Measurement Problem

Quantum entanglement is routinely described as exhibiting nonlocal correlations or “spooky action at a distance”, despite the absence of superluminal signaling and despite full agreement with relativistic causality at the operational level. This persistent conceptual tension suggests that the difficulty posed by entanglement is not empirical or dynamical but descriptive. In this paper, we analyze entanglement from a structural perspective that distinguishes between different levels of physical description. We argue that entanglement is a quantum– relational structure internal to spacetime descriptions (...) and that it becomes paradoxical only when classical local requirements are imposed outside their domain of validity. By separating projection, reduction and dynamics, we clarify why entanglement correlations are independent of spatial separation and why attempts to localize them inevitably generate misleading inter- pretations. The resulting account preserves experimental practice and the formal structure of quantum theory without invoking nonlocal influence or additional physical mechanisms. Entanglement is thereby reinterpreted not as evidence for action at a distance but as a manifestation of the limits of classical local description in the presence of irreducible quantum relations. (shrink)

Contemporary fundamental physics combines extraordinary empirical success with the persistence of unresolved foundational difficulties. While theoretical frameworks continue to increase in formal sophistication, certain classes of conceptual problems remain stable across successive developments. This paper argues that this situation reflects a structural feature of scientific methodology rather than a collection of isolated technical shortcomings. -/- The central claim is that a methodological asymmetry between formal and ontological elements of scientific theories gives rise to a structural catch--22. Formal structures are readily (...) revised, extended or elaborated, whereas ontological commitments that delimit a theory’s domain of applicability are typically held fixed and remain implicit. As a result, foundational problems that originate at the level of interpretive structure cannot be resolved within the space of admissible responses, leading instead to formal complication or interpretive proliferation. -/- Against this background, foundational paradoxes are not treated here as primary targets of resolution but as diagnostic indicators of this structural constraint. The paper develops a systematic classification of paradox formation across fundamental physics, identifying five recurring mechanisms of ontological misalignment: boundary-region effects, illicit domain extension, projection conflation, temporal category errors and interpretive overloading. These mechanisms recur across diverse theoretical contexts and account for the persistence of otherwise disparate paradoxes. -/- The papers contribution is methodological and diagnostic: to clarify the structural conditions under which certain classes of foundational problems arise and persist and to show how making ontological commitments explicit can expand the space of coherent scientific description without undermining empirical rigor. The analysis also highlights how prevailing publication practices tend to reinforce the structural dynamics identified here. (shrink)

Foundational paradoxes continue to persist in modern physics despite the remarkable empirical success of established theories. These paradoxes do not arise from failed predictions or mathematical inconsistency, but from recurring conceptual tensions across quantum mechanics, gravity, cosmology, and questions of identity, causality, and emergence. -/- This paper examines twenty-four well-known paradoxes spanning these domains and proposes a unified resolution strategy. The analysis is methodological rather than technical: no new dynamics, particles, or forces are introduced, and no modifications to established formalisms (...) are required. Instead, the paradoxes are shown to arise from a systematic conflation of descriptive levels, in which constructs native to effective theories are tacitly treated as ontologically fundamental. -/- By interpreting established theories as projection-level descriptions constrained by domain-specific validity, the paradoxes admit concise and uniform resolutions. Across all cases, the mathematical frameworks remain intact; what changes is the interpretation of their ontological reach. The recurrence of this resolution pattern across independent and historically distinct paradoxes provides strong support for an ontological distinction between generative structure and effective physical description, articulated here in a deliberately restrained form. -/- The resulting perspective reduces, rather than inflates, ontological commitments while restoring conceptual coherence across domains that are otherwise treated in isolation. Without specifying the detailed nature of the generative level, the analysis establishes a unified interpretive framework within which many longstanding foundational problems lose their force. (shrink)

The measurement problem is commonly taken to indicate a fundamental conflict between the linear, unitary dynamics of quantum mechanics and the definite outcomes observed in measurement processes. Standard responses typically resolve this tension by modifying the dynamics, enriching the ontology, or revising the interpretation of the quantum state. In this paper, we analyze the measurement problem from a projection-based perspective in which quantum evolution and measurement outcomes are associated with ontologically distinct effective descriptions, defined by incompatible invariance requirements. Within this (...) framework, quantum mechanics is characterized by unitary invariance and coherent superpo- sition, whereas measurement records are defined by definiteness, stability, and reproducibil- ity. The measurement problem arises when these distinct projection structures are implicitly identified or required to coexist within a single effective description. By analyzing measurement as a transition between such projections, we show that the appearance of wavefunction collapse does not require a physical dynamical process. Instead, collapse emerges as a necessary structural consequence of projecting a quantum description onto a measurement domain that enforces different invariance constraints. This account preserves the formal structure and empirical success of quantum mechanics while motivating a restrained ontological reading of its elements. More broadly, the analysis situates the measurement problem within a general pattern in which foundational paradoxes arise at the boundaries between effective descriptions. In this sense, the resolution proposed here does not introduce new physics, but clarifies the ontological scope and limits of quantum-mechanical description. (shrink)

