Yes, but only in historical time. Maybe not so in "individual person time" (if I can put it that way). I mean, you had this epiphany when you were a teenager. Laplace didn't publish anything about whatever like epiphany he may have had until his fifties, in Mechaninque Celeste (in 5 volumes, appearing 1799-1805)....
Recently I came across an enormously engaging and surprising book, Suspended in Language: Niels Bohr's Life, Discoveries, and the Century He Shaped by Jim Ottaviani and Leland Purvis et. al. [2004]. I was scandalized at first to discover the entire piece is laid out as a cartoon. But it really is a superb book in terms of explicating the subject matter of its title. IMHO, a wondrous book for bright high school students, and others who might delight and have an interest in the magnificent achievements of 20th century science.
Anyhoot, that's where I got the Laplace. I left out the rejoinder to his statement:
[Question:] This "intelligence" of yours, would it be the author of the universe, who I note you left out of your book Mechanique Celeste?Poor ol' Schroedinger's cat. On my reading, VR, the cat isn't "half alive/half dead." The cat is both simultaneously alive and dead. In the language of quantum theory, it is in a superposed state, an analogy to the superposition of particle/wave of what we have come to describe as "matter."[Laplace replies:] hmph...I know what you're driving at, sire, but I have no need of this ... "God" hypothesis.
[Questioner reply:] Mon Dieu! [p. 282]
The analogy says that we don't know whether the cat is alive or dead until we go look. Absent observation, the problem is undecideable.
Fun stuff to think about! :^)
Thank you so much for writing, VR!
I prefer the Bayesian approach also.