Expectation is demonstrated by Erwin Schrodinger's cat-in-a-box thought experiment.
The decay of a radioactive sample releases a 'particle' due to the decay (or a photon with a lot of frequency, say--since electroweak and electromagnetic forces are connected, what the hey?); There's a 50/50 probability of this occuring in the time-frame that the cat is inside the box.

Presumably the cat would "see" the decay if it stayed in the box for a long enough time (longer than the period that gives a 1 in 2 chance), or would avoid it by not staying inside the box for the interval of time "required" by the probability of decay (so the expectation changes, along with a change in the interval, no earth-shattering ideas there). Or say there's more than one cat, or more than one box, which would change the probability a bit (even arbitrarily).

This is the same thing that happens when light is collected over time in astronomy. A single photon isn't a message (it's an indeterminate state).
It can convey the fact that there is at least a probability (50/50?) that another photon will arrive, and the different frequencies (or same frequencies), will be information (a signal). Information is also the discrimination of difference--or relativity.

The photons are connections that don't get seen, until they're entrained by electrons, either in pigment molecules (rhodopsin, chlorophyll), or a CCD or other surface of matter--where they unitarily add up to an overall pattern.

There's a 50/50 probability of this occuring in the time-frame that the cat is inside the box.

During one half-life of a radioactive atom, there is a 50/50 chance of it decaying. This is the time period that the cat must be in the box. Just so we're clear...

Or say there's more than one cat, or more than one box, which would change the probability a bit (even arbitrarily).

This is not true. The probability that the cat dies is based on a radioactive decay or some such...how can multiple cats change how fast an atom decays?

It can convey the fact that there is at least a probability (50/50?) that another photon will arrive, and the different frequencies (or same frequencies), will be information (a signal).

Hmmm, ok. But photons don't come from just anywhere, unless you're talking about CMB photons.

Information is also the discrimination of difference--or relativity.

I don't know what this means.

The photons are connections that don't get seen, until they're entrained by electrons, either in pigment molecules (rhodopsin, chlorophyll), or a CCD or other surface of matter--where they unitarily add up to an overall pattern.

I think I know where this is going, but I will reserve judgement untill you actually make the point that you are (presumably) going to make.

Hint: If you don't want your thread moved to pserudoscience, don't claim that photons don't exist.

If you don't want your thread moved to pseudoscience, don't claim that photons don't exist.
So you happen to be someone with a "power" that I don't (want to) possess? Good for you.
If you don't understand why having several boxes, with sources of potential high-energy photons or beta particles, and observers (cats), changes the probability of observation, I'm not sure how to explain it. You indicate that you understand radioactive decay (half-life), and how time is involved, so I'm little confused about why changing the number of (possible) observations over a given period would not effect the outcome (observation)...

When did I say photons don't exist? Of course they exist. At least when they get "seen" they do.
What's the problem with information being relative (the difference between things)?

If you don't understand why having several boxes, with sources of potential high-energy photons or beta particles, and observers (cats), changes the probability of observation, I'm not sure how to explain it.

Then how can you make such claims???

The point is this---some (radioactive) atom has some half life. The living or dying of the cat depends on the radioactive decay---after one half-life of time, the cat has a 50/50 shot at living or dying. If we have many cats, half of them will be dead and half of them will be alive.

How can having many cats in many boxes change the half-life of the radioactive atom?

The number of cats, or observers, has absolutely zero effect on the half-life of a radioactive compound. Or the expected lifetime of a star (the Sun, say).

What changes is the observation itself. With more observers than just the one, there's a distribution. After the requisite period, half the cats should be dead (have observed a decay), and half alive (no decay to observe).

So what about some time before the 50/50 interval, or after?

What changes is the observation itself. With more observers than just the one, there's a distribution. After the requisite period, half the cats should be dead (have observed a decay), and half alive (no decay to observe).

Hmmm. Maybe. Let me think. Suppose there are N cats. If N is large enough then half of them will be dead. Right. But choosing one cat of the N cats will still give you a 50/50 chance that the cat you picked is dead. I can't see how anything wold change.

So what about some time before the 50/50 interval, or after?

You'd have to work it out. It's not impossible to do---the formula can be looked up in a book (I don't remember exactly what it is, something like N(t) = N_0e^{-t/ \tau}.

Suppose there are N cats. If N is large enough then half of them will be dead. Right.Yes, given the 1-hour interval that correlates with the half-life.
But choosing one cat of the N cats will still give you a 50/50 chance that the cat you picked is dead.Why would you choose one cat, from N cats? If the cats are pixel elements in a CCD instead, or individual geiger-counters, say, why, or how, would you want to know about the state of a single element in a CCD array, or of an individual "ping" in a decay counter?

The cats are individual observers of a single quantum (random) event. There's a known expectation, if there are a lot of cats in separate boxes, a pattern should be detected, a random 50/50 pattern over a 1-hour interval; the pattern is time-dependent, the longer the time, the closer to a "complete" result.

This models what any photon-detecting surface does, or what the layer of retinal cells in a mammalian eye does.

The single cat in a single box with a single expected event, given the interval, is an indeterminate state, so is a real photon arriving unitarily. A single photon cannot carry a message (information). Or maybe you can demonstrate that a single photon is a message? Two photons, even with the same frequency, is a signal (a difference), but our eyes need thousands of them to register colour, or greyscale, information. We can't see one or two photons, not with retinal cells, anyway.

Why would you choose one cat, from N cats? If the cats are pixel elements in a CCD instead, or individual geiger-counters, say, why, or how, would you want to know about the state of a single element in a CCD array, or of an individual "ping" in a decay counter?

So then you want to look at all of the cats. And you just agreed that looking at all of the cats means that half of them will be dead and half of them will be alive.

Frud---I am getting lost in exactly what you are trying to say here.

How many cats will be dead after 1/2 hour, or 2 hours, or 6?

Doesn't it have something to do with time? (The observational interval)--as to how many cats, of N cats dies?
The experiment, initially, is 1 cat, and 1 hour, which gives a 50/50 chance of the event happening.

So wait for 8 hours, is it more or less likely that the cat dies?

What about lots, say N cats? and a longer or shorter period of time than 60 minutes? With a single source, and N cats there's no change in probability, so after an hour. N cats will be dead, or N cats will be alive.
Put them in individual boxes, each with an individual, identical radiation source.
This is the extended version, which I claim models what astronomical observations do (and us, using our photon collectors--eyes).