this post was submitted on 16 Dec 2024
33 points (73.9% liked)

Dad Jokes

15705 readers
592 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
 

It was quite the paradox!

all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fjordbasa@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 4 points 1 day 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 4 points 1 day ago

Pavlov and Schrödinger bump into each other:

  • I trained my dog to play dead.
  • Genius!
[–] Mishmash2000@lemmy.nz 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Congrats, you fixed the joke.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

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

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Pavlov's dog and Shrodinger's cat.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Obviously. But what about them?

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 day ago (2 children)

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 day 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 day ago

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

[–] Amanduh@lemm.ee -4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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 day ago (2 children)

This reads like a LLM explanation, was it?

[–] Amanduh@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

Ofc i ain't typing allat

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 day ago (2 children)

It was just chapgpt to help you friend :)

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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 6 hours ago

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

[–] rah@feddit.uk -1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Amanduh@lemm.ee 2 points 22 hours ago

How will I ever carry on carrying this burden?

[–] HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world -3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] rah@feddit.uk 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] papalonian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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 day ago

nope, still doesn't work

[–] HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago

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