...


From the Literal Road Signs challenge. See all 678 entries (closed)

(Virulent Taste my Jesus!, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 0:59, archived)

It's not half dead.
It's theoretically both dead and alive.

:)woot
( Ttssattsr farting words onto the websites, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:00, archived)

neither dead nor alive, actually.

( drbroon a poor wee monkey stole his face, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:02, archived)

It's both both and neither technically.

(Jeru War and Piss, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:03, archived)

technically it's a problem that cannot be logically solved
and was a joke that has been taken too seriously by philosophers.
( drbroon a poor wee monkey stole his face, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:04, archived)

I'd love to think that Schrodinger was some innocent party in all of this
while philosophers and physicists were just constantly threatening to put his cat in a box and poison it.
(Jeru War and Piss, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:06, archived)

sum of both states

( plentyofants can't start a fire without a spork, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:09, archived)

Yes but how much?!

(Jeru War and Piss, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:12, archived)

One.
Or 100% if you like.
( Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:15, archived)

1/sqrt(2)
of each
or summat
( plentyofants can't start a fire without a spork, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:15, archived)

both states are equally probable
because both states are unprovable.
( drbroon a poor wee monkey stole his face, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:19, archived)

No,
it is one or the other. The act of observing it changes it though.
( the_rhyme_minister has a little bit of gold and a pager, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:11, archived)

^this

( Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:15, archived)

not this. no
if you're saying that 'dead' and 'alive' are the eigenstates, then if it really were one of these already, the act of observing it (or quantum decoherence, or whatever else causes it to end up in one or the other rather than a superposition of states) wouldn't cause it to change that state, however much you did it
( plentyofants can't start a fire without a spork, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:23, archived)

but if a tree falls on a cat in a box in the woods and no-one is there to hear it
will the cat live or survive?
( drbroon a poor wee monkey stole his face, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:28, archived)

peacocks don't lay eggs

( plentyofants can't start a fire without a spork, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:29, archived)

You find me something not observed first. LOL
That's where it gets wierd for me. Just because
YOU are not locked onto its frame doesn't mean
something else is already. Or even will be later...
My brain gets mushy right about there...
( Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:30, archived)

it's quite simply
if something is unprovable, it is equally true and false.
( drbroon a poor wee monkey stole his face, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:35, archived)

Fine enough.
Yet, applying that to the physical realm is
much more difficult. Criteria of "state" is
where I get lost in the idea.
( Tahkcalb ω∞ for sigs, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:43, archived)

yes.
that's where the problem comes in. he devised the problem to attack that hypothesis.
( drbroon a poor wee monkey stole his face, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:57, archived)

this is why a lot of people are doubtful about the whole 'something observing it is the special thing' business
besides, even if it was that, the idea is that it's not been observed from outside since you set up the 'thing that kills it that depends on a decay event' apparatus. those observations beforehand wouldn't matter

anyway, enough of this. he only thought it up as a 'wouldn't it be an odd situation if this happened?' kind of musing, didn't he
( plentyofants can't start a fire without a spork, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:38, archived)

it was an unsolvable mathematical joke played on his mate
oh, those mathematicians, fucking hilarious lot.
( drbroon a poor wee monkey stole his face, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:41, archived)

It depends really, on a quantum level it can be in both states.
But the probability of it being so is remote if not near impossible. Not to mention it being both dead and alive simultaneously for however short a time period would be immeasurable.
(Jeru War and Piss, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:18, archived)

In fairness, I've not a shitting clue what I'm talking about. Though apparently I have enough self importance to lecture other people about it.
IT'S FUN, EH, WHAT WHAT.
( Ttssattsr farting words onto the websites, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:03, archived)

I wouldn't know
as I have you on ignore.
(Jeru War and Piss, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:04, archived)

That's cool. I've had you on ignore for a good long time.

( Ttssattsr farting words onto the websites, Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:05, archived)

Going on strike ?

( Valin That that is that . . . is that . . ., Thu 26 Jun 2008, 1:02, archived)