40

It was quite the paradox!

all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Mishmash2000@lemmy.nz 17 points 1 month ago

Schrödinger and Fermi bumped into each other once. It was quite the pair o' Docs!

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Congrats, you fixed the joke.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Don't get it. Suspect it doesn't actually make sense.

[-] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago

I get the idea, but I don't think it works quite right.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago
[-] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Pavlov's dog and Shrodinger's cat.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Obviously. But what about them?

[-] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago

That's my interpretation of what they were going for. If there's any deeper meaning behind it, I don't know it.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 2 points 1 month ago

That's my interpretation of what they were going for.

I'm asking what the joke is. That's the focus here. Because it's presented as a joke. Even though it appears not to be. If you get it, please explain it.

[-] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

This is why I don't think it's presented well, because that's the only thing I get from it as well.

[-] Amanduh@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

Yeah i think it has something to do with a cat and dog

[-] HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

It both makes sense and doesn't at the same time but eventually the punchline might ring a bell.

[-] papalonian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Pavlov's dogs and Schrodinger's cat?

There's something there, I think, but it doesn't land as is.

I sat on it for a while and came up with this:

Pavlov and Schrodinger were flying together to a Thinker's Convention. Their plane lost power and, in effort to make a safe landing, the pilot dumped their cargo.

For citizens below, it was raining cats and dogs.

[-] superkret@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

nope, still doesn't work

[-] HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Some of the cats might be dead due to Shrodinger's paradox.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Being mysterious doesn't help me I'm afraid. Still don't get it. The punchline doesn't make sense and doesn't ring a bell.

The fact that you haven't just explained the joke makes me think you can't because it doesn't work as a joke. Right?

[-] HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

They are doctors who have paradoxical theories (pair of docs) but after some research Pavlov's theory of conditioning is not a paradox so the site I ripped this joke off of may have used the wrong doctor.

[-] rah@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago
[-] Amanduh@lemm.ee -4 points 1 month ago

This joke combines the concepts associated with Pavlov and Schrödinger, two famous scientists, creating a clever wordplay that also references their respective experiments.

  1. Pavlov: Known for his classical conditioning experiment with dogs. He rang a bell before feeding dogs, conditioning them to salivate whenever they heard the bell.

  2. Schrödinger: Famous for the thought experiment Schrödinger's Cat, where a cat in a box is simultaneously alive and dead until observed. This illustrates a paradox in quantum mechanics about the nature of superposition.

The Joke:

When Pavlov and Schrödinger "bumped into each other," two things happen at once, creating the humor:

Pavlov's reaction: If something unexpected happens (like bumping into someone), the event might "trigger" a conditioned response — such as Pavlov salivating because he’s used to the bell.

Schrödinger's paradox: The joke suggests that before observation, they are both aware and unaware of bumping into each other, akin to Schrödinger's cat being alive and dead.

The Punchline: "It was quite the paradox!"

The joke itself is a paradox because it humorously combines Pavlov's predictable conditioning with Schrödinger's uncertainty, two contradictory ideas.

The wordplay is clever because "paradox" not only describes Schrödinger's cat but also the confusing situation of this fictional encounter.

[-] k_rol@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

This reads like a LLM explanation, was it?

[-] superkret@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago
[-] Amanduh@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Ofc i ain't typing allat

[-] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago

Uhh.. this analysis makes no sense at all. And now OP has admitted that the joke doesn't make sense and doesn't work. Still, just for edification:

Pavlov's reaction: If something unexpected happens (like bumping into someone), the event might "trigger" a conditioned response — such as Pavlov salivating because he’s used to the bell.

There was no conditioned response.

The wordplay is clever because "paradox" not only describes Schrödinger's cat but also the confusing situation of this fictional encounter.

There was no confusion.

[-] Amanduh@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago

It was just chapgpt to help you friend :)

[-] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago

ChatGPT is pretty helpful despite the hate. I've found myself using it quite a bit recently. Situations like these where you don't get a joke are good ones in particular, since it's something you might have struggled to figure out just by Googling before. However, you do need to be able to check the output to gain value from it and that's kind of one of its limitations since you sometimes end up needing to do as much research or work verifying what it tells you as you tried to avoid by using it.

In this case, where it's not so much a question of facts and it's more about interpretation, a simple test of asking yourself "does this make sense?" could have provided a clue for you that chatGPT was struggling here. One of its problems is that it just always tries to be helpful and as a function of how it works that often ends up favouring the production of some kind of response over an accurate response even when it can't really produce an answer. It doesn't actually just magically know everything and if you can't confidently explain the joke to someone else in your own words after reading it's "explanation" then the odds are good that it just fed you nonsense which superficially looked like it must mean something.

In this case it seems, that the biggest problem was that the joke itself didn't entirely make sense on its premise, so there wasn't really a correct answer and chatGPT just tried really hard to conjure one where it didn't really exist.

[-] Amanduh@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

I knew it didn't make that much sense. I just didn't care lol

[-] rah@feddit.uk -1 points 1 month ago

You didn't help me, you wasted my time. Pro-tip: be quiet.

[-] Amanduh@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

How will I ever carry on carrying this burden?

[-] fjordbasa@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Shroedinger’s cat is a paradox, but what does Pavlov’s dog bring to the joke? There’s no mention of bells or operant conditioning or anything like that. It seems like the “joke” is just that they’re both animals related to scientific concepts

[-] HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

I did end up researching Pavlov after posting and whether he had any famous paradoxical discoveries. This joke was copypasta from a submission site I am afraid, lol. They are doctors, a pair of docs.

[-] BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Pavlov and Schrödinger bump into each other:

  • I trained my dog to play dead.
  • Genius!
[-] Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 weeks ago

Would have made more sense with Daffy and Donald

this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
40 points (76.3% liked)

Dad Jokes

15856 readers
1 users here now

Description

This is a community for sharing those cheesy “dad” jokes that invoke an eye roll or chuckle.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS