Would you say the following was a plausible interpretation of Schroedinger's famous analogy:

The truth condition of an untested proposition is such that the argument can be true if and only if it remains untested. If, then, one should test the proposition, it will necessarily be false, its truth value being otherwise indeterminate.

If so, how would one express this as an argument in logical positivistic terms, that is, with respect to a physical state of being and not merely to an argument?

Thanks,
IP