (will be affecting shortly). Whether it consciously intends anything is irrelevant at the moment. For right now, “affectance” is referring merely to extreme, sub, sub atomic substance, the make of the universe. “Affectance” is the RM:AO name for that substance of which all physical things are made. Affectance is the lowest form of existence that a rational mind has any need to be concerned with.

Pezer:
SP1: Potential to affect is an affect
affecting the state of affects in the future
in a different way than seems coherent in the present.

?	
You can’t equate the act of actually affecting with the potential to do that affecting. One speaks to the strength of your army while the other speaks of its current activities. Those are different issues.

In physics, it is the electric potential versus the electric current. The potential is not active. The current is. The potential can and does change, but only via a current making that change. The potential causes a current which rearranges the potentials because the potentials are being used up in order to create the currents which might inadvertently raise a potential in another location. That is all any electric circuit ever does. And in space, that is all the entire universe ever does. The potential is the “PtA” and the “current” is the “Affectance”. In an economy, the potential is the dollar figures involved and the current is the active trading. The mind had thoughts or concepts and the actual thinking process. A society has people in an environment and whatever those people are doing.

The ancient I Ching ontology was of “the Fixed and the Changing”. But in reality, there is no truly “Fixed” and thus the presumed “Fixed” must be taken as “relatively fixed”.

Pezer:

If affect is our base unit, all things must be affect. In some way, potential must be affect. If it isn’t, it is not nothing even, just pointless. How can we get around this?

1 Things that exist are only affect.

“Things that exist are only affect”
is NOT the same as
“Things that exist must have affect”

In every endeavor, one must begin from wherever they are. We can agree that for anything to be said to exist, it must have affect. We have not agreed that affect is the only “thing” (whatever that means) that exists.

Logic is about finding something presumed “known” or agreed upon and then deducing what else could have been known and agreed upon.

We began with the agreement that for anything to be said to exist, it must have affect. But as we examine that word “affect”, we can realize other things that have already been said without saying them, things that we could have agreed upon as well. C1 is one of those things;

C1) All affect has PtA

Due to that statement/conclusion, we could have begun with;
) For anything to be said to exist, it must have affect and potential to affect.

But that isn’t all we can deduce from our initial agreement. So even if we had started from there, we would still find yet another place from which we could have begun.

Logic builds a mountain of understanding and all from simple ideas. Any group wherein all members already know that mountain can start with the entire mountain and proceed from there. We are not that group. The endeavor is to become that group, to find a mountain of agreement. But we must begin from where we are, somewhere in the middle.

In the contest between a group and its environment, having a mountain of immutable mass (indisputable under-standing) with which the opponent must contend certainly gives the group an advantage. Momentum can be said to be formed of fast paced agreements. And momentum determines every action and the victor of every contest. And one cannot get faster than “already” agreed upon.

Conclusion C1 says that if any one thing exists, then something else must exist, specifically the potential - that “thing’s” ability to affect - “something ELSE”. Where did that “something else” come from? It comes from yet another conclusion that we could have begun with.

P4) Affecting directly implies one thing influencing or changing another thing, two "things; an “affecter” and an “affectee”.

Thus;

C2) For any one thing to exist, more than one thing must exist.

At this point, we have 3 “things” involved arising from our first agreement;
Existence necessarily leads to;

There must be affect,

there must be potential to affect,

there must be more than one item.

But again, we have NOT agreed that “the only things that exist are those 3 things”. That would be an entirely different issue.

So;
P4 and C2;
a) agree
b) disagree
c) other?

Capable:

Things that exist are affecting (other things);

Any thing (let’s say X) is being affected by a) other affecting things, and b) X’s own PtA.

X’s PtA is also being affected by X, via X’s affection causing drain (or entropy) upon the store of PtA from which it came/comes

One cannot say that a thing is “affecting itself” except in loose terms. If a truly singular “thing”, having no separate internal components, were said to be affecting itself there would be no change. The affecter and the affectee would be the same item, in the same location. The proposed changing would occur instantaneously, having no separation at all and thus could not be said to “have changed from one state to another” because there would have been no time between the two proposed states, thus there must have been only one state. Without change of state from being at one state at one time to another state at another time, one cannot claim any “affect”.

