The Damned

• Maybe Sarah Palin IS a great intellect, just taken out of context.


• Maybe Delaware's O'Donnell is right that masturbation should be a crime and that the 1st amendment doesn't prevent government co-mingling with religion.


• Maybe Ted Danz the congressional candidate from upstate NY who says a no marriage should be recognized as legal unless it was sanctified by a "RELIGIOUS UNION" has a point.


• Perhaps Glenn Beck is right, that we need to put God back in our country.


• Maybe a founder of the Tea Party who says a sitting congressman should be prevented from serving and ousted from his duly elected position because he is a Muslim, has a point.


• Maybe churches who enjoy tax exemption SHOULD be allowed to promote one party over another from his pulpit and as a spokesman of God.


• Maybe Jefferson, Madison and Adams really wanted this to be a Jesus following, Christ embracing Christian Nation, and that only through some subterfuge were their personal writings vehemently against both it and the Jesus as resurrected divinity doctrine. Maybe someone expunged all references to God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit from the Constitution.


• Maybe that other candidate from Delaware was right...that it WAS Hitler who coined the term "Separation of Church and State", and everyone who accepts such a concept "is a Nazi."


• Perhaps the signs they hold depicting Obama as a terrorist, as Hitler, as an African witch doctor, and in white face really aren't expressions of bigotry and extremism. And maybe that email they circulate and signs they hold declaring him the"Anti-Christ" isn't so far fetched after all.


• Maybe we do need more prayer in school, and more religious symbols on public property; and less study of Jefferson and the 1st amendment's Establishment Clause's intent in our public school books.

In case you haven’t heard of it, Skeptic North is an exceptionally well written blog focusing on the subject of (you guessed it) skepticism. The site has a bit of a Canadian flavour, which works for me since I also happen to be Canadian.

Warm fuzzies aside, I’m having problems with Skeptic North’s final installment in their otherwise excellent Skeptic’s Guide to Magical Thinking series. Specifically, I’m taking issue with what writer Erik Davis’ has to say about “The Problem of Religion”…

Whether you believe or not, there’s no disputing that many religions provide significant value to adherents… religion provides certain comforts that cannot easily be gotten elsewhere. A belief in an ordained purpose to life, in a god who has our interest at heart, in a death that’s not final – these are ideas that help people get through an existence that can be spirit-crushingly difficult for many.

Ok, so far so good. I myself have written how difficult it was to let go of the religious security blanket he’s described. Continuing on…

And while I’ve heard the atheist argument that self-delusion is not the best way to deal with those difficulties, the pervasiveness of magical beliefs in our mind design simply belies that notion.

What? How does the mere existence of magical beliefs negate the idea that there might be a better way to handle “an existence that can be spirit-crushing”? Has Erik done extensive research into the efficacy of the various methods we might employ to help people deal with their existential angst? Does he know how effective religion really is at helping people through angst? Why do people drop in and out of religion? Why does so much church shopping go on? Why is atheism/agnosticism the fastest growing belief category in Canada and the U.S.? Is it possible that, if we opened our eyes to other options, religion might be replaced as a preferred mechanism for helping people handle the realities of existence? The phrase, “If I can do it, anybody can” comes to mind. Let’s not assume believers are too weak and or stupid to make the transition from belief to non-belief and come out the other end happy, functioning human beings!

After all, how different is this than our delusion of love, or of free will? If we can admit that those things are valuable, then we can certainly admit the comforts of religion into the same camp.

I’d say that the illusion of free will is vastly different than belief in a deity! Why? Well, first, I’m guessing most people never give the idea of free will even a glancing thought, whereas, most also think a great deal about death, suffering and a god that will make everything better once they die. Second, where is the cult of freewillians who go around proselytizing the free-will gospel, and influencing public policy based on their freewillian world view? The analogy is weak. Worse, it and the analysis that precedes it implores us to give religion a free pass due to it being a sort of default method for helping people. Personally, I think humanity can do better… but maybe that’s just me. Anyway, onward…

I think the first thing we need to do is stop being such purists. The skeptical community includes a disproportionate number of atheists… …religious belief isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and that they will continue to be confronted with the magical thinking that underlies it. We need to remember that everyone thinks magically about some things and that’s not necessarily so bad. And we need to focus on the a more important objective, which is reducing the harm religion can do when left unchecked. In short, we need to focus on ways to encourage religious moderation.

