Guck Posted October 22, 2017 Report Share Posted October 22, 2017 So with electrons and quantum physics, they can do virtually infinite things. We can measure an electron, but that essentially freezes it's existence, we can't know it's current momentum or what it was or could be, just what it currently is. If you measure and record a sprens current state, it freezes to that state. Not sure if this has a major impact on the overall story, but I'd say it makes sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walin he/him Posted October 22, 2017 Report Share Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) They do work that way, but the main difference is that they change based on people recording their information. In real life, when stuff changes due to it being observed, it’s not because its info is known. It’s because the very act of measuring it requires that we do something to it. Imagine there’s a box, but you don’t know what’s inside it. You shake it to learn by the sound it makes. There’s a sound of breaking porcelain, and you’re like, “Well now I know it’s broken china.” In the case of really small things like quarks and stuff, whatever’s in the box always becomes broken porcelain; the pitch and loudness of it determines what it is, but it won’t be the same as it was before you measured it. I can list off the top of my head at least two reasons that was a bad analogy, but I hope you caught the gist of it. Anyways, spren are partly of the Cognitive Realm, meaning that being measured changes them by the recording of the information, not the gathering of it. But those are some pretty striking similarities, yeah. Edited October 22, 2017 by Walin The first “its” in the reply was an “it’s” and I dun goofed (I mean, it bothered me) ‘Nother edit on the edit reason: I just realized I’m passively aggressively calling out Guck on the usage of “its and it’s”—sorry, apostrophe problems just dun me a lot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts