The Great Enigma of the Missing Cat!

Originally from the author's posts at http://forums.mangafox.com/group.php?do=discuss&discussionid=1081&pp=10&page=4

Consider a course of events across some timescale (which is equipped with direction as per usual) such that these events can be numbered by order of their occurrence on the timescale.
We then take a set of events as 'axiomatic events' (in that these events do not depend on other events within the system we consider, but give rise to every other event within the system) and demand further that any k-tuple of these axiomatic events must give rise to another event within the system. Now our system is well-defined.

Assuming some consequence always follows an event (which seems reasonable), for causality (and hence fate) to hold starting with a k-tuple of axiomatic events, an ensuing event must yield a definite result and never its negation no later than the point or interval on the timescale when this ensuing event took place.

Now take a box that can completely isolate the contents within from outside observation, a radioactive source and a Geiger counter with a clock that's set to stop when decay is detected. Put everything in the box and close it before the radioactive source emits. These instructions suffice as our axiomatic events.

According to the principle of superposition from quantum mechanics, we don't know if the counter has recorded an emission or not till we actually observe (however it may be) whether the counter has recorded an emission.

Now we have that both the result and the negation have come about simultaneously, and so the set of axiomatic events cannot be complete. Similarly, we may claim ANY such set is incomplete and thus causality is violated.

While we rely on the same principle which facilitated Schroedinger's thought experiment involving a cat, we have omitted the cat so that we don't run into any implications of sentience and consciousness.

Of course, the above argument relies on quantum theory, and the only reason we have to believe that is again the inductive reasoning that it has yielded correct results thus far, which would be acknowledging a form of causality. However, if we have some intrinsic reason to believe in the principle of superposition this difficulty disappears. This endeavor is left to the reader.