Talk:3134: Wavefunction Collapse - Revision history

2600:4040:9485:2700:26B4:3E68:DCDA:8698: Nitpicking quantum mechanics!

2025-12-27T03:36:49Z

Nitpicking quantum mechanics!

47.42.131.195: Explaining why wavefunction collapse might not exist.

2025-12-26T22:11:47Z

Explaining why wavefunction collapse might not exist.

64.189.140.33 at 06:45, 18 September 2025

2025-09-18T06:45:16Z

64.189.140.33 at 06:43, 18 September 2025

2025-09-18T06:43:53Z

57.140.28.26: fixed typo

2025-09-02T15:04:53Z

fixed typo

57.140.28.26 at 13:42, 2 September 2025

2025-09-02T13:42:29Z

92.17.62.87 at 01:14, 30 August 2025

2025-08-30T01:14:28Z

92.17.62.87 at 01:14, 30 August 2025

2025-08-30T01:14:01Z

92.17.62.87 at 01:11, 30 August 2025

2025-08-30T01:11:30Z

Kynde at 19:37, 29 August 2025

2025-08-29T19:37:05Z

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 For crying out loud, the wavefunction collapse has never been observed. [[Special:Contributions/38.70.240.202|38.70.240.202]] 02:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
 :For people who do not get the above, it is entirely possible to do quantum mechanics without wavefunction collapse, such as in the {{w|Many-worlds interpretation}} [[Special:Contributions/47.42.131.195|47.42.131.195]] 22:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
 The term professor actually can also mean "a person who affirms a faith in or allegiance to something." which continues the religious aspect of having a soul. [[Special:Contributions/147.161.213.89|147.161.213.89]] 02:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:11, 26 December 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:

	For crying out loud, the wavefunction collapse has never been observed. [[Special:Contributions/38.70.240.202\|38.70.240.202]] 02:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)		For crying out loud, the wavefunction collapse has never been observed. [[Special:Contributions/38.70.240.202\|38.70.240.202]] 02:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
		+	:For people who do not get the above, it is entirely possible to do quantum mechanics without wavefunction collapse, such as in the {{w\|Many-worlds interpretation}} [[Special:Contributions/47.42.131.195\|47.42.131.195]] 22:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

	The term professor actually can also mean "a person who affirms a faith in or allegiance to something." which continues the religious aspect of having a soul. [[Special:Contributions/147.161.213.89\|147.161.213.89]] 02:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)		The term professor actually can also mean "a person who affirms a faith in or allegiance to something." which continues the religious aspect of having a soul. [[Special:Contributions/147.161.213.89\|147.161.213.89]] 02:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ::I also disagree about it being a 'likely' D&D reference, because it isn't (for example) any of the single rows/columns in that grid, nor "Lawful Good"/"True Neutral"/"Chaotic Evil" or "Chaotic Evil"/"True Neutral"/"Lawful God" (both the 'diagonals'), nor even something like "Neutral Good", "Chaotic Neutral", "Lawful Evil", Even assuming Bad==Evil, 'Chaotic' isn't a third item in that list, and we know that Randall could have easily written a far more 'accurate' D&D allusion than this. And Chaoticity itself isn't an obvious reference to D&D, merely something that is part of D&D, much as many other things are, what with the {{w|Chaos}} being a concept used long before/after the mid-'70s creation of D&D, or perhaps whenever after then that this particular alignment system got added. But that's just my own understanding. Maybe 5thEd D&D says things different from the 1st/2nd edition material that was always 'my' experience, in which case I'd appreciate a link onward to whatever states this more modern take. [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87|92.17.62.87]] 01:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
 :::In all editions except for the number who shall not be named (before 5th but after 3.5) D&D uses the two axis alignment system where good/evil and chaotic/lawful are unrelated to each other. 4th edition had a one dimensional LG->G->N->E->CE alignment that *maaay* fit with this Good->Bad->Chaotic[_Bad], but I doubt it since the smushing of the alignments was one of the most disliked parts of that ruleset and a lot of people who were already familiar with the two axis system just used it in 4th anyway.[[Special:Contributions/57.140.28.26|57.140.28.26]] 15:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
-:not-necessarily-exhaustive list of comics that use a similar format: [[660]] (right/wrong/very wrong), [[803]] (right/wrong/very wrong), [[2529]] (weirdly abstract/weirdly concrete/cursed), [[3115]] (vague/precise/cursed), and of course this one (bad/good/chaotic). i think that's enough for a category; is "comedic triad" a good name?
+:not-necessarily-exhaustive list of comics that use a similar format: [[660]] (right/wrong/very wrong), [[803]] (right/wrong/very wrong), [[2529]] (weirdly abstract/weirdly concrete/cursed), [[3115]] (vague/precise/cursed), and of course this one (bad/good/chaotic). i think that's enough for a category; is "comedic triad" a good name? [[Special:Contributions/64.189.140.33|64.189.140.33]] 06:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:43, 18 September 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:
	::I also disagree about it being a 'likely' D&D reference, because it isn't (for example) any of the single rows/columns in that grid, nor "Lawful Good"/"True Neutral"/"Chaotic Evil" or "Chaotic Evil"/"True Neutral"/"Lawful God" (both the 'diagonals'), nor even something like "Neutral Good", "Chaotic Neutral", "Lawful Evil", Even assuming Bad==Evil, 'Chaotic' isn't a third item in that list, and we know that Randall could have easily written a far more 'accurate' D&D allusion than this. And Chaoticity itself isn't an obvious reference to D&D, merely something that is part of D&D, much as many other things are, what with the {{w\|Chaos}} being a concept used long before/after the mid-'70s creation of D&D, or perhaps whenever after then that this particular alignment system got added. But that's just my own understanding. Maybe 5thEd D&D says things different from the 1st/2nd edition material that was always 'my' experience, in which case I'd appreciate a link onward to whatever states this more modern take. [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87\|92.17.62.87]] 01:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)		::I also disagree about it being a 'likely' D&D reference, because it isn't (for example) any of the single rows/columns in that grid, nor "Lawful Good"/"True Neutral"/"Chaotic Evil" or "Chaotic Evil"/"True Neutral"/"Lawful God" (both the 'diagonals'), nor even something like "Neutral Good", "Chaotic Neutral", "Lawful Evil", Even assuming Bad==Evil, 'Chaotic' isn't a third item in that list, and we know that Randall could have easily written a far more 'accurate' D&D allusion than this. And Chaoticity itself isn't an obvious reference to D&D, merely something that is part of D&D, much as many other things are, what with the {{w\|Chaos}} being a concept used long before/after the mid-'70s creation of D&D, or perhaps whenever after then that this particular alignment system got added. But that's just my own understanding. Maybe 5thEd D&D says things different from the 1st/2nd edition material that was always 'my' experience, in which case I'd appreciate a link onward to whatever states this more modern take. [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87\|92.17.62.87]] 01:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
	:::In all editions except for the number who shall not be named (before 5th but after 3.5) D&D uses the two axis alignment system where good/evil and chaotic/lawful are unrelated to each other. 4th edition had a one dimensional LG->G->N->E->CE alignment that maaay fit with this Good->Bad->Chaotic[_Bad], but I doubt it since the smushing of the alignments was one of the most disliked parts of that ruleset and a lot of people who were already familiar with the two axis system just used it in 4th anyway.[[Special:Contributions/57.140.28.26\|57.140.28.26]] 15:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)		:::In all editions except for the number who shall not be named (before 5th but after 3.5) D&D uses the two axis alignment system where good/evil and chaotic/lawful are unrelated to each other. 4th edition had a one dimensional LG->G->N->E->CE alignment that maaay fit with this Good->Bad->Chaotic[_Bad], but I doubt it since the smushing of the alignments was one of the most disliked parts of that ruleset and a lot of people who were already familiar with the two axis system just used it in 4th anyway.[[Special:Contributions/57.140.28.26\|57.140.28.26]] 15:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
		+	:not-necessarily-exhaustive list of comics that use a similar format: [[660]] (right/wrong/very wrong), [[803]] (right/wrong/very wrong), [[2529]] (weirdly abstract/weirdly concrete/cursed), [[3115]] (vague/precise/cursed), and of course this one (bad/good/chaotic). i think that's enough for a category; is "comedic triad" a good name?