It is difficult to extract reliable criteria for causal locality from the limited ingredients found in textbook quantum theory. In the end, Bell humbly warned that his eponymous theorem was based on criteria that “should be viewed with the utmost suspicion.” Remarkably, by stepping outside the wave-function paradigm, one can reformulate quantum theory in terms of old-fashioned configuration spaces together with ‘unistochastic’ laws. These unistochastic laws take the form of directed conditional probabilities, which turn out to provide a hospitable foundation (...) for encoding microphysical causal relationships. This unistochastic reformulation provides quantum theory with a simpler and more transparent axiomatic foundation, plausibly resolves the measurement problem, and deflates various exotic claims about superposition, interference, and entanglement. Making use of this reformulation, this paper introduces a new principle of causal locality that is intended to improve on Bell's criteria, and shows directly that systems that remain at spacelike separation cannot exert causal influences on each other, according to that new principle. These results therefore lead to a general hidden-variables interpretation of quantum theory that is arguably compatible with causal locality. (shrink)

This paper introduces several new classes of mathematical structures that have close connections with physics and with the theory of dynamical systems. The most general of these structures, called indivisible stochastic processes, collectively encompass many important kinds of stochastic processes, including Markov chains and random dynamical systems. This paper then states and proves a new theorem that establishes a precise correspondence between any indivisible stochastic process and a unitarily evolving quantum system. This theorem therefore leads to a new formulation of (...) quantum theory, alongside the Hilbert-space, path-integral, and quasi-probability formulations. The theorem also provides a first-principles explanation for why quantum systems are based on the complex numbers, Hilbert spaces, linear-unitary time evolution, and the Born rule. In addition, the theorem suggests that by selecting a suitable Hilbert space, together with an appropriate choice of unitary evolution, one can simulate any indivisible stochastic process on a quantum computer, thereby potentially opening up an extensive set of novel applications for quantum computing. (shrink)

The quantum measurement problem, particularly the observer effect, has long resisted a complete explanation, often forcing a choice between paradoxical interpretations and a fundamental split between the quantum and classical worlds. This paper introduces Aethic reasoning, a novel framework that resolves the measurement problem by reformulating the logical and relational structure that underpins reality. We propose three foundational postulates that redefine realism, superposition, and state validity from a relational standpoint. The derivation begins with the Third Postulate, which posits that reality (...) is governed by a logical “checkmate” rule that invalidates any state where, in every possible future, a path to a contradiction persists. We demonstrate how this single constraint—a universe that tirelessly avoids paradox—logically necessitates the relational framework of the First Postulate, where realism is defined relative to an observer's informational state, or Aethus. Building on this, the Second Postulate, in conjunction with the Extrusion and Union Principles, provides a mechanism for defining superposition as a direct consequence of unknowable information. Together, these postulates form a cohesive system that yields a direct, step-by-step derivation of the double-slit experiment's outcomes. Aethic reasoning thus offers a robust and logically consistent solution to the quantum observer effect, unifying quantum and classical phenomena without introducing new physical entities or paradoxes. (shrink)

The quantum measurement problem is one of the most profound challenges in modern physics, questioning how and why the wavefunction collapses during measurement to produce a single observable outcome. In this paper, we propose a novel solution through a logical framework called Aethic reasoning, which reinterprets the ontology of time and information in quantum mechanics. Central to this approach is the Aethic principle of extrusion, which models wavefunction collapse as progression along a Markov chain of block universes, effectively decoupling the (...) Einsteinian flow of time from quantum collapse events. This principle introduces an additional degree of freedom to time, enabling the first Aethic postulate: that informational reality is reference-dependent, akin to the relativity of simultaneity in special relativity. This reference point, or Aethus, is rigorously defined within a mathematical structure. Building on this foundation, the second postulate resolves the distinction between quantum superpositions and logical contradictions by encoding superpositions in a “backend” Aethic framework before rendering observable states. The third postulate further distinguishes quantum coherence from decoherence using a two-generational model of state inheritance, potentially advancing beyond simpler interpretations of information leakage. Together, these postulates yield a direct theoretical derivation of the collapse postulate, fully consistent with empirical results such as the outcome of the double-slit experiment. By addressing foundational aspects of quantum mechanics through a logically robust and philosophically grounded lens, this framework sheds new light on the measurement problem and offers a solid foundation for future exploration. (shrink)

Some variants of quantum theory theorize dogmatic "unimodal" states-of-being, and are based on hodge-podge classical-quantum language. They are based on ontic syntax, but pragmatic semantics. This error was termed semantic inconsistency [1]. Measurement seems to be central problem of these theories, and widely discussed in their interpretation. Copenhagen theory deviates from this prescription, which is modeled on experience. A complete quantum experiment is "bimodal". An experimenter creates the system-under-study in initial mode of experiment, and annihilates it in the final. The (...) experimental intervention lies beyond the theory. I theorize most rudimentary bimodal quantum experiments studied by Finkelstein [2], and deduce "bimodal probability density" P=|In>shrink)