We haven’t gotten into “time” yet, so this is getting a bit ahead. Time and distance are epistemologically related. They both determine each other. The measure of one translates into the measure of the other. What we call “time” causes what we call “distance”. This is all related to special relativity. But if either time or distance are truly zero between proposed two items, then there is no separation or distinction at all between the items. And we call that state, “one item” because we are only concerned with affects coming from that thing and if there is no separation in properties, there can be no distinction in resultant affects. In Effect, one of the proposed two items, doesn’t really “exist” by our definition of “existing”.

Pezer, you seem to be missing the point. What C1 is about is that fact that potential, the “ability to have affect” is ALREADY inherent in the proposal of the concept of affect and thus also existence. One cannot have affect without having PtA. Thus if we propose that there is affect, we have ALREADY inherently included “potential”. Potential is already a part of the entire concept of affect. It isn’t a separate entity, but rather merely a distinguished property.

It is like someone saying that something has “volume”. By saying that, he would have already claimed that the object has “length”. Length is not being proposed as a new item, a different thing, but a part of the very concept of “volume”. But unless “volume” involves only one dimension, “length” is not the same thing as “volume”, but merely included in it.

It is the same with potential and affect. Affect is not a trivial entity. It has a variety of inherent and distinguishable features of interest, just as volume has length, width, and also depth. If one proposes that affect exists, then one has already proposed that potential exists as well as more than one item, because one cannot exist unless the others exists as a part of it. They are “part and parcel”, but NOT the same concept.

The same will be true of anything you would want to “reformulate” it into, but what would that be?

What do you want to reformulate the definition of existence into that wouldn’t have the exact same issue with you? Anything can be broken down into a million other concepts of concern. It all depends upon of what you have rational interest.

If merely volume exists then;
Length must exist
Width must exist
Depth must exist
Distance must exist
And as we will logically discover;
Time must exist
Affect must exist
Values must exist
Degrees must exist
Change must exist
Pulses must exist
Frequency must exist
Reaction must exist
Locations must exist
Separation must exist
Difference must exist
Summation must exist
Qualities must exist
Properties must exist
Positive and negative must exist
Quantities must exist
Objects must exist
Recursion must exist
Objects within objects must exist
And even Consciousness and Rationality must exist
As well as Irrationality.

For any one attribute of existence to “exist”, every single thing that you see all around you must exist. The universe is at every moment, only what it absolutely must be. There are no options for existence. In fact, as it turns out, there isn’t even an option for the universe itself to exist and only as exactly what it is. The only options involve what you wish to name as a property of existence for your own use and purpose, your “ontology”. “God” didn’t have any choice in creating the universe. If one exists, the other must exist.

But for sake of your own purposes, you might not want to call anything “God” because that would give credence to those “other guys”, the old religions, and we want to give credit only to the new religion (aka “Secularism”). It is a bit of a moronic strategy, but “it is what it is”. Even the Biblical “God” said to “name the animals”. The “animals” are the entities of concern. So okay, do what the Biblical God said, “name the entities whatever you like”. Don;t call the entity “Secularism” a “religion”. God never said that you had to name anything “God” (and according to the record of Moses, said at that time to refer to him as “I am that I am”, which translates in Hebrew to “what is, is that which is”. You can name things as whatever you like, just try to not be too stupid about it and aim for being Rational, more specifically, Sentient and Sane.

In RM:AO, we begin with the concept of “affectance” because we can all agree that existence AT LEAST has affectance (the collection of all affecters and/or affectees). From that point, we begin deducing what else we have already inadvertently included merely because we know that indisputably, affectance exists.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i7W9QQRzW1o/V0NWPowzgJI/AAAAAAAABhIHcxb2b3UXQPzUtU31OqaQ5bycKbYWx4gCLcB/s1600/Anentropic%2BShelter%2B1.gif

formeruser12 · December 29, 2025, 2:57am

I’m already hitting roadblocks at P1 Jakob. Can you have a look at my thought process and conclusions, maybe I have misunderstood the concept..