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ::As a 'super-category', yes, I would consider that all these things come under the same large umbrella. As mentioned by another, it's basically a "rule of three" punchline. It's all a lot closer together than "there are good electricians, bad electricians and dead electricians" are from "I came, I saw, I conquered". They aren't the ''exact same'' 'rule of three' format, and perhaps some sub-categorisation can group together "good/bad", "bad/good" and "other", in one case and completely different rhetoric triplets in other cases.
 ::I also disagree about it being a 'likely' D&D reference, because it isn't (for example) any of the single rows/columns in that grid, nor "Lawful Good"/"True Neutral"/"Chaotic Evil" or "Chaotic Evil"/"True Neutral"/"Lawful God" (both the 'diagonals'), nor even something like "Neutral Good", "Chaotic Neutral", "Lawful Evil", Even assuming Bad==Evil, 'Chaotic' isn't a third item in that list, and we know that Randall could have easily written a far more 'accurate' D&D allusion than this. And Chaoticity itself isn't an obvious reference to D&D, merely something that is part of D&D, much as many other things are, what with the {{w|Chaos}} being a concept used long before/after the mid-'70s creation of D&D, or perhaps whenever after then that this particular alignment system got added. But that's just my own understanding. Maybe 5thEd D&D says things different from the 1st/2nd edition material that was always 'my' experience, in which case I'd appreciate a link onward to whatever states this more modern take. [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87|92.17.62.87]] 01:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
-:::In all editions except for the number who shall not be named (before 5th but after 3.5) D&D uses the two axis alignment system where good/evil and chaotic/neutral are unrelated to each other. 4th edition had a one dimensional LG->G->N->E->CE alignment that *maaay* fit with this Good->Bad->Chaotic[_Bad], but I doubt it since the smushing of the alignments was one of the most disliked parts of that ruleset and a lot of people who were already familiar with the two axis system just used it in 4th anyway.[[Special:Contributions/57.140.28.26|57.140.28.26]] 13:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
+:::In all editions except for the number who shall not be named (before 5th but after 3.5) D&D uses the two axis alignment system where good/evil and chaotic/lawful are unrelated to each other. 4th edition had a one dimensional LG->G->N->E->CE alignment that *maaay* fit with this Good->Bad->Chaotic[_Bad], but I doubt it since the smushing of the alignments was one of the most disliked parts of that ruleset and a lot of people who were already familiar with the two axis system just used it in 4th anyway.[[Special:Contributions/57.140.28.26|57.140.28.26]] 15:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:42, 2 September 2025
Line 28:		Line 28:
	::As a 'super-category', yes, I would consider that all these things come under the same large umbrella. As mentioned by another, it's basically a "rule of three" punchline. It's all a lot closer together than "there are good electricians, bad electricians and dead electricians" are from "I came, I saw, I conquered". They aren't the ''exact same'' 'rule of three' format, and perhaps some sub-categorisation can group together "good/bad", "bad/good" and "other", in one case and completely different rhetoric triplets in other cases.		::As a 'super-category', yes, I would consider that all these things come under the same large umbrella. As mentioned by another, it's basically a "rule of three" punchline. It's all a lot closer together than "there are good electricians, bad electricians and dead electricians" are from "I came, I saw, I conquered". They aren't the ''exact same'' 'rule of three' format, and perhaps some sub-categorisation can group together "good/bad", "bad/good" and "other", in one case and completely different rhetoric triplets in other cases.
	::I also disagree about it being a 'likely' D&D reference, because it isn't (for example) any of the single rows/columns in that grid, nor "Lawful Good"/"True Neutral"/"Chaotic Evil" or "Chaotic Evil"/"True Neutral"/"Lawful God" (both the 'diagonals'), nor even something like "Neutral Good", "Chaotic Neutral", "Lawful Evil", Even assuming Bad==Evil, 'Chaotic' isn't a third item in that list, and we know that Randall could have easily written a far more 'accurate' D&D allusion than this. And Chaoticity itself isn't an obvious reference to D&D, merely something that is part of D&D, much as many other things are, what with the {{w\|Chaos}} being a concept used long before/after the mid-'70s creation of D&D, or perhaps whenever after then that this particular alignment system got added. But that's just my own understanding. Maybe 5thEd D&D says things different from the 1st/2nd edition material that was always 'my' experience, in which case I'd appreciate a link onward to whatever states this more modern take. [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87\|92.17.62.87]] 01:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)		::I also disagree about it being a 'likely' D&D reference, because it isn't (for example) any of the single rows/columns in that grid, nor "Lawful Good"/"True Neutral"/"Chaotic Evil" or "Chaotic Evil"/"True Neutral"/"Lawful God" (both the 'diagonals'), nor even something like "Neutral Good", "Chaotic Neutral", "Lawful Evil", Even assuming Bad==Evil, 'Chaotic' isn't a third item in that list, and we know that Randall could have easily written a far more 'accurate' D&D allusion than this. And Chaoticity itself isn't an obvious reference to D&D, merely something that is part of D&D, much as many other things are, what with the {{w\|Chaos}} being a concept used long before/after the mid-'70s creation of D&D, or perhaps whenever after then that this particular alignment system got added. But that's just my own understanding. Maybe 5thEd D&D says things different from the 1st/2nd edition material that was always 'my' experience, in which case I'd appreciate a link onward to whatever states this more modern take. [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87\|92.17.62.87]] 01:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
		+	:::In all editions except for the number who shall not be named (before 5th but after 3.5) D&D uses the two axis alignment system where good/evil and chaotic/neutral are unrelated to each other. 4th edition had a one dimensional LG->G->N->E->CE alignment that maaay fit with this Good->Bad->Chaotic[_Bad], but I doubt it since the smushing of the alignments was one of the most disliked parts of that ruleset and a lot of people who were already familiar with the two axis system just used it in 4th anyway.[[Special:Contributions/57.140.28.26\|57.140.28.26]] 13:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 we should make a category for the good-bad-weird format. seems like it's seen enough use. [[Special:Contributions/152.86.78.100|152.86.78.100]] 00:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
 :I would not consider the [[:Category:Unsolved Problems]] as being similar to this setup or the other two mentioned. And those other two do not use the same last word as this one, I think those three are a bit few. If you can find a few more along similar lines I would consider it as a category. But if so, what should we call it? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 19:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
-::As a 'super-category', yes, I would consider that all these things come under the same large umbrella. As mentioned by another, it's basically a "rule of three" punchline. It's all a lot closer together than "there are good electricians, bad electricians and dead electricians" are from "I came, I saw, I conquered". They aren't the ''exact same'' 'rule of three' format, and perhaps some sub-categorisation can group together "good/bad", "bad/good" and "other", in one case and completely different triplets in other cases.
+::As a 'super-category', yes, I would consider that all these things come under the same large umbrella. As mentioned by another, it's basically a "rule of three" punchline. It's all a lot closer together than "there are good electricians, bad electricians and dead electricians" are from "I came, I saw, I conquered". They aren't the ''exact same'' 'rule of three' format, and perhaps some sub-categorisation can group together "good/bad", "bad/good" and "other", in one case and completely different rhetoric triplets in other cases.
