To show troubles connected with measurements, Schrödinger proposed as a model a cat in a box with an vial with hydrogencyanide. We do not know, if the cat is alive or dead, until the modern deux ex machina, an observer will not open the box reducing possibilities, killing or saving the animal. This picturesque example did not yet loose its convincing vigor.

I proposed an innovation of the cat as an cyborg. A living cat superposed with a dead apparatus, say a breathing machine. A cat with the destroyed breathing centrum in its brain can not live without the apparatus, it is partially alive and partially dead. Moral dilemmas connected with the switching off different life supporting apparatuses in human medicine testify that such states are real.

The modern deus ex machina created the cat living in a superposition state by macroscopic means. When we compare it with the Schrödinger's cat, we can say that the superposition is identical in macroscopic as well as in microscopic cat and thus there is no difference between application of the superposition principle in the quantum mechanics and in real life.

My paper was denied by Zahradník and Jungwirth. Especially my explanation, that we do not understand fully properties of multidimensional spaces irritated them.

I wrote an April fool paper about properties of complete graphs as about mock chemical compounds as an hexafingerane is, too. The trigonal bipyramide, formed by touching 3 fingers of both hands (the complete graph K(5)) is a model of a 5 dimensional plane (4 dimensional body). Its 5 four dimensional sides (tetrahedrons) form a double cover of the inside of the simplex.

These points coincide with the inside point. The measurement did not changed the observed system, only a different result was found at each measurement. The superposition principle is just a result of properties of the space we are living in.

This explanation confirms my thesis about problems with multidimensionality of our World. As Plato's slaves we are not able to acknowledge it.

Introducing an observer in physics is similar to introduction of central perspective in the art. An artist need not to paint what he sees, but what he knows and he can observe his object from different stands simultaneously.

One from the most discussed philosophical problems of quantum mechanics was the observer problem, that the measuring changes the observed system. I think that till now bad examples were considered.

Take a relation between a book and its reader. There are two distinct systems with a sharp borderline between. The reader can not be a part of a book, but the inverse relation can be violated, a reader can know a book by heart and the book is an unseparable part of him.

Now, there are at least two different ways, how books are studied. Linguistics studies books similarly as physicists wanted to study the book of Nature, by counting events of different kinds without violating a letter in the book. There is none observer needed. In second kind studies an action of a book on a reader is studied by different methods, for example by nuclear resonance tomography, by measuring of swelling of some organs or simply by asking what impressions the reader had at reading. Here we need a reader because we study him and not the book itself. Linguistic measurements can be repeated because the book remains unchanged, but we can not reproduce an observation of the effect of a book on the reader, at repeated readings he will have different reactions and different readers have not identical reactions.

It can be objected that the example with books is bad, because books remain intact at studies of both arts. Good, we can study food, its effect on an observer and on consumer. It is surely different if one merely see food or if he eats it. In the later case the food is destroyed similarly as a microparticle by a counter.

We can not study Nature without its observing, but we can guess how it behaves when it is unobserved.