Like physics? You'll probably get this joke:

[SkyHog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W9tHxtsGys

I love it (and I get it). If physics didn't involve so much math, I'd be a physics major.

 

[jesse]

I get it.

 

[wbarnhill]

I get it.

Actually you don't, because by getting it, you've changed the outcome.

(PS - The cat is 25% dead.)

 

[jesse]

Actually you don't, because by getting it, you've changed the outcome.

Ah..ha.... ha.....

ha.

 

[Keith Lane]

I get it, but...........

Louis Marinoff1
(1) Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Canada

Abstract In quantum domains, the measurement (or observation) of one of a pair of complementary variables introduces an unavoidable uncertainty in the value of that variable's complement. Such uncertainties are negligible in Newtonian worlds, where observations can be made without appreciably disturbing the observed system. Hence, one would not expect that an observation of a non-quantum probabilistic outcome could affect a probability distribution over subsequently possible states, in a way that would conflict with classical probability calculations. This paper examines three problems in which observations appear to affect the probabilities and expected utilities of subsequent outcomes, in ways which may appear paradoxical. Deeper analysis of these problems reveals that the anomalies arise, not from paradox, but rather from faulty inferences drawn from the observations themselves. Thus the notion of

quantum

decision theory is disparaged.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/gwm825t746554427/

 

[EdFred]

(PS - The cat is 25% dead.)

You sure you aren't confusing Schrodinger with Heisenberg?

 

[ScottM]

Actually I watched this video at a highly accelerated relativistic speed and was able to see who the real winner was before it was affected by the quantum measurement.

 

[bstratt]

I get it, but...........

Louis Marinoff1
(1) Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Canada

Abstract In quantum domains, the measurement (or observation) of one of a pair of complementary variables introduces an unavoidable uncertainty in the value of that variable's complement. Such uncertainties are negligible in Newtonian worlds, where observations can be made without appreciably disturbing the observed system. Hence, one would not expect that an observation of a non-quantum probabilistic outcome could affect a probability distribution over subsequently possible states, in a way that would conflict with classical probability calculations. This paper examines three problems in which observations appear to affect the probabilities and expected utilities of subsequent outcomes, in ways which may appear paradoxical. Deeper analysis of these problems reveals that the anomalies arise, not from paradox, but rather from faulty inferences drawn from the observations themselves. Thus the notion of

quantum

decision theory is disparaged.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/gwm825t746554427/

Uhhh.....yeah. Was just about to say the same thing myself!

Obviously a Canadian thing!

 

[gibbons]

I get it, but...........

Louis Marinoff1
(1) Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Canada

Abstract In quantum domains, the measurement (or observation) of one of a pair of complementary variables introduces an unavoidable uncertainty in the value of that variable's complement. Such uncertainties are negligible in Newtonian worlds, where observations can be made without appreciably disturbing the observed system. Hence, one would not expect that an observation of a non-quantum probabilistic outcome could affect a probability distribution over subsequently possible states, in a way that would conflict with classical probability calculations. This paper examines three problems in which observations appear to affect the probabilities and expected utilities of subsequent outcomes, in ways which may appear paradoxical. Deeper analysis of these problems reveals that the anomalies arise, not from paradox, but rather from faulty inferences drawn from the observations themselves. Thus the notion of

quantum

decision theory is disparaged.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/gwm825t746554427/

So, what he's saying is that we approach infinity g's in a knife edge turn? Do I have that right?