[Apathy]

So, I guess we're thinking the the same thing, although it seems that I'm thinking more about influencing a path before you try to confirm the outcome, while you're thinking about influencing a path by trying to confirm the outcome. Right?

...So... now to apply this to Umineko. Gaaaah~

I think that's more or less it. I... erm, think... ._.; (This theory is pretty confusing, isn't it).

As for Umineko, I guess the basic premise of the argument would be:

Spoiler for too much talking. Again.:

The cat is alive/the cat is dead = the cause is science (rationality, logic, etc.- a human explanation)/the cause is magic (supernatural, occult, etc.- the witches' explanation).

The problem with Schrödinger’s cat is that though both possibilities are possible theoretically, only the second (death) is possible logically.

The cat will die eventually.

The cat will die one way or another.

So, in other words, the cat has to die eventually (regardless of the cat living also being a theoretical possibility, along with death) as long as it's stuck as the box. I suppose this would be the case due to the decaying atoms, or whatever it was; as long as it was stuck in the box, there would eventually be a point where an atom decays, whereupon the flask would smash and the cat would die.

So... perhaps, despite Rika/Battler living being a theoretical possibilty, it's set so that they will eventually die- unless they do something?

You can only save the cat by opening the box.

The key is not finding whether or not the cat is dead or alive, but guarantee one possibility or another.

Theory is unlimited, while logic is limited in the scope of possibility.

The only way to save the cat- logically, not theoretically- is opening the box- otherwise, it will die. This is the only way to guarantee the 'alive' possibility- however, it needed the influence of 'opening the box' to do so. I guess the same is true for Rika/Battler: the only way to live (logically) is to break free of the samsara/rules (the rules being for Schrodinger's that 'the cat will die when an atom decomposes', which is sort of inevitable, I guess), and they have to guarantee that possibility. However, they have to influence it by wanting to do so.

The way that the theory is phrased is confusing sometimes, though, as it puts it across that by seeking to confirm (guarantee?) whether the cat is alive, one influences it to go in one direction or another. Although I guess if you want to 'guarantee' the cat living, again, the only way is taking it out of the box.

As for the latter part, I guess you could say that this means that the possibilities for magic being the cause are unlimited, and the possibilities for logic being the cause are limited. Which is a fair statement, I would think.

Otherwise, I was thinking more along the lines that Schrodinger's cat applies only to, say, the time before the Higurashi reboot (so that Rika has not made any moves on the playing field yet), but after Rika makes her first move, Schrodinger's cat does not apply any more, as her actions would have influenced (yes, that word) the outcome in some way, thus making one "END" (as I call it, eheheh) more likely than the others.

I think this could be the case, too: I guess all of her actions (in order to guarantee that Schrodinger's cat- at least the part where 'the cat will eventually die'- is not true) eventually culminate and help her break free of the 'box'. Is that sort of it...?

... I seem to understand things better in a VN context, too. ._. Or at least one where you can see the situation tree (even though the one in Kizuna still really confuses me)...

... In the end, I really feel sorry for that cat. ._.;