First, in a truly skeptic community, I would hope that there would be a disproportionate number of atheists compared to within the general population, just like I would hope there would be a disproportionate number of people against homeopathic medicine in that same group. I honestly don’t know what value there is in making this statement about atheists. Is it because Erik believes atheism too often hijacks skeptical discussion? Is it because he is afraid of alienating skeptics who also happen to be believers? Is it because he thinks that attacking religion may result in aligning skeptics with unsavoury “new atheists”, thereby diminishing the skeptic’s influence in other areas?

These are questions I feel I must ask in response to atheists being singled out in the article. I feel compeled to say that many atheists are skeptics too – we are skeptics who specialize in debunking *a specific kind* of magical thinking. Please don’t marginalize our favorite subject – doing so suggests that criticisms of religion are not as important as being critical of other skeptic targets.

All of this reminds me of something from my theist to atheist de-conversion experience. It was during my de-conversion that I learned how to be skeptical – a lesson and attitude that carried forward into virtually every other corner of my life. After ditching God, I was eager to apply the same hard-nosed rational thinking process to every belief I had.

In other words, ditching religion was the gateway to my becoming a skeptic. This, I think, is part of the reason many atheists are so vocal and passionate about sharing their atheism – not only because we feel belief in God is incorrect, but because we’ve learned that when such deeply held beliefs are destroyed, it can lead to the birth of a freethinking skeptic. We believe that someone who can break free from the shackles of religion can question anything. We think it’s worth the effort.

Ok, I flogged that one enough – let’s finish up…

For example, as much as I may not agree with publicly funding the Catholic school system in Ontario, I’m at pains to point out any material societal harm that’s caused by it. The fact is that Catholicism in Canada, and in the west generally, is pretty moderate. That wasn’t always the case (see: “Inquisition, Spanish”), but it certainly is today. And that moderation pushes Catholicism westward on our matrix.

The existence of the Catholic school system in Canada is a slippery slope with major implications. The United Nations rightly pointed out that funding it is discriminatory to other faiths so, the choice becomes, fund none or fund them all. In Alberta (where I live), I can tell you the latter is the case – more and more faith schools are being funded. And I can state as a matter of fact that there are faith-based schools teaching creationism and undermining science in Alberta. This can lead to nothing good – and we need only look south of the border to see the downstream effects of religion in schools. 40% of American believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old – as well a lot of other bunk that comes with that world view. Need I say more?

In one sense, I agree with Erik. We do currently have it good in Canada. However, I’m concerned – very concerned – that our society will suffer in the long-haul if we ignore the problem.

And thus what I’ll call The Problem of Religion for Skeptics – which is that the best way to moderate religion and reduce its potential for harm may simply be to let it flourish. Protect religious freedoms, debate the beliefs honestly in an open marketplace of ideas, and focus most of our efforts on curbing the worst abuses. If the Ontario Catholic school system survives, but everyone in it must get vaccinated no matter what their beliefs, I’d say the skeptics win.

That’s one way. Another way is to teach critical thinking and skepticism and show that the underlying belief system is wrong and potentially harmful. Instead of putting out fires, why don’t we focus on the root cause of those fires?

Peace to you my fellow skeptics – and thanks for getting me out of my writing slumber. Oh, and keep up the good work, Skeptic North!

Author: GhostTurtle1233
Keywords:
Added: October 29, 2010

Author: RealityGameWorld
Keywords:
Added: October 28, 2010

Country wide, affiliates of National Public Radio are in a tizzy trying not to lose membership funding during their Fall fund raising efforts. Apparently the fallout from the Juan Williams affair is doing just that.