 ::I also disagree about it being a 'likely' D&D reference, because it isn't (for example) any of the single rows/columns in that grid, nor "Lawful Good"/"True Neutral"/"Chaotic Evil" or "Chaotic Evil"/"True Neutral"/"Lawful God" (both the 'diagonals'), nor even something like "Neutral Good", "Chaotic Neutral", "Lawful Evil", Even assuming Bad==Evil, 'Chaotic' isn't a third item in that list, and we know that Randall could have easily written a far more 'accurate' D&D allusion than this. And Chaoticity itself isn't an obvious reference to D&D, merely something that is part of D&D, much as many other things are, what with the {{w|Chaos}} being a concept used long before/after the mid-'70s creation of D&D, or perhaps whenever after then that this particular alignment system got added. But that's just my own understanding. Maybe 5thEd D&D says things different from the 1st/2nd edition material that was always 'my' experience, in which case I'd appreciate a link onward to whatever states this more modern take. [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87|92.17.62.87]] 01:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:11, 30 August 2025
Line 26:		Line 26:
	we should make a category for the good-bad-weird format. seems like it's seen enough use. [[Special:Contributions/152.86.78.100\|152.86.78.100]] 00:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)		we should make a category for the good-bad-weird format. seems like it's seen enough use. [[Special:Contributions/152.86.78.100\|152.86.78.100]] 00:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
	:I would not consider the [[:Category:Unsolved Problems]] as being similar to this setup or the other two mentioned. And those other two do not use the same last word as this one, I think those three are a bit few. If you can find a few more along similar lines I would consider it as a category. But if so, what should we call it? --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 19:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)		:I would not consider the [[:Category:Unsolved Problems]] as being similar to this setup or the other two mentioned. And those other two do not use the same last word as this one, I think those three are a bit few. If you can find a few more along similar lines I would consider it as a category. But if so, what should we call it? --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 19:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
		+	::As a 'super-category', yes, I would consider that all these things come under the umbrella. As mentioned by another, it's basically a "rule of three" punchline. It's all a lot closer together than "there are good electricians, bad electricians and dead electricians" are from "I came, I saw, I conquered". The aren't the ''exact same'' 'rule of three' format, and perhaps some sub-categorisation can group together "good/bad", "bad/good" and "other".
		+	::I also disagree about it being a 'likely' D&D reference, because it isn't (for example any of the single rows/columns in that grid, nor "Lawful Good"/"True Neutral"/"Chaotic Evil" or "Chaotic Evil"/"True Neutral"/"Lawful God" (both the 'diagonals'), nor even something like "Neutral Good", "Chaotic Neutral", "Lawful Evil", Even assuming Bad==Evil, 'Chaotic' isn't a third item in that list, and we know that Randall could have easily written a far more 'accurate' D&D allusion than this. And Chaoticity itself isn't an obvious reference to D&D, merely something that is part of D&D, much as many other things are, what with the {{w\|Chaos}} being a concept used long before/after the mid-'70s creation of D&D, or perhaps whenever after then that this particular alignment system got added. But that's just my own understanding. Maybe 5thEd D&D says things different from the 1st/2nd edition material that was always 'my' experience, in which case I'd appreciate a link onward to whatever states this more modern take. [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87\|92.17.62.87]] 01:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:37, 29 August 2025
Line 25:		Line 25:

	we should make a category for the good-bad-weird format. seems like it's seen enough use. [[Special:Contributions/152.86.78.100\|152.86.78.100]] 00:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)		we should make a category for the good-bad-weird format. seems like it's seen enough use. [[Special:Contributions/152.86.78.100\|152.86.78.100]] 00:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
		+	:I would not consider the [[:Category:Unsolved Problems]] as being similar to this setup or the other two mentioned. And those other two do not use the same last word as this one, I think those three are a bit few. If you can find a few more along similar lines I would consider it as a category. But if so, what should we call it? --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 19:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)