The notion of a partition on a set is mathematically dual to the notion of a subset of a set, so there is a logic of partitions dual to Boole's logic of subsets (Boolean logic is usually mis-specified as "propositional" logic). The notion of an element of a subset has as its dual the notion of a distinction of a partition (a pair of elements in different blocks). Boole developed finite logical probability as the normalized counting measure on elements of (...) subsets so there is a dual concept of logical entropy which is the normalized counting measure on distinctions of partitions. Thus the logical notion of information is a measure of distinctions. Classical logical entropy naturally extends to the notion of quantum logical entropy which provides a more natural and informative alternative to the usual Von Neumann entropy in quantum information theory. The quantum logical entropy of a post-measurement density matrix has the simple interpretation as the probability that two independent measurements of the same state using the same observable will have different results. The main result of the paper is that the increase in quantum logical entropy due to a projective measurement of a pure state is the sum of the absolute squares of the off-diagonal entries ("coherences") of the pure state density matrix that are zeroed ("decohered") by the measurement, i.e., the measure of the distinctions ("decoherences") created by the measurement. (shrink)

Quantum mechanics lacks a formal account of the observer, leaving the measurement postulate structurally incomplete. I introduce a minimal operator chain: J, A, C, L, R, that formalizes recognition, articulation, collapse, and observation. Inserting these operators into the standard measurement rule yields a complete and stable measurement structure without altering quantum predictions. A spin‑measurement example and a reconstruction of Wigner’s friend demonstrate that paradoxes dissolve when collapse is explicitly observer‑indexed. -/- Authored by Eloy Escagedo Gutierrez as part of The Universal (...) Principle of Collapse (UPC) Research Project. (shrink)

This paper advances the Universal Principle of Collapse (UPC) axiom as a corrective to the quantum measurement problem: ∀ |Ψ⟩ ∈ ℋ, (C(A(|Ψ⟩, M), M) = 1) ⇔ (∃!Jᵒ) Collapse is inseparable from recognition. Through an equation‑by‑equation audit of canonical quantum formalisms, Schrödinger evolution, Born rule, decoherence, von Neumann measurement, spin, and polarization, we identify interpretive violations and correct them under UPC. The results demonstrate that paradoxes arise not from mathematics but from linguistic overreach, positioning recognition as the irreducible certifying (...) condition. Building on prior UPC work that defined collapse diagnostically and stress‑tested quantum interpretations, this study extends the program into the mathematical formalism itself. The UPC Linguistic Paradox Theorem consolidates UPC as both a diagnostic principle and a corrective axiom, dissolving the measurement problem at its root by showing that quantum paradoxes are linguistic artifacts rather than physical contradictions. UPC demonstrates that collapse is recognition, dissolving the paradox as linguistic while leaving physical mechanisms to physics. December 5, 2025 . (shrink)

The cosmological constant problem remains one of the deepest paradoxes in modern physics: quantum field theory predicts a vacuum energy density (~10^120) times larger than the value inferred from cosmological observations. This hierarchy mismatch, together with debates over anthropic reasoning and dynamical dark energy, highlights persistent inconsistencies across scales and observer frames. This paper applies the Universal Principle of Collapse (UPC) as a cross‑scale audit axiom, linking quantum, relativistic, and cosmological domains through recognition and collapse. UPC dissolves the paradox not (...) by introducing new physics but by exposing linguistic and conceptual inconsistencies: the assumption of a static vacuum energy, the neglect of observer‑dependent recognition in cosmological inference, and the concealment of recognition as a relational construct. By enforcing recognition consistency across scales, UPC reframes dark energy as a context-dependent entity rather than a paradoxical constant, continuing the dissolution of foundational contradictions established in prior UPC work (Escagedo Gutierrez, 2025a–d). The paper unfolds through Background, UPC Framework, Audit, Resolution, and Philosophical Framing, guiding the reader step by step to clarity. December 2025. (shrink)

In a recent paper, Zukowski and Markiewicz showed that Wigner’s Friend (and, by extension, Schrodinger’s Cat) can be eliminated as physical possibilities on purely logical grounds. I validate this result and demonstrate the source of the contradiction in a simple experiment in which a scientist S attempts to measure the position of object |O⟩ = |A⟩S +|B⟩S by using measuring device M chosen so that |A⟩M ≈ |A⟩S and |B⟩M ≈ |B⟩S. I assume that the measurement occurs by quantum amplification (...) without collapse, in which M can entangle with O in a way that remains reversible by S for some nonzero time period. This assumption implies that during this “reversible” time period, |A⟩M ̸= |A⟩S and |B⟩M ̸= |B⟩S – i.e., the macroscopic pointer state to which M evolves is uncorrelated to the position of O relative to S. When the scientist finally observes the measuring device, its macroscopic pointer state is uncorrelated to the object in position |A⟩S or |B⟩S, rendering the notion of “reversible measurement” a logical contradiction. (shrink)

The universality assumption (“U”) that quantum wave states only evolve by linear or unitary dynamics has led to a variety of paradoxes in the foundations of physics. U is not directly supported by empirical evidence but is rather an inference from data obtained from microscopic systems. The inference of U conflicts with empirical observations of macroscopic systems, giving rise to the century-old measurement problem and subjecting the inference of U to a higher standard of proof, the burden of which lies (...) with its proponents. This burden remains unmet because the intentional choice by scientists to perform interference experiments that only probe the microscopic realm disqualifies the resulting data from supporting an inference that wave states always evolve linearly in the macroscopic realm. Further, the nature of the physical world creates an asymptotic size limit above which interference experiments, and verification of U in the realm in which it causes the measurement problem, seem impossible for all practical purposes if nevertheless possible in principle. This apparent natural limit serves as evidence against an inference of U, providing a further hurdle to the proponent’s currently unmet burden of proof. The measurement problem should never have arisen because the inference of U is entirely unfounded, logically and empirically. (shrink)

The potential for scalable quantum computing depends on the viability of fault tolerance and quantum error correction, by which the entropy of environmental noise is removed during a quantum computation to maintain the physical reversibility of the computer’s logical qubits. However, the theory underlying quantum error correction applies a linguistic double standard to the words “noise” and “measurement” by treating environmental interactions during a quantum computation as inherently reversible, and environmental interactions at the end of a quantum computation as irreversible (...) measurements. Specifically, quantum error correction theory models noise as interactions that are uncorrelated or that result in correlations that decay in space and/or time, thus embedding no permanent information to the environment. I challenge this assumption both on logical grounds and by discussing a hypothetical quantum computer based on “position qubits.” The technological difficulties of producing a useful scalable position-qubit quantum computer parallel the overwhelming difficulties in performing a double-slit interference experiment on an object comprising a million to a billion fermions. (shrink)

I will look at Bohr's contentious doctrine of classical concepts - the claim that measurement requires classical concepts to be understood - and argue that measurement theory supports a similar conclusion. I will argue that representing a property in terms of a metric scale, which marks a shift from the empirical process of measurement to the informational output, introduces the inherently classical assumption of definite states and precise values, thus fulfilling Bohr's doctrine. I examine how realism about metric scales implies (...) that Bohr's doctrine is ontological, while more moderate coherentist or model-based approaches to realism render it epistemological. Regardless of one's stance towards measurement realism, however, measurement cannot be entirely quantum and quantum mechanics can model only the empirical side of measurement, not its informational output. Finally, I discuss how this might influence our understanding of the measurement problem. (shrink)

In this paper I present and critically discuss the main strategies that Bohr used and could have used to fend off the charge that his interpretation does not provide a clear-cut distinction between the classical and the quantum domain. In particular, in the first part of the paper I reassess the main arguments used by Bohr to advocate the indispensability of a classical framework to refer to quantum phenomena. In this respect, by using a distinction coming from an apparently unrelated (...) philosophical corner, we could say that Bohr is not a revisionist philosopher of physics but rather a descriptivist one in the sense of Strawson. I will then go on discussing the nature of the holistic link between classical measurement apparatuses and observed system that he also advocated. The oft-repeated conclusion that Bohr’s interpretation of the quantum formalism is untenable can only be established by giving his arguments as much force as possible, which is what I will try to do in the following by remaining as faithful as possible to his published work. (shrink)

This paper aims to clarify some conceptual aspects of decoherence that seem largely overlooked in the recent literature. In particular, I want to stress that decoherence theory, in the standard framework, is rather silent with respect to the description of (sub)systems and associated dynamics. Also, the selection of position basis for classical objects is more problematic than usually thought: while, on the one hand, decoherence offers a pragmatic-oriented solution to this problem, on the other hand, this can hardly be seen (...) as a genuine ontological explanation of why the classical world is position-based. This is not to say that decoherence is not useful to the foundations of quantum mechanics; on the contrary, it is a formidable weapon, as it accounts for a realistic description of quantum systems. That powerful description, however, becomes manifest when decoherence theory itself is interpreted in a realist framework of quantum mechanics. (shrink)

This paper diagnoses a much-discussed problem in quantum thermodynamics, that of generalizing classical work into the quantum domain. I begin with the no-go theorem of Perarnau-Llobet et al (2017): no universal measurement scheme for quantum work satisfies two intuitive, classically consilient desiderata. I assess this incompatibility as stemming from the measurement problem. Decoherence restores compatibility for all practical purposes, but raises questions about what 'universality' should mean and whether any measurement scheme can be 'universal'. I consider a different standard of (...) universality -- in terms of ontology -- by defining a trajectory-based notion of quantum work using the quantum potential. While this preserves the classical role of work as the integral of forces over distances, and evades the tension of the no-go theorem, consilience fails elsewhere; no single quantum work concept seems capable of preserving all classical features, raising questions for what it takes for successful generalization of the work concept to quantum thermodynamics. (shrink)