Thought process:

The very acceptance of something that does not exist, brings it into existence and gives it potential. If I tell my child there is a monster under their bed, have I not brought it into existence? Even if something has no affect, like the nonexistent monster, if someone is concerned with it, does it not have an affect?

How is existence defined? God may or may not exist, if not then surely He has no affect? But the belief in God in others does have an affect, so whether I accept that He exists or not, does He not have an affect regardless?

b) I disagree. Something might definitely not exist, and have absolutely no affect, but belief in that thing, whether it exists or not, brings it into existence and gives it affect. If the statement dealt purely with the physical realm (physics) then I would agree with it. However, in the fields of psychology, sociology and economics, the hypothetical and non-existent often has immediate meaning, and belief, even in the unproveable or unconfirmed, has an affect.

Ichthus77 · December 29, 2025, 6:50am

How is value ontology different from Ayn Rand’s objectivism (rational self-interest)?

futureone · December 29, 2025, 8:04am

d) Partially agree/Unsure

Unsure what to classify a substance that: has no effects right now but may have effects in the future. A dormant instance which may be appearing later.

Unsure if any such instances actually are in real life, but I will give 1 example that is close: an atom in a box. An atom in a box pretty much does not exist until you poke around enough times for it to exist, this could take 500 tries before it exists.

futureone · December 29, 2025, 8:18am

This seems incorrect. Lets say photons speed was infinite and took 0 time to reach objects, there would still be distance. Spatial distance. Because the objects are at different angles. In a 3D videogame the speed of light is infinite, there are no photons in the game, yet there is clearly spatial distance.

Jakob · December 29, 2025, 4:50pm

formeruser12:

The very acceptance of something that does not exist, brings it into existence and gives it potential. If I tell my child there is a monster under their bed, have I not brought it into existence? Even if something has no affect, like the nonexistent monster, if someone is concerned with it, does it not have an affect?

How is existence defined? God may or may not exist, if not then surely He has no affect? But the belief in God in others does have an affect, so whether I accept that He exists or not, does He not have an affect regardless?

b) I disagree. Something might definitely not exist, and have absolutely no affect, but belief in that thing, whether it exists or not, brings it into existence and gives it affect. If the statement dealt purely with the physical realm (physics) then I would agree with it. However, in the fields of psychology, sociology and economics, the hypothetical and non-existent often has immediate meaning, and belief, even in the unproveable or unconfirmed, has an affect.

It is sufficient that there is a belief that exists, and (thus) has affect. For there to be a belief in a God or monster under the bed, there has to be a conception of the God or the monster under the bed. This conception affects the belief into being. A further question is what affects the conception into being.

James made a point of categorizing affectance across different paradigms, such as physical, emotional, mental. Though his math seems to deal primarily if not exclusively with the physical it really addresses that which underlies the physical, and thus equally underlies all emergent situations such as consciousness (if indeed consciousness is emergent of matter - but this does not matter since affectance underlies both). So again an idea is something that exists because it has affect. The idea does not have to accurately refer to a reality to exist, because an idea, given that it affects, is a reality.

Jakob · December 29, 2025, 5:04pm

So we need to introduce the concept Potential to Affect, PtA.

In case of the hidden atom, my interpretation is that it is the affectance of the box which causes (affects) the atom to be hidden, to have its PtA kept relatively isolated. But an atom within a box does influence the box. There is no perfect vacuum. This is a core axiom of AO: Absolute homogeneity (vacuum) is impossible.

formeruser12 · December 29, 2025, 5:21pm

Thoughts:

I don’t understand what is implied by “an ontology that has only one element”. Does it mean simplifying us as beings to the affect we have? If so, then it’s not unreasonable to assert that our affect is “affect upon affect”, as in our affect on the physical? Is material or mass implied as the second element?

a) I agree.

formeruser12 · December 29, 2025, 7:31pm

I bought “Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology” for my eBook reader. It will do nicely for the 3hr bus home tomorrow.

futureone · December 29, 2025, 7:44pm

i read the whole thing already including PtA. James was a smart guy but the post of his you copied seems to be another standard ILP phislopophy made wih false-premises. Wasn’t sure at first, but then he said “time→distance” then I knew it was gonna be another one of those.

