• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Schrödinger's cat

19 posts in this topic

Apologies if this has already been raised elsewhere.

 

The current discussion in the Heritage Auction thread regarding the relative merits of different grading companies brings to mind the celebrated case of Schrödinger's cat.

 

I daresay that within the confines of grading and collecting, this will be largely irrelevant. So please disregard if of no interest.

 

But to me it is quite fascinating that the grading encapsulation system is a seemingly perfect simulation of the dilemma posited by quantum mechanics, which Schrödinger sought to address in his thought experiment.

 

In short, encapsulation places the comic graded into a quantum state. It remains precisely in the grade stated until cracked out. Whereupon it collapses into the objective state of an accurately or inaccurately graded object.

 

And if - for example - it is a brittle book, this is further underscored. The book in the case remains preserved - effectively outside of time - until the case is cracked, whereupon there is a measurable possibility that the book will explode on opening.

 

Ergo, encapsulation is a real world version of Schrödinger's thought experiment.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I purposefully leave my CGC encapsulated comics in the sun for at least a day or so that the colors on the cover fade.

 

Then I sell the books on Ebay .

 

Simply is hilarious to me that people buy labels and not the book. :insane:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course you are right. and it forces me to realize that to be a true model of Schrödinger's thought experiment, the CGC case would have to be a perfect insulator (and therefore impervious to light). In which 'case', we would not be able to see inside it!

 

However, the analogy holds true in a different way, since quantum mechanics argues that the observer directly affects the experiment simply by observing it.

 

In reality, I would suggest that we simultaneously accept/observe/process//affect both the stated and observed grade, even when these markedly differ.

 

Or do we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course you are right. and it forces me to realize that to be a true model of Schrödinger's thought experiment, the CGC case would have to be a perfect insulator (and therefore impervious to light). In which 'case', we would not be able to see inside it!

 

However, the analogy holds true in a different way, since quantum mechanics argues that the observer directly affects the experiment simply by observing it.

 

In reality, I would suggest that we simultaneously accept/observe/process//affect both the stated and observed grade, even when these markedly differ.

 

Most people are tunnel visioned and just look at the label anyways :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course you are right. and it forces me to realize that to be a true model of Schrödinger's thought experiment, the CGC case would have to be a perfect insulator (and therefore impervious to light). In which 'case', we would not be able to see inside it!

 

However, the analogy holds true in a different way, since quantum mechanics argues that the observer directly affects the experiment simply by observing it.

 

In reality, I would suggest that we simultaneously accept/observe/process//affect both the stated and observed grade, even when these markedly differ.

 

Most people are tunnel visioned and just look at the label anyways :(

 

“Goes to show you can’t judge a fish by the hook in it’s mouth.”

― Erin R. Bedford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course you are right. and it forces me to realize that to be a true model of Schrödinger's thought experiment, the CGC case would have to be a perfect insulator (and therefore impervious to light). In which 'case', we would not be able to see inside it!

 

However, the analogy holds true in a different way, since quantum mechanics argues that the observer directly affects the experiment simply by observing it.

 

In reality, I would suggest that we simultaneously accept/observe/process//affect both the stated and observed grade, even when these markedly differ.

 

Most people are tunnel visioned and just look at the label anyways :(

 

“Goes to show you can’t judge a fish by the hook in it’s mouth.”

― Erin R. Bedford

 

It's all fun and games until an eye gets poked out

 

OR

 

Until the economy turns down and the marginal difference between grades cannot be justified by the price differentials that the bubble economy currently reinforces

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course you are right. and it forces me to realize that to be a true model of Schrödinger's thought experiment, the CGC case would have to be a perfect insulator (and therefore impervious to light). In which 'case', we would not be able to see inside it!

 

However, the analogy holds true in a different way, since quantum mechanics argues that the observer directly affects the experiment simply by observing it.

 

In reality, I would suggest that we simultaneously accept/observe/process//affect both the stated and observed grade, even when these markedly differ.

 

Or do we?

 

The observations alter the superposition of quantum states that the entity in the box would be in collapsing the wave function down to a single state (or grade). I don't think the analogy is perfect but I always like to talk physics, as I am a physicist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course you are right. and it forces me to realize that to be a true model of Schrödinger's thought experiment, the CGC case would have to be a perfect insulator (and therefore impervious to light). In which 'case', we would not be able to see inside it!

