Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Scow2]

Bah, i have an artifact with a picture of itself on it.
Fractals ftw.

Fractals? Or merely a simplified image that still is recognizable as the artifact in question?

[Kofthefens]

Back to the idea of the artifact isn't described until you view it:

Does this mean you can save, view it, then save-scum if you didn't like it and get something new?

Yes. It won't change the type of objects or the materials decorating it, but it should change the description. Please test though.

If you want to change the type of object, then you have to savescum to a time before they complete it.

[GreatWyrmGold]

They have a 50% chance of doing so per hour if left in a box with a flask of poison, a Geiger counter, and a single atom of a radioactive isotope with a half-life of an hour. Or maybe that's dying.

It's not about probability of it happening, it is that it will simultaneously happen and not happen until observed to be one or the other.

Assuming you're interested in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Under that interpretation, the cat would have 50% created an artifact and 50% not created one. On the other hand, in the multiple-universes theory, the universe splits into two, one where the artifact was created and one where it was not. For various reasons, including time travel issues, I prefer the latter.

They have a 50% chance of doing so per hour if left in a box with a flask of poison, a Geiger counter, and a single atom of a radioactive isotope with a half-life of an hour. Or maybe that's dying.

It's not about probability of it happening, it is that it will simultaneously happen and not happen until observed to be one or the other.

Look, Schrodinger was a closed-minded fool. Superposition of states does happen in the quantum level, and yes, it doesn't work that way when you bring it into the realm of classical mechanics, but there's a bridge we have to cross. He was just being unreasonable. Too bad we observe him to be dead.

Isn't the whole idea with the cat to show that if you accept that for particles superposition of states exists, then it must exist for classical objects also? As it is basically about a thought-experiment where you are giving a cat the wave function of a particle.

It was Schrödinger's attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but he failed to consider that sometimes what seems absurd to a brilliant physicist is true regardless.

If it was reduction ad absurdum, what SHOULD happen when you lock the cat in the box? Why should the laws of physics turn off when we lock cats in boxes?

[Varnifane]

Why should the laws of physics turn off when we lock cats in boxes?

This is why I keep coming back.

[misko27]

Why should the laws of physics turn off when we lock cats in boxes?

Technically, In DF, physics should cease when a cat is put into a box. Think about it, it is incapable of self-locomotion, incapable of injury, and other things,

[Hotaru]

They have a 50% chance of doing so per hour if left in a box with a flask of poison, a Geiger counter, and a single atom of a radioactive isotope with a half-life of an hour. Or maybe that's dying.

It's not about probability of it happening, it is that it will simultaneously happen and not happen until observed to be one or the other.

Look, Schrodinger was a closed-minded fool. Superposition of states does happen in the quantum level, and yes, it doesn't work that way when you bring it into the realm of classical mechanics, but there's a bridge we have to cross. He was just being unreasonable. Too bad we observe him to be dead.

Isn't the whole idea with the cat to show that if you accept that for particles superposition of states exists, then it must exist for classical objects also? As it is basically about a thought-experiment where you are giving a cat the wave function of a particle.

It was Schrödinger's attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but he failed to consider that sometimes what seems absurd to a brilliant physicist is true regardless.

If it was reduction ad absurdum, what SHOULD happen when you lock the cat in the box? Why should the laws of physics turn off when we lock cats in boxes?
[/quote]

He was, historically, trying to make the point that you can't have a 50% alive/50% dead cat and therefore something is incorrect. Which it isn't.

[Hotaru]

They have a 50% chance of doing so per hour if left in a box with a flask of poison, a Geiger counter, and a single atom of a radioactive isotope with a half-life of an hour. Or maybe that's dying.

It's not about probability of it happening, it is that it will simultaneously happen and not happen until observed to be one or the other.

Look, Schrodinger was a closed-minded fool. Superposition of states does happen in the quantum level, and yes, it doesn't work that way when you bring it into the realm of classical mechanics, but there's a bridge we have to cross. He was just being unreasonable. Too bad we observe him to be dead.

Isn't the whole idea with the cat to show that if you accept that for particles superposition of states exists, then it must exist for classical objects also? As it is basically about a thought-experiment where you are giving a cat the wave function of a particle.

It was Schrödinger's attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but he failed to consider that sometimes what seems absurd to a brilliant physicist is true regardless.

If it was reduction ad absurdum, what SHOULD happen when you lock the cat in the box? Why should the laws of physics turn off when we lock cats in boxes?

He was, historically, trying to make the point that you can't have a 50% alive/50% dead cat and therefore something is incorrect. Which it isn't.

[i2amroy]

On topic:
As somebody pointed out, DF doesn't actually generate the descriptions of engravings/decorations until you look at them (either in legends or at the item/engraving itself IIRC). So you can end up with designs of things that were created after the picture was.

Off topic:
Schrödinger actually hated the whole Schrödinger's Cat analogy, and said at several points that "it was one of the worst analogies that I ever have said". Yes it contains the basic idea, and yes, Schrödinger did realize all of the problems with it after he said it (classical mechanics, the cat is an observer, etc.). The problem was that after he said it people caught on to the analogy and wouldn't let the darn thing go, and so it has become permanently inscribed into our science regardless of the fact that it is a terrible analogy.

[Berossus]

They have a 50% chance of doing so per hour if left in a box with a flask of poison, a Geiger counter, and a single atom of a radioactive isotope with a half-life of an hour. Or maybe that's dying.

It's not about probability of it happening, it is that it will simultaneously happen and not happen until observed to be one or the other.

Look, Schrodinger was a closed-minded fool. Superposition of states does happen in the quantum level, and yes, it doesn't work that way when you bring it into the realm of classical mechanics, but there's a bridge we have to cross. He was just being unreasonable. Too bad we observe him to be dead.

Isn't the whole idea with the cat to show that if you accept that for particles superposition of states exists, then it must exist for classical objects also? As it is basically about a thought-experiment where you are giving a cat the wave function of a particle.

It was Schrödinger's attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but he failed to consider that sometimes what seems absurd to a brilliant physicist is true regardless.

If it was reduction ad absurdum, what SHOULD happen when you lock the cat in the box? Why should the laws of physics turn off when we lock cats in boxes?

He was, historically, trying to make the point that you can't have a 50% alive/50% dead cat and therefore something is incorrect. Which it isn't.

Did he consider husked cats?

[Di]

temp img uploader

[GreatWyrmGold]

They have a 50% chance of doing so per hour if left in a box with a flask of poison, a Geiger counter, and a single atom of a radioactive isotope with a half-life of an hour. Or maybe that's dying.

It's not about probability of it happening, it is that it will simultaneously happen and not happen until observed to be one or the other.

Look, Schrodinger was a closed-minded fool. Superposition of states does happen in the quantum level, and yes, it doesn't work that way when you bring it into the realm of classical mechanics, but there's a bridge we have to cross. He was just being unreasonable. Too bad we observe him to be dead.

Isn't the whole idea with the cat to show that if you accept that for particles superposition of states exists, then it must exist for classical objects also? As it is basically about a thought-experiment where you are giving a cat the wave function of a particle.

It was Schrödinger's attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but he failed to consider that sometimes what seems absurd to a brilliant physicist is true regardless.

If it was reduction ad absurdum, what SHOULD happen when you lock the cat in the box? Why should the laws of physics turn off when we lock cats in boxes?

He was, historically, trying to make the point that you can't have a 50% alive/50% dead cat and therefore something is incorrect. Which it isn't.

The general idea is sound. Why should individual atoms work differently than whole scads of atoms?

[muzzz]

[snipped]
The general idea is sound. Why should individual atoms work differently than whole scads of atoms?

Issues of scale. For example: I have no issues with individual atoms, or even small compounds, entering my bloodstream. I would not, however, like to find out what happens if an entire cat made it's way in there.

[GreatWyrmGold]

[snipped]
The general idea is sound. Why should individual atoms work differently than whole scads of atoms?

Issues of scale. For example: I have no issues with individual atoms, or even small compounds, entering my bloodstream. I would not, however, like to find out what happens if an entire cat made it's way in there.

If your bloodstream was big enough, it wouldn't matter. Besides, the analogy is faulty--a better analogy might be comparing what happens if some weird quantum effect happens to an electron and asking why that couldn't happen to or affect a person.

[muzzz]

[snipped]
The general idea is sound. Why should individual atoms work differently than whole scads of atoms?

Issues of scale. For example: I have no issues with individual atoms, or even small compounds, entering my bloodstream. I would not, however, like to find out what happens if an entire cat made it's way in there.

If your bloodstream was big enough, it wouldn't matter. Besides, the analogy is faulty--a better analogy might be comparing what happens if some weird quantum effect happens to an electron and asking why that couldn't happen to or affect a person.

But my bloodstream isn't big enough, that's the point. Quantum effects don't scale up to our everyday, classical-mechanics scale. And we should be thankful for that. 9 out 10 times, the answer to "what would happen if X did scale up like that?" is "the universe as we know it wouldn't exist".

[GreatWyrmGold]

[snipped]
The general idea is sound. Why should individual atoms work differently than whole scads of atoms?

Issues of scale. For example: I have no issues with individual atoms, or even small compounds, entering my bloodstream. I would not, however, like to find out what happens if an entire cat made it's way in there.

If your bloodstream was big enough, it wouldn't matter. Besides, the analogy is faulty--a better analogy might be comparing what happens if some weird quantum effect happens to an electron and asking why that couldn't happen to or affect a person.

But my bloodstream isn't big enough, that's the point. Quantum effects don't scale up to our everyday, classical-mechanics scale. And we should be thankful for that. 9 out 10 times, the answer to "what would happen if X did scale up like that?" is "the universe as we know it wouldn't exist".

And even if I accept your premise, what about when the effects of quantum thingies affect the macroscopic world, a la the exact thought experiment we were talking about?