1240: Quantum Mechanics

2026-05-03T22:38:02Z

2A09:BAC2:88C0:DCD:0:0:160:EC: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1240
| date = July 19, 2013
| title = Quantum Mechanics
| image = quantum mechanics.png
| titletext = You can also just ignore any science assertion where 'quantum mechanics' is the most complicated phrase in it.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic plays with the fact that {{w|quantum mechanics}} is a very complex subject that is frequently misapplied by laymen. Many of the phenomena studied in quantum mechanics are contrary to common sense and can only be expressed in complex mathematics. Yet, since the field is fundamental to our understanding of reality, it is commonly cited to support broad sweeping philosophical generalizations.

The phrase “according to quantum mechanics” betrays the speaker's lack of knowledge about the subject. To a physicist, it is almost as vague as “according to physics”. Somebody who understands the subject would use a more precise term, such as “according to the uncertainty principle” or “according to a paper by such-and-such.”

[[Cueball]] explains to [[Ponytail]] that dogs must have {{w|souls}}. This would be against the doctrine of certain religions, including some sects of Christianity, which teach that only humans have souls. The question of whether animals have souls comes up for many reasons in theological and philosophical discussions. One major one is the wish of many Christian dog owners to meet their pets in {{w|Heaven}}. In many Christian doctrines, this would require dogs not only to have souls, but also ''immortal'' souls. This distinction comes up in Catholicism, for example, where the commonly taught doctrine, as in [http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/ContraGentiles2.htm#82 Aquinas, S.C.G. II, C. 82], is that, while animals do have souls, their souls are mortal, and therefore die with their bodies. In this case, animals cannot enter Heaven, {{w|Hell}}, or {{w|Purgatory}}.

Cueball, however, uses quantum mechanics as an argument, even though quantum mechanics is only applicable on the atomic scale and not on macroscopic objects like animals. It also only applies to matter and energy, and not to souls, which are held by most doctrines to be immaterial. His argument, however, is a reference to the concept of an '{{w|Observer (quantum physics)|observer}}' in quantum physics, as well as theories about the {{w|Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation|collapse of wave functions}}. It should also be noted that science does not equate the ability to observe the world and possession of a soul, and that the latter is merely a theological concept, not used in science and not proven to exist in real world.

The vast majority of people do not have a sufficient understanding of quantum mechanics to judge whether Cueball's statement is correct. Nevertheless, [[Randall|Randall's]] message is: you don't need to understand quantum mechanics to judge the statement. No matter what the sentence is, it is almost certainly incorrect, so “you can safely ignore” it.

The title text refers to “science assertions” — that is, claims about scientific knowledge — that include the words “quantum mechanics”. If “quantum mechanics” is the most complicated term in the sentence, then the speaker probably does not know what they are talking about. If a scientist is correctly applying quantum mechanics, they will use more specific (and hence more complicated) language.

Technically, [[1475: Technically]] is also about ignoring certain statements.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Ponytail stand facing each other, talking. Cueball has a small dog on a leash.]
:Cueball: But dogs can observe the world, which means that according to quantum mechanics they ''must'' have souls.

:[Caption below the frame:]
:'''Protip''': You can safely ignore any sentence that includes the phrase "According to quantum mechanics".

==Trivia==
*{{w|Niels Bohr}} [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr quote]:
::''Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Protip]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Dogs]]
[[Category:Religion]]

1475: Technically

2026-05-03T22:36:12Z

2A09:BAC2:88C0:DCD:0:0:160:EC: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1475
| date = January 19, 2015
| title = Technically
| image = technically.png
| titletext = "Technically that sentence started with 'well', so--" "Ooh, a rock with a fossil in it!"
}}

==Explanation==
Technically, when the word "technically" is used to start a sentence, the remainder of the sentence tends to follow one of a number of patterns:

{| class="wikitable"
! Sentence pattern
! Example
|-
| An explanation which is far more complex than the listener needs/wants.
| "Technically, a {{w|Hemiptera|bug}} is a very specific order of insects, including aphids, cicadas..."
|-
| A justification of a particular (usually unpopular) viewpoint through an unusual technical definition.
| "Technically a tomato is a fruit, so there is no reason it shouldn't be used in a fruit salad."
|-
| A pedantic overapplication of rules or laws, often to avoid the inquiry through a technical and usually unrelated loophole.
| [http://web.archive.org/web/20160821001344/https://factually.gizmodo.com/technically-american-flag-napkins-are-illegal-1599774198 "Technically, American flag napkins are illegal."]
|-
| The speaker repeating a 'little known fact', believing that they sound incredibly knowledgeable. In many cases these 'facts' are actually false, as in the example to the right (see {{w|Ten_percent_of_brain_myth|the 10% of the brain myth}}).
| "Technically we only use 10% of our brains, so imagine what we could do if we used 100%!"
|-
| An attempt to disguise an outright lie as a simple misunderstanding in point of view.
| "Technically, we're not wolves. We're coyotes."
|}

[[Cueball]], possibly representing [[Randall]], has decided that any sentence beginning with the word "technically" is highly likely to be completely worthless for him to listen to; so whenever he hears it at the beginning of a sentence, he allows himself to be distracted by anything which happens to be around.

There are many cases where an item is classified in what appears to be an illogical way. Some fairly well known examples are 'Tomatoes are a fruit', 'Strawberries are not berries', 'Peanuts are not nuts' and so on. The reasoning behind these seemingly unusual classifications is typically down to the technical definition of the class, which may differ from the intuitive understanding that the general public have learned. It is not unusual for people to try and appear knowledgeable by demonstrating that they are aware of correct technical classifications.

[[White Hat]] starts to pedantically answer the typically incredulous rhetorical question “Are you on drugs?!” by explaining that according to the technical definition, food is classed as a drug. This classification is false due to his incorrect interpretation of the word "drug" and lack of understanding of the role of food in human physiology, and would fall under the fourth example in the chart above. Indeed, "drug" is defined as "a substance used to treat an illness, relieve a symptom, or modify a chemical process in the body for a specific purpose", followed by a secondary definition of "a psychoactive substance, especially one which is illegal and addictive". Food, on the other hand, is defined as "any substance that can be consumed by living organisms, especially by eating, in order to sustain life". In other words, food is consumed in order to sustain the normal, innate state of the body, while drugs are consumed in order to alter certain states. The Wikipedia {{w|drug|article}} for drug goes so far as to explicitly disqualify food from the definition of “drug.”

Regardless of whether or not the classification was valid, Cueball has already allowed himself to be distracted by a passing bug.

The title text starts to pedantically over-apply Cueball's rule to the comic panel, noting that technically White Hat's sentence started with the word 'well' instead of the word 'technically', and thus Cueball is wrong to have ignored it. This would fall under the second or third example in the chart. Halfway through the sentence, this argument is cut off by the discovery of a rock with a fossil in it, correctly applying the rule to a sentence that began with the word "technically".

This comic is similar to [[1240: Quantum Mechanics]], in that they both suggest ignoring sentences containing a certain word or phrase indicating a pedantic attitude.

==Transcript==
:[White Hat talks to Cueball who looks at a flying insect.]
:White Hat: Well, technically, food is a "drug", since it's a substance that alters how your body works, so yes, I'm—
:Cueball: Hey, look at that weird bug!

:[Caption below the panel:]
:My life improved when I realized I could just ignore any sentence that started with "technically."

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Pedantic]]

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1240: Quantum Mechanics

1475: Technically