One of the most serious challenges (if not the most serious challenge) for interactive psycho-physical dualism (henceforth interactive dualism or ID) is the so-called ‘interaction problem’. It has two facets, one of which this article focuses on, namely the apparent tension between interactions of non-physical minds in the physical world and physical laws of nature. One family of approaches to alleviate or even dissolve this tension is based on a collapse solution (‘consciousness collapse/CC) of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics (...) (QM). The idea is that the mind brings about the collapse of a superposed wave function onto one of its eigenstates. Thus, it is claimed, can the mind change the course of things without violating any law figuring in physical theory. I will first show that this hope is premature because energy and momentum are probably not conserved in collapse processes, and that even if this can be dealt with, the violations are either severe or produce further ontological problems. Second, I point out several conceptual difficulties for interactionist CC. I will also present solutions for those problems, but it will become clear that those solutions come at a high cost. Third, I shall briefly list some empirical problems which make life even harder for interactionist CC. I conclude with remarks about why no- collapse interpretations of QM don’t help either and what the present study has shown is the real issue for ID: namely to find a plausible integrative view of dualistic mental causation and laws of nature. (shrink)

Recently, several philosophers and physicists have increasingly noticed the hegemony of unitarity in the black hole information loss discourse and are challenging its legitimacy in the face of the measurement problem. They proclaim that embracing non-unitarity solves two paradoxes for the price of one. Though I share their distaste over the philosophical bias, I disagree with their strategy of still privileging certain interpretations of quantum theory. I argue that information-restoring solutions can be interpretation-neutral because the manifestation of non-unitarity in Hawking's (...) original derivation is unrelated to what's found in collapse theories or generalized stochastic approaches, thereby decoupling the two puzzles. (shrink)

I argue here that progress in understanding the lessons of quantum physics has been hindered by the tendency to cast Niels Bohr as a villain. Building on the work of Favrholdt, Faye, and Howard, I present a more accurate view of Bohr's proposal for the "epistemological lesson" of quantum physics. I then argue that several interpretive programs -- often presented as alternatives to Copenhagen -- are, after substantial conceptual work, arriving at a view that is notably similar to Bohr's. -/- (...) Using Maudlin’s formulation of the measurement problem as a foil, I argue that it relies on a notion of wave-function completeness that is inappropriate for a genuinely indeterministic theory, and one that Bohr consistently rejected. On Bohr's view, quantum theory permits concrete agents, situated within specific experimental contexts, to make objective descriptions, while refusing the demand for a single, context-free "description from nowhere". (shrink)

In [1] it is claimed that, based on radiation emission measurements described in [2], a certain “variant” of the Orch OR theory has been refuted. I agree with this claim. However, the significance of this result for Orch OR per se is unclear. After all, the refuted “variant” was never advocated by anyone, and it contradicts the views of Hameroff and Penrose (hereafter: HP) who invented Orch OR [3]. My aim is to get clear on this situation. I argue that (...) it is indeed reasonable to speak of “variants” here. Orch OR is not a complete model of reality but a work in progress. At its core, it claims that wavefunction collapse is a real physical event that has something to do with gravity (“OR”) and that consciousness depends on orchestrated collapses in microtubules (“Orch”). There are many ways one could make these base ideas precise hence many “variants”. Furthermore, the ways that HP aim to make these ideas precise are radical and incomplete. If they don’t work out, Orch OR will need to fall back on another variant. Thus, I believe the significance of [1-2] for Orch OR is that it cuts out a small class of possible variants and leaves behind questions and challenges for the rest, including the variant preferred by HP. (shrink)

The Wheeler-DeWitt equation, as the central equation of quantum gravity, suffers from an excessively large solution space due to the lack of well-defined boundary conditions, leading to a loss of predictive power. Traditional approaches introduce artificial boundary conditions or topological constraints, but they lack support from first principles. This paper demonstrates that, by combining the fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics with the cosmological particle horizon, the physically relevant solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation must belong to the space of bandlimited functions. (...) This selection is entirely based on the principle of observability and requires no presupposition of a transcendent external observer. (shrink)

This paper argues that every quantum system can be understood as a sufficiently general kind of stochastic process unfolding in an old-fashioned configuration space according to ordinary notions of probability. This argument is based on an exact correspondence between the class of ‘indivisible’ stochastic processes and quantum theory. This new stochastic-quantum correspondence demotes the wave function from a primary ontological ingredient to a secondary mathematical tool, and yields a deflationary account of exotic quantum phenomena, such as interference, decoherence, entanglement, noncommutative (...) observables, and wave-function collapse. At a more practical level, the stochastic-quantum correspondence leads to a novel reconstruction of quantum theory, alongside the Hilbert-space, path-integral, and quasiprobability representations, and also provides a framework for using Hilbert-space methods to formulate highly generic, non-Markovian types of stochastic dynamics, with potential applications throughout the sciences. (shrink)

Many writings about quantum measurement posit a universal state reduction: every quantum measurement is accompanied by a state reduction. The supplementary material (next page) provides many examples. However, there are measurements without a state reduction. So authors and teachers should refrain from stating that state reduction is universal.

This book deals with some ontological implications of standard non-relativistic quantum mechanics, and the use of the notion of `consciousness' to solve the measurement problem.