I was among those who early on voiced their displeasure with NPR's decision to terminate Juan Williams. I emailed NHPR (New Hampshire Public Radio) and told them I was no longer going to be a paying member. The reply from the station’s program director Abby Goldstein, while defining a quasi-arms length relationship between NHPR and NPR, also included a boiler plate statement explaining (aka justifying) NPR's decision to terminate Williams’ employment. Bad decision on her part.

I'm damn tired of this Politically Correct knee-jerk reactionary nonsense. I'm especially tired of pretending that Islam isn't a world wide threat to peace. The words "Muslim terrorist" it seems must now be replaced by "extremist," or "religious extremist," or “religious fanatic” with no other term of specific religious affiliation; as though the word Muslim must be kept out of the equation. One may as well extract the "m" from E=mc2, and say it makes no difference to the formula. It does.

I'm fed up with the hypocrisy of people who likely share the exact same perspective Mr. Williams expressed re: men in Muslim garb at the airport or boarding his flight make him nervous.

• Are we to deny the reality of the hundreds of terrorist attacks by fanatic Muslims for the sake of political correctness?


• Are we to pretend that such people boarding our own flight would / should provoke no more concern or angst in us than would the 75 year old white woman in a wheel chair?


• Is Mr. Williams’ honest statement, and his admission of the admittedly unfortunate feeling it provokes in him, grounds for dismissal? Can verbalizing it instead of keeping it internalized genuinely affect how he analyzes the news for NPR? Has his credibility been undermined by speaking truth?
  

This isn't about painting every Muslim with the broad brush of terrorist. They are not, and that is not what William's did. It's about using reason born of experience; about discerning a potential risk to one's well being as a result of learned threat. It's a basic instinct, key to human survival, for self preservation.

This isn't about which side of the political spectrum you are on, although the politically correct Far Left say it is and the nutty Far Right want it to be.

I'm a social liberal, a moderate Independent, and a person with enough honesty to know that to deny the feeling Williams described is either Political Correctness run amok, or gross denial of reality ... AKA stupidity. I won't support any organization that promotes either of those two alternatives; or one that punishes people who reject them.

Author: mikej4d
Keywords:
Added: October 26, 2010

The website will be under going maintenance for approximately one hour 9PM EST.

Author: xZemmax

Keywords:

Added: October 24, 2010

(NSFW Language)

Author: killerboyfoolz
Keywords:
Added: October 24, 2010

(Via The Friendly Atheist) As if it wasn't hard enough to defect from the Catholic Church already. The article proceeds to explain that there are some countries where a formal document is required to avoid paying a Church Tax. ...

Hold onto your hat.  This could get a little rough. 

At the heart of quantum mechanics lies a paradox.  All experimentation has shown that a particle has a dual nature - the so-called quantum duality.  It is, at the same time, a particle or 'quanta' of energy, and a wave.  It has been shown that a single photon, fired at two slits in a screen, passes through both slits simultaneously and creates an interference pattern with itself on a photo-sensitive detector behind the slits.  And it's not just two slits.  The same effect will be seen with three, four, five slits or as many slits as you like. 

Furthermore, it has also been shown that, when we try to observe a particle on its journey through the two slits, by placing a detector behind one of them, the interference pattern disappears and the particle behaves like a perfectly respectable single entity and passes dutifully through the slit with the detector and not through the other one.

Observation has (apparently) caused the wave form to collapse into a particle.  Seemingly, our observation of it has changed the nature of reality with respect to the particle being observed and it now only has one future.

The conclusion is inescapable, even if a little disturbing.  All particles have many futures, possibly infinitely many futures, and they all take all of them.

The experimental data showing the collapse of the wave into a single future by our observation of it has also lead some people to conclude that somehow we create reality by detecting it, even leading some to speculate that there was no reality until mankind was there to observe it. 

This conclusion is the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum duality and has lead to the multiverse hypothesis, where all possible universes, representing all possible futures potentially co-exist but we determine which one by our observation.

Cue Schrödinger's Cat.

In an attempt to repudiate this view, Erwin Schrödinger devised a thought experiment in which a live cat is placed in a sealed box, with air, food and water, and a phial of cyanide linked to a device which breaks it, so killing the cat, on detecting a particle emitted by a single atom of a radioactive isotope.

In this system, the cat's future is inevitably linked to a single quantum event - a radioactive decay - which is purely random and independent of any other event.  The future of the isotope is either decayed or not and the future of the cat is either alive or dead.  However, since the emitted particle will exist simultaneously in both possible futures, and the isotope will thus be both decayed and not decayed at the same time, so the cat will be simultaneously both alive and dead. 

However, if the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct, this paradox will only be resolved when we open the box and observe the state of the isotope.  Only then will the cat's future be determined; until that point, according Copenhagen, the cat will be both dead and alive.

This, of course, is a highly anthropocentric view of reality and assumes that observation is a uniquely human ability. In fact, it's naive.  'Observation' is carried out by detecting the effect(s) of a particle interacting with one or more other particles. Observation is witnessing the effects of quantum entanglement, when the future of one particle becomes entangled with that of another, and this has been happening since the beginning of time regardless of whether humans were present to witness it or not.

Schrödinger had intended his thought experiment to show the illogicality of the Copenhagen Interpretation but it failed to do that.  What it lead people to conclude is that we discover which future we are in when we observe reality.  When we open the box we discover whether we are in a future in which the cat is alive, or one in which it is dead.  The multiverse hypothesis is not scratched by Schrödinger's cat.

The late, great Richard Feynman, working at Caltech,went some way towards resolving this problem.  He showed that all possible histories with respect to a single particle can be expressed as a probability distribution expressing the 'sum over histories' and that this distribution is the wave we see when we observe the wave nature of a quantum event.

He has also shown that for complex systems, these waves 'decohere' to produce what may be a single future.  This apparently refutes the multiverse hypothesis, but it may not do.  It is still possible to view the future histories of small objects like atoms and molecules as having multiple possible futures because we know they, like particles, take all possible paths through spacetime.  It could be that decoherence occurs only above a certain level of complexity.  

The largest objects which have been shown to pass simultaneously through both slits in a two slit experiment are molecules of buckminsterfullerene (C60) consisting of sixty carbon atoms arranged in a geodesic - the dome-shaped structures designed by the architect Buckminster Fuller.  Sixty atoms is large for inorganic molecules but still quite small for organic molecules, and many orders of magnitude smaller than an organism such as a cat, dead or alive.  And we know that if we throw a dead cat at a couple of slots in a wall, it won't go through both, don't we?  In fact, unless our aim is good, it'll most likely go through neither and well  see the dead cat bounce.

So what do we make of this?  Small objects have many possible futures, yet larger objects have only one - and we don't yet know where the dividing line it...

Rosa's speculation:
It could also be that what we see as 'now' is an advancing front of decoherence as we move into an array of futures.  That NOW is only the interface between our macro-reality and micro-futures operating at the quantum level.

Hold onto your hat.  This could get a little rough. 

At the heart of quantum mechanics lies a paradox.  All experimentation has shown that a particle has a dual nature - the so-called quantum duality.  It is, at the same time, a particle or 'quanta' of energy, and a wave.  It has been shown that a single photon, fired at two slits in a screen, passes through both slits simultaneously and creates an interference pattern with itself on a photo-sensitive detector behind the slits.  And it's not just two slits.  The same effect will be seen with three, four, five slits or as many slits as you like. 

Furthermore, it has also been shown that, when we try to observe a particle on its journey through the two slits, by placing a detector behind one of them, the interference pattern disappears and the particle behaves like a perfectly respectable single entity and passes dutifully through the slit with the detector and not through the other one.

Observation has (apparently) caused the wave form to collapse into a particle.  Seemingly, our observation of it has changed the nature of reality with respect to the particle being observed and it now only has one future.

The conclusion is inescapable, even if a little disturbing.  All particles have many futures, possibly infinitely many futures, and they all take all of them.

The experimental data showing the collapse of the wave into a single future by our observation of it has also lead some people to conclude that somehow we create reality by detecting it, even leading some to speculate that there was no reality until mankind was there to observe it. 

This conclusion is the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum duality and has lead to the multiverse hypothesis, where all possible universes, representing all possible futures potentially co-exist but we determine which one by our observation.

Cue Schrödinger's Cat.

In an attempt to repudiate this view, Erwin Schrödinger devised a thought experiment in which a live cat is placed in a sealed box, with air, food and water, and a phial of cyanide linked to a device which breaks it, so killing the cat, on detecting a particle emitted by a single atom of a radioactive isotope.

In this system, the cat's future is inevitably linked to a single quantum event - a radioactive decay - which is purely random and independent of any other event.  The future of the isotope is either decayed or not and the future of the cat is either alive or dead.  However, since the emitted particle will exist simultaneously in both possible futures, and the isotope will thus be both decayed and not decayed at the same time, so the cat will be simultaneously both alive and dead. 

However, if the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct, this paradox will only be resolved when we open the box and observe the state of the isotope.  Only then will the cat's future be determined; until that point, according Copenhagen, the cat will be both dead and alive.

This, of course, is a highly anthropocentric view of reality and assumes that observation is a uniquely human ability. In fact, it's naive.  'Observation' is carried out by detecting the effect(s) of a particle interacting with one or more other particles. Observation is witnessing the effects of quantum entanglement, when the future of one particle becomes entangled with that of another, and this has been happening since the beginning of time regardless of whether humans were present to witness it or not.

Schrödinger had intended his thought experiment to show the illogicality of the Copenhagen Interpretation but it failed to do that.  What it lead people to conclude is that we discover which future we are in when we observe reality.  When we open the box we discover whether we are in a future in which the cat is alive, or one in which it is dead.  The multiverse hypothesis is not scratched by Schrödinger's cat.

The late, great Richard Feynman, working at Caltech,went some way towards resolving this problem.  He showed that all possible histories with respect to a single particle can be expressed as a probability distribution expressing the 'sum over histories' and that this distribution is the wave we see when we observe the wave nature of a quantum event.

He has also shown that for complex systems, these waves 'decohere' to produce what may be a single future.  This apparently refutes the multiverse hypothesis, but it may not do.  It is still possible to view the future histories of small objects like atoms and molecules as having multiple possible futures because we know they, like particles, take all possible paths through spacetime.  It could be that decoherence occurs only above a certain level of complexity.  

The largest objects which have been shown to pass simultaneously through both slits in a two slit experiment are molecules of buckminsterfullerene (C60) consisting of sixty carbon atoms arranged in a geodesic - the dome-shaped structures designed by the architect Buckminster Fuller.  Sixty atoms is large for inorganic molecules but still quite small for organic molecules, and many orders of magnitude smaller than an organism such as a cat, dead or alive.  And we know that if we throw a dead cat at a couple of slots in a wall, it won't go through both, don't we?  In fact, unless our aim is good, it'll most likely go through neither and well  see the dead cat bounce.

So what do we make of this?  Small objects have many possible futures, yet larger objects have only one - and we don't yet know where the dividing line it...

Rosa's speculation:
It could also be that what we see as 'now' is an advancing front of decoherence as we move into an array of futures.  That NOW is only the interface between our macro-reality and micro-futures operating at the quantum level.

Hold onto your hat.  This could get a little rough. 

At the heart of quantum mechanics lies a paradox.  All experimentation has shown that a particle has a dual nature - the so-called quantum duality.  It is, at the same time, a particle or 'quanta' of energy, and a wave.  It has been shown that a single photon, fired at two slits in a screen, passes through both slits simultaneously and creates an interference pattern with itself on a photo-sensitive detector behind the slits.  And it's not just two slits.  The same effect will be seen with three, four, five slits or as many slits as you like. 

Furthermore, it has also been shown that, when we try to observe a particle on its journey through the two slits, by placing a detector behind one of them, the interference pattern disappears and the particle behaves like a perfectly respectable single entity and passes dutifully through the slit with the detector and not through the other one.

Observation has (apparently) caused the wave form to collapse into a particle.  Seemingly, our observation of it has changed the nature of reality with respect to the particle being observed and it now only has one future.

The conclusion is inescapable, even if a little disturbing.  All particles have many futures, possibly infinitely many futures, and they all take all of them.

The experimental data showing the collapse of the wave into a single future by our observation of it has also lead some people to conclude that somehow we create reality by detecting it, even leading some to speculate that there was no reality until mankind was there to observe it. 

This conclusion is the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum duality and has lead to the multiverse hypothesis, where all possible universes, representing all possible futures potentially co-exist but we determine which one by our observation.

Cue Schrödinger's Cat.

In an attempt to repudiate this view, Erwin Schrödinger devised a thought experiment in which a live cat is placed in a sealed box, with air, food and water, and a phial of cyanide linked to a device which breaks it, so killing the cat, on detecting a particle emitted by a single atom of a radioactive isotope.

In this system, the cat's future is inevitably linked to a single quantum event - a radioactive decay - which is purely random and independent of any other event.  The future of the isotope is either decayed or not and the future of the cat is either alive or dead.  However, since the emitted particle will exist simultaneously in both possible futures, and the isotope will thus be both decayed and not decayed at the same time, so the cat will be simultaneously both alive and dead. 

However, if the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct, this paradox will only be resolved when we open the box and observe the state of the isotope.  Only then will the cat's future be determined; until that point, according Copenhagen, the cat will be both dead and alive.

This, of course, is a highly anthropocentric view of reality and assumes that observation is a uniquely human ability. In fact, it's naive.  'Observation' is carried out by detecting the effect(s) of a particle interacting with one or more other particles. Observation is witnessing the effects of quantum entanglement, when the future of one particle becomes entangled with that of another, and this has been happening since the beginning of time regardless of whether humans were present to witness it or not.

Schrödinger had intended his thought experiment to show the illogicality of the Copenhagen Interpretation but it failed to do that.  What it lead people to conclude is that we discover which future we are in when we observe reality.  When we open the box we discover whether we are in a future in which the cat is alive, or one in which it is dead.  The multiverse hypothesis is not scratched by Schrödinger's cat.

The late, great Richard Feynman, working at Caltech,went some way towards resolving this problem.  He showed that all possible histories with respect to a single particle can be expressed as a probability distribution expressing the 'sum over histories' and that this distribution is the wave we see when we observe the wave nature of a quantum event.

He has also shown that for complex systems, these waves 'decohere' to produce what may be a single future.  This apparently refutes the multiverse hypothesis, but it may not do.  It is still possible to view the future histories of small objects like atoms and molecules as having multiple possible futures because we know they, like particles, take all possible paths through spacetime.  It could be that decoherence occurs only above a certain level of complexity.  

The largest objects which have been shown to pass simultaneously through both slits in a two slit experiment are molecules of buckminsterfullerene (C60) consisting of sixty carbon atoms arranged in a geodesic - the dome-shaped structures designed by the architect Buckminster Fuller.  Sixty atoms is large for inorganic molecules but still quite small for organic molecules, and many orders of magnitude smaller than an organism such as a cat, dead or alive.  And we know that if we throw a dead cat at a couple of slots in a wall, it won't go through both, don't we?  In fact, unless our aim is good, it'll most likely go through neither and well  see the dead cat bounce.

So what do we make of this?  Small objects have many possible futures, yet larger objects have only one - and we don't yet know where the dividing line it...

Rosa's speculation:
It could also be that what we see as 'now' is an advancing front of decoherence as we move into an array of futures.  That NOW is only the interface between our macro-reality and micro-futures operating at the quantum level.

Hold onto your hat.  This could get a little rough. 

At the heart of quantum mechanics lies a paradox.  All experimentation has shown that a particle has a dual nature - the so-called quantum duality.  It is, at the same time, a particle or 'quanta' of energy, and a wave.  It has been shown that a single photon, fired at two slits in a screen, passes through both slits simultaneously and creates an interference pattern with itself on a photo-sensitive detector behind the slits.  And it's not just two slits.  The same effect will be seen with three, four, five slits or as many slits as you like. 

Furthermore, it has also been shown that, when we try to observe a particle on its journey through the two slits, by placing a detector behind one of them, the interference pattern disappears and the particle behaves like a perfectly respectable single entity and passes dutifully through the slit with the detector and not through the other one.

Observation has (apparently) caused the wave form to collapse into a particle.  Seemingly, our observation of it has changed the nature of reality with respect to the particle being observed and it now only has one future.

The conclusion is inescapable, even if a little disturbing.  All particles have many futures, possibly infinitely many futures, and they all take all of them.

The experimental data showing the collapse of the wave into a single future by our observation of it has also lead some people to conclude that somehow we create reality by detecting it, even leading some to speculate that there was no reality until mankind was there to observe it. 

This conclusion is the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' of quantum duality and has lead to the multiverse hypothesis, where all possible universes, representing all possible futures potentially co-exist but we determine which one by our observation.

Cue Schrödinger's Cat.

In an attempt to repudiate this view, Erwin Schrödinger devised a thought experiment in which a live cat is placed in a sealed box, with air, food and water, and a phial of cyanide linked to a device which breaks it, so killing the cat, on detecting a particle emitted by a single atom of a radioactive isotope.

In this system, the cat's future is inevitably linked to a single quantum event - a radioactive decay - which is purely random and independent of any other event.  The future of the isotope is either decayed or not and the future of the cat is either alive or dead.  However, since the emitted particle will exist simultaneously in both possible futures, and the isotope will thus be both decayed and not decayed at the same time, so the cat will be simultaneously both alive and dead. 

However, if the Copenhagen Interpretation is correct, this paradox will only be resolved when we open the box and observe the state of the isotope.  Only then will the cat's future be determined; until that point, according Copenhagen, the cat will be both dead and alive.

This, of course, is a highly anthropocentric view of reality and assumes that observation is a uniquely human ability. In fact, it's naive.  'Observation' is carried out by detecting the effect(s) of a particle interacting with one or more other particles. Observation is witnessing the effects of quantum entanglement, when the future of one particle becomes entangled with that of another, and this has been happening since the beginning of time regardless of whether humans were present to witness it or not.

Schrödinger had intended his thought experiment to show the illogicality of the Copenhagen Interpretation but it failed to do that.  What it lead people to conclude is that we discover which future we are in when we observe reality.  When we open the box we discover whether we are in a future in which the cat is alive, or one in which it is dead.  The multiverse hypothesis is not scratched by Schrödinger's cat.

The late, great Richard Feynman, working at Caltech,went some way towards resolving this problem.  He showed that all possible histories with respect to a single particle can be expressed as a probability distribution expressing the 'sum over histories' and that this distribution is the wave we see when we observe the wave nature of a quantum event.

He has also shown that for complex systems, these waves 'decohere' to produce what may be a single future.  This apparently refutes the multiverse hypothesis, but it may not do.  It is still possible to view the future histories of small objects like atoms and molecules as having multiple possible futures because we know they, like particles, take all possible paths through spacetime.  It could be that decoherence occurs only above a certain level of complexity.  

The largest objects which have been shown to pass simultaneously through both slits in a two slit experiment are molecules of buckminsterfullerene (C60) consisting of sixty carbon atoms arranged in a geodesic - the dome-shaped structures designed by the architect Buckminster Fuller.  Sixty atoms is large for inorganic molecules but still quite small for organic molecules, and many orders of magnitude smaller than an organism such as a cat, dead or alive.  And we know that if we throw a dead cat at a couple of slots in a wall, it won't go through both, don't we?  In fact, unless our aim is good, it'll most likely go through neither and well  see the dead cat bounce.

So what do we make of this?  Small objects have many possible futures, yet larger objects have only one - and we don't yet know where the dividing line it...

Rosa's speculation:
It could also be that what we see as 'now' is an advancing front of decoherence as we move into an array of futures.  That NOW is only the interface between our macro-reality and micro-futures operating at the quantum level.