The Energon Pub

One of my friends received today an Alternators Ravage (the Jaguar variant) from a known online retailer whose name will not be mentioned here. Upon opening the box and attempting to transform the figure, he soon realized it was broken, having a defect that did not present itself upon a cursory investigation of the box from the outside.

Thus, if one cannot determine if Alternators Ravage is broken without opening the box, could the state of the figure, presented as a wavefunction, only be represented with a superposition of potential states (eigenstates), with Ravage both being broken and intact?

If we were to open the figure to determine the state of it, it would no longer be MISB, and the wavefunction would collapse. We have entangled ourselves with Ravage, so observer-states corresponding to both an intact and a broken Ravage are formed, and both are wholly independent of each other.

Thus is the nature of MISB. Can a figure truly be mint in its sealed box if it can only be represented as a superposition of broken and intact states? If so, is the creation of an observer-state for a mint figure a requirement for a figure to be mint, and hence a MISB figure can only be classified as "ISB", and possibly incomplete?

Basketball Jones wrote:Thus is the nature of MISB. Can a figure truly be mint in its sealed box if it can only be represented as a superposition of broken and intact states? If so, is the creation of an observer-state for a mint figure a requirement for a figure to be mint, and hence a MISB figure can only be classified as "ISB", and possibly incomplete?

Technically, yes. One could only go as far as to state resolutely that a figure is mint if an observer-state of a mint figure is created. If that observer-state is not created, then one cannot objectively or without question state that the figure is mint, as only an observer-state for the box (or the condition of the box) has been so created. If a figure is in a sealed box, one cannot see the figure, then an observer-state for the figure is not created. Therefore, one could state the box is mint with a supposed mint figure inside, which is exactly as you say, "possibly incomplete".

As buyers, though, as consumers, we must take a lot on faith! Also, if an observer-state for a damaged or incomplete figure is created following the supposition of the figure being mint, we must trust that tomorrow we can take the item back for a refund. Of course, Horace: "Put no trust in the morrow"!

P.S. I just noticed you joined on my birthday.

EDIT: Though thinking about it, does the very act of stating it is MISB create an interference, thus creating an observer-state where one is witnessing a mint box with an incomplete toy inside and an observer-state where one is witnessing a mint box with a mint toy inside? If so, then in the latter state a creation of an observer-state for a mint figure is not required, perhaps?

Leonardo wrote:
EDIT: Though thinking about it, does the very act of stating it is MISB create an interference, thus creating an observer-state where one is witnessing a mint box with an incomplete toy inside and an observer-state where one is witnessing a mint box with a mint toy inside? If so, then in the latter state a creation of an observer-state for a mint figure is not required, perhaps?

Stating the figure is MISB doesn't change anything. Observing enough of the box/packing and any environmental factors and drawing a conclusion about the probable state of the contents (or, in fact if there any contents to be complete or incomplete) is the act that could have an effect on the subject. This assumes that the universal supposition that by observing something you cvhange it is true. Proving this is, of course, impossible, but, the Monty Hall problem can go some way to guiding us to a state in which we can accept this, if not prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
There is also a school of thought that wouyld suggest that my above paragraph is not in fact an informed opinion, but is merely a rather long winded, not to mention ineffectual, attempt to look busy during my working day and any conclusions that one may draw from reading and attempting to understand it will only serve to cloud the issue.
I cannot comment, but I urge you all to take each new development, in what promises to be a most deep and interesting discussion, at more than face value.

Cheers,
Doug

Well, if stating the figure is MISB doesn't create an interference, I stand by original statement, for the time being.