According to a particular interpretation of quantum mechanics, the causal role of human consciousness in the measuring process is called upon to solve a foundational problem called the “measurement problem.” Traditionally, this interpretation is tied up with the metaphysics of substance dualism. As such, this interpretation of quantum mechanics inherits the dualist’s mind-body problem. Our working hypothesis is that a process-based approach to the consciousness causes collapse interpretation (CCCI) ---leaning on Whitehead’s solution to the mind-body problem--- offers a better metaphysical (...) understanding of consciousness and its role in interpreting quantum mechanics. This article is the kickoff for such a research program in the metaphysics of science. (shrink)

The evolution of the human mind through natural selection mandates that our conscious experiences are causally potent in order to leave a tangible impact upon the surrounding physical world. Any attempt to construct a functional theory of the conscious mind within the framework of classical physics, however, inevitably leads to causally impotent conscious experiences in direct contradiction to evolution theory. Here, we derive several rigorous theorems that identify the origin of the latter impasse in the mathematical properties of ordinary differential (...) equations employed in combination with the alleged functional production of the mind by the brain. Then, we demonstrate that a mind--brain theory consistent with causally potent conscious experiences is provided by modern quantum physics, in which the unobservable conscious mind is reductively identified with the quantum state of the brain and the observable brain is constructed by the physical measurement of quantum brain observables. The resulting quantum stochastic dynamics obtained from sequential quantum measurements of the brain is governed by stochastic differential equations, which permit genuine free will exercised through sequential conscious choices of future courses of action. Thus, quantum reductionism provides a solid theoretical foundation for the causal potency of consciousness, free will and cultural transmission. (shrink)

The famous EPR article of 1935 challenged the completeness of quantum mechanics and spurred decades of theoretical and experimental research into the foundations of quantum theory. A crowning achievement of this research is the demonstration that nature cannot in general consist in noncontextual pre-measurement properties that uniquely determine possible measurement outcomes, through experimental violations of Bell inequalities and Kochen-Specker theorems. In this article, I reconstruct an argument from Niels Bohr’s writings that the reality of the Einstein-Planck-de Broglie relations alone implies (...) that no such properties can exist for momentum and position measurements, show how this argument responds to the challenge of EPR on general physical grounds, and advance that this reconstruction shows that and how Bohr’s “complementarity” is a view of the objective content and logic of quantum theory. (shrink)

I present and explain the Bohmian account of collapse in quantum mechanics.

A familiar interpretation of quantum mechanics (one of a number of views sometimes labeled the "Copenhagen interpretation'"), takes its empirical apparatus at face value, holding that the quantum wave function evolves by the Schrödinger equation except on certain occasions of measurement, when it collapses into a new state according to the Born rule. This interpretation is widely rejected, primarily because it faces the measurement problem: "measurement" is too imprecise for use in a fundamental physical theory. We argue that this is (...) a weak objection, as there may be many ways of making "measurement" precise. However, measurement-collapse interpretations face a more serious objection: a dilemma tied to the quantum Zeno effect. Is measurement itself an observable that can enter superpositions? If yes, then the standard measurement-collapse dynamics is ill-defined. If no, then (at least if measurement is an observable), measurements can never start or finish. The best way out is to deny that measurement is an observable, but this leads to strong and revisionary consequences. This reinforces the view that there is no nonrevisionary interpretation of quantum mechanics. (shrink)

The monistic worldview aims at a uniform description of nature based on scientific models. Quantum physical systems are mutually part of the other quantum physical systems. An aperture distributes the subsystems and the wave front in all possible ways. The system only takes one of the possible paths, as measurements show. Conclusion from Bell's theorem: Before the quantum physical measurement, there is no point-like location in the universe where all the information that explains the measurement is available. Distributed information is (...) possible. Movement of the particle and measuring process are deterministic. The oscillation between location uncertainty and momentum uncertainty leads photons to determine their own location at short intervals. The uncertainty principle focuses the systems. The fields of the surrounding matter influence the location of the new formation. The effect of all fields is based on a common mechanism. (shrink)

Gravitational decoherence (GD) refers to the effects of gravity in actuating the classical appearance of a quantum system. Because the underlying processes involve issues in general relativity (GR), quantum field theory (QFT), and quantum information, GD has fundamental theoretical significance. There is a great variety of GD models, many of them involving physics that diverge from GR and/or QFT. This overview has two specific goals along with one central theme:(i) present theories of GD based on GR and QFT and explore (...) their experimental predictions;(ii) place other theories of GD under the scrutiny of GR and QFT, and point out their theoretical differences. We also describe how GD experiments in space in the coming decades can provide evidence at two levels:(a) discriminate alternative quantum theories and non-GR theories;(b) discern whether gravity is a fundamental or an effective theory. (shrink)

Traditionally, being a realist about something means believing in the independent existence of that something. In this line of thought, a scientific realist is someone who believes in the objective existence of the entities postulated by our best scientific theories. In metaphysical terms, what does that mean? In ontological terms, i.e., in terms of what exists, scientific realism can be understood as involving the adoption of a scientifically informed ontology. But according to some philosophers, a realistic attitude must go beyond (...) ontology. The way in which this requirement has been understood involves providing a metaphysics for the entities postulated by science, that is, answering questions about the nature of what ontology admits to exist. We discuss how two fashionable approaches face the challenge of providing a metaphysics for science: a form of naturalism and the Viking/Toolbox approach. Finally, we present a third way, which adopts the best of both approaches: the meta-Popperian method, which focuses on discarding the wrong alternatives, or better saying, the metaphysical profiles incompatible with certain theories. We present the meta-Popperian method, a metametaphysical method capable of objectively assessing which metaphysical profiles are incompatible with certain scientific theories. For this, we will use quantum mechanics as a case study, presenting some previously obtained results. As our focus is on methodological questions about the relationship between metaphysics and science; with this method, we can see how science can be used to avoid error in metaphysical issues. In our opinion, this would be a way to develop a productive relationship between science and metaphysics. (shrink)

‘Shallow’ and ‘deep’ versions of scientific realism may be distinguished as follows: the shallow realist is satisfied with belief in the existence of the posits of our best scientific theories; by contrast, deep realists claim that realism can be legitimate only if such entities are described in metaphysical terms. We argue that this methodological discussion can be fruitfully applied in Everettian quantum mechanics, specifically on the debate concerning the existence of worlds and the recent dispute between Everettian actualism and quantum (...) modal realism. After presenting what is involved in such dispute, we point to a dilemma for realists: either we don’t have the available metaphysical tools to answer the deep realist’s demands, and realism is not justified in this case, or such demands of metaphysical dressing are not mandatory for scientific realism, and deep versions of realism are not really required. (shrink)

The question “what is an interpretation?” is often intertwined with the perhaps even harder question “what is a scientific theory?”. Given this proximity, we try to clarify the first question to acquire some ground for the latter. The quarrel between the syntactic and semantic conceptions of scientific theories occupied a large part of the scenario of the philosophy of science in the 20th century. For many authors, one of the two currents needed to be victorious. We endorse that such debate, (...) at least in the terms commonly expressed, can be misleading. We argue that the traditional notion of “interpretation” within the syntax/semantic debate is not the same as that of the debate concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics. As much as the term is the same, the term “interpretation” as employed in quantum mechanics has its meaning beyond (pure) logic. Our main focus here lies on the formal aspects of the solutions to the measurement problem. There are many versions of quantum theory, many of them incompatible with each other. In order to encompass a wider variety of approaches to quantum theory, we propose a different one with an emphasis on pure formalism. This perspective has the intent of elucidating the role of each so-called “interpretation” of quantum mechanics, as well as the precise origin of the need to interpret it. (shrink)

Because the basis of physical order is temporal, evolution and narrative are naturally emergent and not inexplicable anomalies in a universe predetermined by timeless mathematical principles. The temporal world of life and consciousness has no place in classical physics but is perfectly at home in a quantum context. In and of itself an atom is the continuous computation of outcomes of potential interactions. The central mystery of quantum mechanics is cleared up by replacing measurement with temporal instantiation as the mechanism (...) by which nature coughs up the determinate world of the senses. In contrast to the continuous time of natural computation – whether atomic, biological or symbolic – the time of classical physics is a succession of discrete instants. As Bergson noted, theorists tend to spatialize this succession into a static sequence. No such operation is possible with unbroken flux and the memory and purpose implicit in it. (shrink)

This three-part paper comprises: (i) a critique by Halvorson of Bell’s (1973) paper ‘Subject and Object’; (ii) a comment by Butterfield; (iii) a reply by Halvorson. An Appendix gives the passage from Bell that is the focus of Halvorson’s critique.

Researchers have suggested since the early days of quantum theory that there are strong analogies between quantum phenomena and mental phenomena and these have developed into a vibrant new field of quantum cognition during recent decades. After revisiting some early analogies by Niels Bohr and David Bohm, this paper focuses upon Bohm and Hiley’s ontological interpretation of quantum theory which suggests further analogies between quantum phenomena and biological and psychological phenomena, including the proposal that the human brain operates in some (...) ways like a quantum measuring apparatus. After discussing these analogies I will also consider, from a quantum perspective, Hintikka’s suggestion that Kant’s notion of things in themselves can be better understood by making an analogy between our knowledge-seeking activities and an elaborate measuring apparatus. (shrink)

The paper takes up Bell's “Everett theory” and develops it further. The resulting theory is about the system of all particles in the universe, each located in ordinary, 3-dimensional space. This many-particle system as a whole performs random jumps through 3N-dimensional configuration space – hence “Tychistic Bohmian Mechanics”. The distribution of its spontaneous localisations in configuration space is given by the Born Rule probability measure for the universal wavefunction. Contra Bell, the theory is argued to satisfy the minimal desiderata for (...) a Bohmian theory within the Primitive Ontology framework. TBM's formalism is that of ordinary Bohmian Mechanics, without the postulate of continuous particle trajectories and their deterministic dynamics. This “rump formalism” receives, however, a different interpretation. We defend TBM as an empirically adequate and coherent quantum theory. Objections voiced by Bell and Maudlin are rebutted. The “for all practical purposes”-classical, Everettian worlds exist sequentially in TBM. In a temporally coarse-grained sense, they quasi-persist. By contrast, the individual particles themselves cease to persist. (shrink)

