this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
86 points (95.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43631 readers
1391 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not really Schrodinger. The car is both as implied by logic, whilst Schrodinger's cat is both due to us being unsure of its state.
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.