So when i said my post it was with awareness of PtA concept. When he says “P1) Existence ≡ the set of all that has any affect and exclusive of all that has absolutely no affect.” it seems to be a false premise. his wordage seems to indicate time = now and not vague tense. if he reworded it as “P1) Existence ≡ the set of all that can have any affect” then i would agree. It would include “dormant traps” which have no effect now but may in the future. “Dormant traps” is just something I am trying to explain it, its not the exact word I was looking for, I am trying to explain like a hidden turret that is dug deep into the grass in roboquest that then has a proximity mine effect.

i will look more into his physics theories and maths though, sounds interesting. i dont know his theories deeply enough yet so I’m not 100% sure if his theories are flawed. Which one of his threads is the one that shows the physics of AO?

futureone · December 29, 2025, 7:50pm

i dont have a theory of everything yet, so what i say may be incorrect. But my interpretation of Quantum physics is that the atom is not invisible because of the box, it is invisible as default. All the box does is contain the atom and then decide its wave function equation. The larger the box the harder it is for the atom to manifest, the less chance to collapse the wave function. This is assuming a standard atom that does not bond with the material of the box, so it is just a wave function cloud inside the box and not part of the box.

Therefore the smaller the box, the bigger chances of manifesting the atom, the larger the box the smaller the chances. If a box was infinitely sized then the chance of manifesting the atom approaches zero.

There is no perfect vacuum. This is a core axiom of AO: Absolute homogeneity (vacuum) is impossible.

With our current understanding of ZPE it seems impossible to get true vacuum but maybe tech will be able to achieve true vacuum someday.

Jakob · December 29, 2025, 10:13pm

It’s from my own forum. I have been discussing James ideas with him, and alongside it developing my own ontology which he considered one of a small number of meaningful philosophical endeavors, from 2010 to 2015. He pushed me to develop it as a teleology, which I refused.

You missed that that was a quote from someone else, Capable. I posted part of a discussion involving three people.

Relativity deals with potential of future affect as having direct influence, which comes to light in Hawking radiation, in which negative particles have a diluting effect on black holes through their relationship to infinity. Key here is that the future already exists. James had other ways of elucidating the direct effect of dormant PtA but I haven’t been able to find the math threads, as this site no longer favours chronology, you just have to hope something pops up or scroll back for hours.

Yeah so I’ve been looking for it but it doesnt come up. He made threads with dozens of pages about it around I guess 2010-2011.

How does the box do all this?

Superposition means that things exist in multiple states, and experiments show that observation has some influence on these states. I think you are referring to Schroedingers Cat; the meaningful element of that image is not the box but the opening of it, exposing the cat to an observer, which is capable of changing a quantum state.

I dont think so, as the requirement of the techs affectance negates the vacuum, all we can to is asymptotically approach a vacuum with increasing energy expenditure / affectance.

Jakob · December 29, 2025, 10:25pm

Ok I just found a thread with some conceptual explanation of PtA having effect in the present, though not the math. But this does clarify something about (his thoughts on) the effect of the future on the present.

Einstein even went so far as to observe that since all of time can be captured in a mathematical equation, there is no reason for it not to progress in both directions. Even though generally agreeing that the future is influencing the present, James had issues with Einsteins model, as expressed in these threads below. He did not accept that there is no objectively true situation. A lot of ILPs smartest posters have been wrestling with him on this, I wonder if you can solve it. I lean toward the the critics position these days, that it is simply not the case that we can calculate across/between reference frames, but I am still not sure.

But back to the topic; in James’ definition of particles, an atom largely consists of what it will do in the future. Which is logically quite true. We can also say that the future consists of all paticles’ combined PtA, but that comes down to the same. Key in both AO and Relativity is that objects/entities are not three- but four-dimensional. My own ontology adds a fifth dimension.

futureone · December 30, 2025, 3:15am

The box only performs one function, which is to contain the atom. That’s all it does.

Schrodinger’s Cat is a joke, its made up, it was supposed to make fun of quantum physics not be a real example of quantum physics.

What they mean by “observation” is poking the wavefunction probability cloud, in a large box you may have to poke the inside of the box 5,000 times until you collapse the wavefunction, which manifests the atom. Or you could get lucky and manifest the atom on your first try, but its unlikely.

I don’t know much about blackholes. “The future already exists” seems a bit far-fetched to me.

Jakob · December 30, 2025, 8:24pm

I asked how the box does this.

It’s a metaphor. I was assuming the same goes for your atom in a box, since they both use the box image. I dont think either makes sense literally.

Dont be a normie.

I’ll quote the AI, you seem to trust that more than humans.

“time isn’t a flowing river but a fixed, four-dimensional “block universe” where all moments—past, present, and future—exist simultaneously,”

In Einsteins own words, the distinction between past, present and future is a persistent illusion.

futureone · December 31, 2025, 4:15pm

I don’t have a theory of everything so I don’t know. In human terms, I can say the box is made of materials that do not bond to the atom, thus repels the atom in particle form, and does not collapse the wave function in cloud form.

I think the atom in a box thing is litteral but I would like to hear the opinion of a quantum physcisist to be sure.

it is easier to talk to AI because humans have emotional problems and are immature. AI doesn’t insult me for asking questions or trying to learn. If i try to talk to a quantum physicist online they will probably insult or talk down to me for no reason. Secondly they will parrot whatever they learned at school and probably say a bunch of errors. Or play telephone game and incorrectly transcribe and relay the information incorrectly.

For example I tried to learn Einstein by watching youtube educators and most of the educators were wrong then even the educator that pointed out they were wrong was also wrong.

That being said AI still makes mistakes and is not a true ASI yet.

Flannel_Jesus · December 31, 2025, 6:00pm

Both the atom in a box and the schrodingers cat are literally the same thing - they’re talking about the same quantum principle in pretty much the same context, put a quantum thing in a box, specifically a box that leaks no information - and whether they’re metaphorical or not depends on the interpretation of QM of the person speaking about them. By some interpretations, they’re both very literal. By some they’re not. The scenario is implied by the mathematics of how quantum systems evolve - whether you believe that mathematics represents something “real” is up for interpretation.

futureone · January 1, 2026, 12:31am

no i dont think so.

atom in a box says: Here is a box, inside the box is an atom. The atom very much exists, as a cloud of probability. If you poke the box enough times, the atom will manifest and enter a particle mode.

schrodingers cat says: I am here to make a joke of quantum physics, with a made up scenario about a cat in a box, the cat exists both dead and alive until a conscious observer opens the box.

Flannel_Jesus · January 1, 2026, 4:49pm

The atom in a box exists as a “cloud of probability” before you open the box - probabilities of the atom being in this state or that state before opening the box. When you open the box, the atom takes one specific state.

The cat in a box also exists as a cloud of probabilities until you open the box. When you open the box, the cat takes one specific state.

Do you really not see the overlap there? You don’t see ANY similarity, at all, between those two scenarios? You won’t even entertain the idea that they’re maybe talking about the same thing?

futureone · January 1, 2026, 5:28pm

No the cat in the box is incorrect, it was made as a joke about quantum physics.

The cat is not dead and alive in multiple states, it only has 1 state, either alive or dead.

Opening the box (the atom in a box example) does not collapse the wavefunction. You have to probe the wave function (for example, a remote control probe inside the box.) The equation describes the probability of a successful manifestation at any given probing location.