Relational Quantum Mechanics is an interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed by Carlo Rovelli. Rovelli argues that, in the same spirit as Einstein’s theory of relativity, physical quantities can only have definite values relative to an observer. Relational Quantum Mechanics is hereby able to offer a principled explanation of the problem of nested measurement, also known as Wigner’s friend. Since quantum states are taken to be relative states that depend on both the system and the observer, there is no inconsistency in (...) the descriptions of the observers. Federico Laudisa has recently argued, however, that Rovelli’s description of Wigner’s friend is ambiguous, because it does not take into account the correlation between the observer and the quantum system. He argues that if this correlation is taken into account, the problem with Wigner’s friend disappears and, therefore, a relativization of quantum states is not necessary. I will show that Laudisa’s criticism is not justified. To the extent that the correlation can be accurately reflected, the problem of Wigner’s friend remains. An interpretation of quantum mechanics that provides a solution to it, like Relational Quantum Mechanics, is therefore a welcome one. (shrink)

Any realist interpretation of quantum theory must grapple with the measurement problem and the status of state-vector collapse. In a no-collapse approach, measurement is typically modeled as a dynamical process involving decoherence. We describe how the minimal modal interpretation closes a gap in this dynamical description, leading to a complete and consistent resolution to the measurement problem and an effective form of state collapse. Our interpretation also provides insight into the indivisible nature of measurement—the fact that you can't stop a (...) measurement part-way through and uncover the underlying 'ontic' dynamics of the system in question. Having discussed the hidden dynamics of a system's ontic state during measurement, we turn to more general forms of open-system dynamics and explore the extent to which the details of the underlying ontic behavior of a system can be described. We construct a space of ontic trajectories and describe obstructions to defining a probability measure on this space. (shrink)

Effects associated in quantum mechanics with a divisible probability wave are explained as physically real consequences of the equal but opposite reaction of the apparatus as a particle is measured. Taking as illustration a Mach-Zehnder interferometer operating by refraction, it is shown that this reaction must comprise a fluctuation in the reradiation field of complementary effect to the changes occurring in the photon as it is projected into one or other path. The evolution of this fluctuation through the experiment will (...) explain the alternative states of the particle discerned in self interference, while the maintenance of equilibrium in the face of such fluctuations becomes the source of the Born probabilities. In this scheme, the probability wave is a mathematical artifact, epistemic rather than ontic, and akin in this respect to the simplifying constructions of geometrical optics. (shrink)

It is argued that quantum theory is best understood as requiring an ontological duality of res extensa and res potentia, where the latter is understood per Heisenberg’s original proposal, and the former is roughly equivalent to Descartes’ ‘extended substance.’ However, this is not a dualism of mutually exclusive substances in the classical Cartesian sense, and therefore does not inherit the infamous ‘mind-body’ problem. Rather, res potentia and res extensa are proposed as mutually implicative ontological extants that serve to explain the (...) key conceptual challenges of quantum theory; in particular, nonlocality, entanglement, null measurements, and wave function collapse. It is shown that a natural account of these quantum perplexities emerges, along with a need to reassess our usual ontological commitments involving the nature of space and time. (shrink)

We expound an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation of the formalism of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. The basic difference is that the new interpretation is formulated in the language of epistemological realism. It involves a change in some basic physical concepts. The ψ function is no longer interpreted as a probability amplitude of the observed behaviour of elementary particles but as an objective physical field representing the particles themselves. The particles are thus extended objects whose extension varies in time according to (...) the variation of ψ. They are considered as fundamental regions of space with some kind of nonlocality. Special consideration is given to the Heisenberg relations, the Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen correlations, the reduction process, the problem of measurement, and the quantum-statistical distributions. (shrink)

The purpose of this book is to explain Quantum Bayesianism (‘QBism’) to “people without easy access to mathematical formulas and equations” (4-5). Qbism is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that “doesn’t meddle with the technical aspects of the theory [but instead] reinterprets the fundamental terms of the theory and gives them new meaning” (3). The most important motivation for QBism, enthusiastically stated on the book’s cover, is that QBism provides “a way past quantum theory’s paradoxes and puzzles” such that much (...) of the weirdness associated with quantum theory “dissolves under the lens of QBism”. (shrink)

The revolution brought about by quantum mechanics in the early 20th century was nothing short of remarkable. It shattered the foundational principles of classical physics, giving rise to a plethora of controversial and intriguing conceptual questions. Questions that still perplex and confound the scientific community today. Is the quantum mechanical description of physical reality complete? Are the objects of nature truly inseparable? And most importantly, do objects not have a specific position before measurement, and are there non-causal quantum jumps? These (...) vital problems continue to garner more attention as time passes, particularly with the fading of positivism. If you're a student seeking to explore the fascinating philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics, this book might be just what you need. Written in Persian, brings you closer to the heart of quantum controversies and the fascinating world of quantum mechanics. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to summarize a particular approach of doing metaphysics through physics - the primitive ontology approach. The idea is that any fundamental physical theory has a well-defined architecture, to the foundation of which there is the primitive ontology, which represents matter. According to the framework provided by this approach when applied to quantum mechanics, the wave function is not suitable to represent matter. Rather, the wave function has a nomological character, given that its role in (...) the theory is to implement the law of evolution for the primitive ontology. (shrink)