Ian Woollard wrote: > On 04/11/2009, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Ian Woollard wrote: >> >>> Schroedinger's cat very definitely is fictitious; it's not an >>> experiment you can actually do and get an alive/dead cat that you can >>> actually see, you would get either an alive cat, or a dead cat. >>> >> I agree with the statement that it should not be in that category. >> Essentially, because schrodinger's cat is not a cat. >> > Schrodinger's cat is a fictitious cat that is in the Schrodinger's cat > thought experiment. > > It is fictitious because it is not a factual cat; it is countrafactual. > >> There is no notable fiction in which >> Schrodinger's cat features heavily, for example. >> > It is notably in "Schroedinger's cat" thought experiment. > > That's what a thought experiment is; it's a made up story about what > would happen if you did X,Y,Z which is used to illuminate aspects of > physics. > > I would be inclined toward keeping it in the category, but mostly because of subsequent references in works of science fiction. In common usage there is a tendency to ignore the difference between "fictitious" and "fictional". With reference to the original concept of Schrodinger's cat it is fictitious because it is imaginary; it is not fictional because it is not part of a work of fiction.
Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
