On the contrary I would say it is exactly Schrodinger. The actual physical world itself can be in a superposition of states until the point of observation/measurement, and that whole thought experiment is meant to highlight the absurdity in a vivid but somewhat comical way.
Yes but here is a priori. Is his only car and therefore the best and the worst.
Schrodinger’s cat is both because of an intricate assessment of quantum states. I know the cat pulls it into our conceptual world, therefore showcasing the weirdness of quantum physics in a comical way.
I don’t even think that’s true. In this context it’s just an informal turn of phrase, basically being used as an analogy or a metaphor, and we’re supposed to interpret these things charitably and in good faith.
With that in mind there’s no reason at all why it can’t be understood as similar, even to the point of directly invoking the idea of superpositions, given that it’s just an analogy. There’s nothing worth litigating or correcting here, and any supposed misunderstanding is something that can be cleared up just by choosing to exercise more charity in the interpretation.
Well I suppose maybe both our takes hold a certain kind of validity. Just like the cat in a certain thought experiment :p
I give that I’m a little bit prescriptivistic, maybe a bit uncharitable. However I think a metaphor works best if it really captures a situation. I think it’s valid to at least think about to what depth a metaphor works.
On the contrary I would say it is exactly Schrodinger. The actual physical world itself can be in a superposition of states until the point of observation/measurement, and that whole thought experiment is meant to highlight the absurdity in a vivid but somewhat comical way.
Yes but here is a priori. Is his only car and therefore the best and the worst.
Schrodinger’s cat is both because of an intricate assessment of quantum states. I know the cat pulls it into our conceptual world, therefore showcasing the weirdness of quantum physics in a comical way.
But the two cases are not comparable at all imho.
I don’t even think that’s true. In this context it’s just an informal turn of phrase, basically being used as an analogy or a metaphor, and we’re supposed to interpret these things charitably and in good faith.
With that in mind there’s no reason at all why it can’t be understood as similar, even to the point of directly invoking the idea of superpositions, given that it’s just an analogy. There’s nothing worth litigating or correcting here, and any supposed misunderstanding is something that can be cleared up just by choosing to exercise more charity in the interpretation.
Well I suppose maybe both our takes hold a certain kind of validity. Just like the cat in a certain thought experiment :p
I give that I’m a little bit prescriptivistic, maybe a bit uncharitable. However I think a metaphor works best if it really captures a situation. I think it’s valid to at least think about to what depth a metaphor works.