Regarding this article I think more information should be provided to clarify the differences between Schrodinger's thought experiment and the reference. As it stands, the article talks about the purpose of Schrodinger's cat with regard to not knowing whether or not the cat is alive or dead until the box is opened. This would be incorrect, for it is not the main point of the thought experiment, it is merely a known result. Schrodinger's cat was devised as a criticsm of the Copenhagen Interpretation which would have the cat be both dead and alive at the same time. Logic dictates that the cat is either dead or alive, not both. The situation described by Schrodinger is a paradox intended to point out a flaw. Since the purpose of Schrodinger's rapist is not to describe or reference a paradox or a flaw the article should provide more information on Schrodinger's cat and clarify the only similarity is the fact that it cannot be known until the encounter has reached its conclusion and the existance of two states. I would deem this important since many other examples of "is or isn't until you know" situations exist. Furthermore, a problem with the relation is that while the state of the cat cannot be known for sure, the probability distributions of the of the cat being in one state or another can be known to predict its state. In his example it's a 50-50 chance as he has chosen an arbitrary radioactive substance that will decay in one hour. It is also important to note that as more time passes the the probability of the cat being dead increases. I believe a more accurate Schrodinger's rapist would then be the following: There exists a possibility that one person another encounters is rapist. The probability of the person in question being one is extremely unlikely without any information (not dead cat state, box just recently closed with radioactive substance). As one learns more about the other in ways that raise suspicions, the way they act, where they are located, etc. (more time passing with the cat in the box) the chances of the person in question being a rapist increases. It can become very probable that they are a rapist, however, that person cannot be determined to be a rapist until the encounter has been completed (box is opened). 141.215.74.65 20:24, June 2, 2015 (UTC)N
- You raise some good points. The Schrödinger's Cat thing is not the most solid metaphor here but it's used. IMO the faults of the metaphor could well be mentioned briefly, but exploring them any further would put too much weight on semantics in this article. I'll try to address this. --Pecc (talk) 10:42, June 3, 2015 (UTC)