I agree with you there is no "contradiction" here. Thought experiments are typically one of two things. 1. A prediction or thesis which then then prompts a the

I agree with you there is no "contradiction" here. Thought experiments are typically one of two things. 1. A prediction or thesis which then then prompts a theory and then experiments to verify. The EPR paradox is an example, the cannonball is another. 2. The are an argument to convince someone/explain something in a physical discussion. The text given here is an example. Now one could argue that someone learns something in the second case (and that someone could even be everyone), but technically we already know everything. It's sort of like we already have a (experimentally) verified theory and are just investigating some corner case. Or otherwise we end up at option 1, where we need an actual experiment to probe what the world is really doing.