Resolving the Paradox of the Bad Dog
Feb. 24th, 2026 06:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
seawaspTo take a completely different tack today, here is a scientific study performed by my family, particularly Gabe and myself.
All of us who own or are around dogs have experienced at least one, often many, moments in which the dog performs actions that may cause us to say they are a "bad dog".
This is, however, in direct opposition to the fact that all dogs are good dogs. If all dogs are good dogs, it follows that no dog can be a bad dog. Yet we are faced with evidence of the existence of naughty dogs quite often.
After extensive research, late-night discussions of theory, and probably too many cans of 1980s JOLT Cola, we are proud to report that we have successfully resolved this paradox with a breakthrough in canine physics.
Consider a dog D, traveling through a house H. D has a potential for Naughtiness, N, which is a complex function derived from multiple factors including the amount of attention A that D has received in time T, the presence of aggravating factors such as mail carriers, birds, vacuum cleaners, and such (or more serious ones such as mistreatment), distraction factors such as balls, squeaky toys, and stuffies, how hungry D may be, and the presence of temptations T such as unattended food, an unguarded trash can, and so forth.
Normally, N is relatively low. However, when the various factors align, N can rapidly rise to the point that it approaches a probability of 1 that D will perform a Naughty action and thus be a Bad Dog. For instance, D enters the kitchen where multiple dishes have been prepared. D is hungry, and the proximity of food increases N in synergy with this condition, but there are humans in the kitchen who pay attention to D, drawing off some of the potential N.
Consider, instead, if the food were laid out on the counter in preparation for a meal but the humans were not present. D is then unmoderated by additional attention, and as D's proximity to the food increases, N rises -- in this case according to the inverse square of the distance to the desired food item. D places their paws on the counter to examine the food more closely, and we can see that N quickly achieves a value at which Naughtiness is inevitable.
This is, however, in direct conflict with the inherent Goodness G of dog D. Goodness is, however, a single state, not a spectrum, as all dogs D are Very Good Dogs.
As we can see, then, this is a parallel situation seen in particle physics. A state transition must follow in which the Good Dog is no longer present.
But conservation of matter and energy requires that SOMETHING be present.
That something is the unitary quantum of Naughtiness, the inherent opposite to Good that is required by symmetry.
More importantly, as can be seen by the preceding discussion, despite there being many different factors and paths towards the accumulation of potential N, all of these eventually converge to a single value. There is only ONE such state, despite there being so many different dogs D in varied conditions of health, repletion, attention-gaining, and so on.
This entity we call the Negadog.
When the potential N reaches a unitary probability, a state transition occurs in which the Good Dog is replaced by the Negadog, which then performs the Naughty action. However, in the instant of performing the action, the potential N is discharged and the Negadog drops back to its potential state, returning the Good Dog.
This explains all the puzzling aspects of the paradox. The Good Dog is aware that something Naughty was there, but also that they have failed to stop the Negadog, because of course the Good Dog cannot coexist with the Negadog. Unfortunately for many Good Dogs, human perceptions are of course inadequate to perceive quantum transition phenomena, and to our slow perceptions it appears that the Good Dog has performed an action that makes them at least for the moment a Bad Dog.
Thus the common puzzlement of a dog when scolded. They know they have done nothing bad, but they know something bad has happened.
With this scientific breakthrough, the next step will be to determine ways in which the Negadog might be observed. Research is ongoing.
All of us who own or are around dogs have experienced at least one, often many, moments in which the dog performs actions that may cause us to say they are a "bad dog".
This is, however, in direct opposition to the fact that all dogs are good dogs. If all dogs are good dogs, it follows that no dog can be a bad dog. Yet we are faced with evidence of the existence of naughty dogs quite often.
After extensive research, late-night discussions of theory, and probably too many cans of 1980s JOLT Cola, we are proud to report that we have successfully resolved this paradox with a breakthrough in canine physics.
Consider a dog D, traveling through a house H. D has a potential for Naughtiness, N, which is a complex function derived from multiple factors including the amount of attention A that D has received in time T, the presence of aggravating factors such as mail carriers, birds, vacuum cleaners, and such (or more serious ones such as mistreatment), distraction factors such as balls, squeaky toys, and stuffies, how hungry D may be, and the presence of temptations T such as unattended food, an unguarded trash can, and so forth.
Normally, N is relatively low. However, when the various factors align, N can rapidly rise to the point that it approaches a probability of 1 that D will perform a Naughty action and thus be a Bad Dog. For instance, D enters the kitchen where multiple dishes have been prepared. D is hungry, and the proximity of food increases N in synergy with this condition, but there are humans in the kitchen who pay attention to D, drawing off some of the potential N.
Consider, instead, if the food were laid out on the counter in preparation for a meal but the humans were not present. D is then unmoderated by additional attention, and as D's proximity to the food increases, N rises -- in this case according to the inverse square of the distance to the desired food item. D places their paws on the counter to examine the food more closely, and we can see that N quickly achieves a value at which Naughtiness is inevitable.
This is, however, in direct conflict with the inherent Goodness G of dog D. Goodness is, however, a single state, not a spectrum, as all dogs D are Very Good Dogs.
As we can see, then, this is a parallel situation seen in particle physics. A state transition must follow in which the Good Dog is no longer present.
But conservation of matter and energy requires that SOMETHING be present.
That something is the unitary quantum of Naughtiness, the inherent opposite to Good that is required by symmetry.
More importantly, as can be seen by the preceding discussion, despite there being many different factors and paths towards the accumulation of potential N, all of these eventually converge to a single value. There is only ONE such state, despite there being so many different dogs D in varied conditions of health, repletion, attention-gaining, and so on.
This entity we call the Negadog.
When the potential N reaches a unitary probability, a state transition occurs in which the Good Dog is replaced by the Negadog, which then performs the Naughty action. However, in the instant of performing the action, the potential N is discharged and the Negadog drops back to its potential state, returning the Good Dog.
This explains all the puzzling aspects of the paradox. The Good Dog is aware that something Naughty was there, but also that they have failed to stop the Negadog, because of course the Good Dog cannot coexist with the Negadog. Unfortunately for many Good Dogs, human perceptions are of course inadequate to perceive quantum transition phenomena, and to our slow perceptions it appears that the Good Dog has performed an action that makes them at least for the moment a Bad Dog.
Thus the common puzzlement of a dog when scolded. They know they have done nothing bad, but they know something bad has happened.
With this scientific breakthrough, the next step will be to determine ways in which the Negadog might be observed. Research is ongoing.
