The name for the point where a probability changes

I read somewhere that Schrodinger used that example of a cat in the box, to illustrate how ridiculous it is to consider the cat both alive and dead, how ridiculous it is to consider something both a wave and a particle.In the context of this thread, the question should be asked how you should look at this example acknowledging "realization", the point where a probability changes. To say that the cat is both alive and dead, is as far I can tell, just another round about way of denying probabilities and realization as real. The phycisist doesn't want to accept a probability as real, therefore the phycisist conjures up a reality where the cat is both dead and alive in stead of recognizing the probabilities as real probabilities.You make it out as though it is really true that the cat is both alive and dead, another weird thing that science "discovered", which therefore should be believed. But the finding is just what your common sense tells you, it's absolute nonsense, and you would be hardpressed to find a reason why you ever accepted such nonsense in the first place, when finding out that it really is the nonsense it looks to be. Science can apparently tell you anything, and you believe it.Not to be selfimportant, but I think this issue of recognizing, realization, decision, determination, or whatever you wish to call it, is all-important in the creation-vs-evolution debate. How would you rate the importance of not understanding, or accepting one of the absolute fundamentals of reality? Causes are in the past, their effects relate to the present. So far so good, scientists follow. Probabities are in the future, their outcomes relate to the present, now scientists are in broad denial, it is unbelievable. The picture of reality that scientists give is thus absurd. They do give much practical knowledge of causes and their effects, how nice, but it is rubbish when it is asked in exchange for denying one of the fundamentals of how we understand the world. If it is exchanged then on balance we have lost more knowledge then we gained. And everybody knows that realization, decision is the place where religion typically finds it's relation to the supernatural. Whether it is an earthquake happening, or whether it is some evil man starting a war. These things are typicaly traced back to the points where they were decided to happen in religion, and asked why? Why when it was possible for it not to happen, or for an earthquake one might better say, not to happen at a given time, why did it happen anyway? Science doesn't have an answer, religion is not much better with answers, but at least in religion we can ask the important question.Obviously I'm disappointed at the responses in this thread. How do people consider the importance of this issue? Now the future becomes so insignificant that it's existence can be doubted? The real history of the universe, the points of decision in the universe, and evolution, can be ignored? This is the result of science and therefore good for our knowledge? Please tell me where any of you stand on how you rate the significance of this issue for creation vs evolution.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsuregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu