Schrodinger's Meme: Can a Joke Both Exist and Not Exist?

When Schrodinger came up with the ‘Schrodinger’s Cat’ thought experiment in 1935, little did he know I would write a blog about it. Hell, I don’t think even with all that physics brain he could predict my existence, because a ‘Rutik’ was virtually non-existent until 2001. It must have been a difficult time in the world, before 2001, or good. I wouldn’t know, I wasn’t there.

Life before 2001?

But keeping casual narcissism aside (for a few paragraphs), while poop-scrolling and catching up with 428 reels that my friend shared with me between 1 am to 4 am, a reel made me laugh. Unironically. The friend asked me, “Why did you laugh?”. “It was funny.”, I said. To my surprise, he did not find it funny. Can’t blame some people for not having a sense of humour. But that persuaded me to ask myself, was there a joke in the reel? Yes. Well, probably. I think so? Can a joke both exist and not exist?

For the sake of Schrodinger and his big brain quantum physics idea, I would approach the question using a framework in quantum physics called the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ which includes the particle (in this case the joke sayer (JS), yes that’s a word) and the observer (in this case joke hearer (JH)) both are taken into account and affect the overall outcome. Trust me, this will all make sense. I have thought of it for all of 30 seconds so far as I type away on my keyboard.

Also laying the foundation for what a joke is, “A joke is a statement that is found humorous by at least one of the parties (JH or JS).” Then by simple mathematics, the probability of a statement being a joke is 33.33%. Let me explain how:

Case 1: JH and JS both find the statement humours

Case 2: JS finds the statement humourous, but the JH does not

Case 3: JH finds the statement humorous, but the JS does not

“But Rutik”, you might ask, “Wouldn’t the JS find the statement always funny?”. To which I reply, “Who are you, and what are you doing in my thought bubble at 2:34 am?” But then I would be kind enough also to tell you that there are unironic jokes as well, which are statements that become funny due to delivery or some random connects JH’s brain might make within their puny heads. Then I kindly ask you to bugger off and let me cook :)

This is where things get interesting when I introduce you to the ‘ICI’ model which stands for Intent, Comprehension, Impulse model when it comes to identifying a joke.

Intent: A JS’s intent matters when making a statement. Do they want to make a humorous statement?

Comprehension: A JH’s ability to comprehend if the JS’s statement was with a humorous intent or not?

Impulse: If either of the parties get offended, would the other party impulsively change their intent or comprehension and waive it off as a joke or a generic statement?

With these ICI variables, the probabilistic model of joke determination falls flat on its face. Especially impulse is uncontrollable by external or even internal factors, giving every statement in the world a superposition of being a joke and not a joke at the same time. I call it the ‘Silly Superposition’ coz it's really silly if you think about it.

So can a joke both exist and not exist? Yes, in the state of ‘Silly Superposition’ it does. Does it make a difference in your daily life? Not really. But did it give me a dopamine boost? Yes, it did. See, sometimes in the world, which is almost all the time, everything is about me. Because I said, the most I can do is just set out my casual narcissism for a few paragraphs. Now bugger off from my thought bubble, I need to sleep, pookie.

Yours lovingly,

Frodo Mercury