 

However, the analogy holds true in a different way, since quantum mechanics argues that the observer directly affects the experiment simply by observing it.

 

In reality, I would suggest that we simultaneously accept/observe/process//affect both the stated and observed grade, even when these markedly differ.

 

Or do we?

 

The observations alter the superposition of quantum states that the entity in the box would be in collapsing the wave function down to a single state (or grade). I don't think the analogy is perfect but I always like to talk physics, as I am a physicist.

 

 

:hi: You're a proper physicist and I'm a charlatan! That's what I love about the boards! It's like the ark!

 

As you say, the analogy breaks down once you really look, doesn't it?

 

 

 

I'm just entertained by the apparent paradox.

 

When a book scores a perfect CGC 10, exactly how perfect is it? Anybody know? i.e how far beyond the bounds of human perception? High powered microscope?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fuller expression of where you're going with this is the concept of a futures market in comics rather than the cat. Where what is traded isn't the book itself but a right to own the book at a certain price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fuller expression of where you're going with this is the concept of a futures market in comics rather than the cat. Where what is traded isn't the book itself but a right to own the book at a certain price.

 

Great point. Move over, pork bellies! Am I right in thinking one could then speculate on whether prices will go up or down?

 

Then there would be prime and sub-prime CGC cases, and all the sub-primes could be bundled together, and made into primes again!

 

 

 

The Big Short

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course you are right. and it forces me to realize that to be a true model of Schrödinger's thought experiment, the CGC case would have to be a perfect insulator (and therefore impervious to light). In which 'case', we would not be able to see inside it!

 

However, the analogy holds true in a different way, since quantum mechanics argues that the observer directly affects the experiment simply by observing it.

 

In reality, I would suggest that we simultaneously accept/observe/process//affect both the stated and observed grade, even when these markedly differ.

 

Or do we?

 

The observations alter the superposition of quantum states that the entity in the box would be in collapsing the wave function down to a single state (or grade). I don't think the analogy is perfect but I always like to talk physics, as I am a physicist.

 

 

:hi: You're a proper physicist and I'm a charlatan! That's what I love about the boards! It's like the ark!

 

As you say, the analogy breaks down once you really look, doesn't it?

 

 

 

I'm just entertained by the apparent paradox.

 

When a book scores a perfect CGC 10, exactly how perfect is it? Anybody know? i.e how far beyond the bounds of human perception? High powered microscope?

 

 

This aspect of grading a book as a 10 has always amused me, as such a level of perfection (or near perfection, I'm never really sure as to what defects if any are allowed), would be so precarious, that there is no way of knowing if the process of grading hasn't added a minute flaw to an already evaluated part of the book, let alone as to whether the handling afterwards during the encapsulation process hasn't added an imperfection that knocks it down to a 9.9.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think about how much worse a 9.9 is than a 10.0 it's staggering. Perfect and not perfect. There is no comparison.

 

Ken

 

Perfect is just an "ideal". It doesn't exist in reality. It's just a word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think about how much worse a 9.9 is than a 10.0 it's staggering. Perfect and not perfect. There is no comparison.

 

Ken

 

Perfect is just an "ideal". It doesn't exist in reality. It's just a word.

 

I was being facetious.

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think about how much worse a 9.9 is than a 10.0 it's staggering. Perfect and not perfect. There is no comparison.

 

Ken

 

Perfect is just an "ideal". It doesn't exist in reality. It's just a word.

 

I was being facetious.

 

Ken

 

oh meh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a fifty percent chance that each and every graded book has the correct grade...

 

...they either do or they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fuller expression of where you're going with this is the concept of a futures market in comics rather than the cat. Where what is traded isn't the book itself but a right to own the book at a certain price.

 

So any of these would become Schrödinger's Comics? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fuller expression of where you're going with this is the concept of a futures market in comics rather than the cat. Where what is traded isn't the book itself but a right to own the book at a certain price.

 

So any of these would become Schrödinger's Comics? :)

 

good one, :applause:

 

 

Call them anything - as long as we stop torturing this poor cat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a fifty percent chance that each and every graded book has the correct grade...

 

...they either do or they don't.

 

Well, the mew new labels do think outside the grade box, way outside.

 

CGC might've been better of using a bag, and letting the cat out early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites