Many-Measurements or Many-Worlds? A Dialogue

Aerts, Diederik; Bianchi, Massimiliano Sassoli de

doi:10.1007/s10699-014-9382-y

Cited by 14 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our non-reductionistic answer to the problem of inter-theory relation escapes in this way the requirement present in almost all interpretations of QM which implicitly or explicitly attempt to explain the formalism in substantialist atomistic terms. We believe there might be an interesting connection between our neo-Spinozist approach and the 'multiplex realism' recently proposed by Aerts and Sassoli de Bianchi [8]. Due to the limited space of this paper we leave this particular analysis and comparison for a future work.…”

Section: Elementary Processmentioning

confidence: 85%

Quantum Superpositions and the Representation of Physical Reality Beyond Measurement Outcomes and Mathematical Structures

Ronde

2017

Found Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we intend to discuss the importance of providing a physical representation of quantum superpositions which goes beyond the mere reference to mathematical structures and measurement outcomes. This proposal goes in the opposite direction to the project present in orthodox contemporary philosophy of physics which attempts to "bridge the gap" between the quantum formalism and common sense "classical reality" -precluding, right from the start, the possibility of interpreting quantum superpositions through non-classical notions. We will argue that in order to restate the problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics in truly ontological terms we require a radical revision of the problems and definitions addressed within the orthodox literature. On the one hand, we will discuss the need of providing a formal redefinition of superpositions which captures explicitly their contextual character. On the other hand, we will attempt to replace the focus on the measurement problem, which concentrates on the justification of measurement outcomes from "weird" superposed states, and introduce the superposition problem which focuses instead on the conceptual representation of superpositions themselves. In this respect, after presenting three necessary conditions for objective physical representation, we will provide arguments which show why the classical (actualist) representation of physics faces severe difficulties to solve the superposition problem. Finally, we will also argue that, if we are willing to abandon the (metaphysical) presupposition according to which 'Actuality = Reality', then there is plenty of room to construct a conceptual representation for quantum superpositions.

show abstract

Section: Elementary Processmentioning

confidence: 85%

Quantum Superpositions and the Representation of Physical Reality Beyond Measurement Outcomes and Mathematical Structures

Ronde

2017

Found Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It also goes in line with David Mermin's intuition according to which "the whole notion of an experimental test of KS [theorem] misses the point". 2 The paper is organized as follows. In the first section we discuss the main differences between epistemic and ontic views within the debate about the meaning of quantum theory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As we shall see, contrary to a widespread presupposition, the theorem does not relate to "classical experimental situations", such as those discussed repeatedly by Bohr (e.g.,[9]). 2 Mermin as cited by A. Cabello in[16].…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In[18] we have proposed a neo-Spinozist pluralist scheme based on Heisenberg's closed theories approach which understands the representational character of physical theories as immanent expressions -rather than descriptions-of physis. A different transcendent non-reductionistic proposal which might be considered is the Multiplex Realism proposed by Aerts and Sassoli de Bianchi in[2] 6. This can be seen from the very interesting discussion between Heisenberg and Einstein [32, p. 66] were the latter explains: "I have no wish to appear as an advocate of a naive form of realism; I know that these are very difficult questions, but then I consider Mach's concept of observation also much too naive.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unscrambling the Omelette of Quantum Contextuality (Part I): Preexistent Properties or Measurement Outcomes?

Ronde

2019

Found Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we attempt to analyze the physical and philosophical meaning of quantum contextuality. We will argue that there exists a general confusion within the foundational literature arising from the improper "scrambling" of two different meanings of quantum contextuality. While the first one, introduced by Bohr, is related to an epistemic interpretation of contextuality which stresses the incompatibility (or complementarity) of certain measurement situations described in classical terms; the second meaning of contextuality is related to a purely formal understanding of contextuality as exposed by the Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem which focuses instead on the constraints of the orthodox quantum formalism in order to interpret projection operators as preexistent or actual (definite valued) properties. We will show how these two notions have been scrambled together creating an "omelette of contextuality" which has been fully widespread through a popularized "epistemic explanation" of the KS theorem according to which: The measurement outcome of the observable A when measured together with B or together with C will necessarily differ in case [A, B] = [A, C] = 0, and [B, C] = 0. We will show why this statement is not only improperly scrambling epistemic and formal perspectives, but is also physically and philosophically meaningless. Finally, we analyze the consequences of such widespread epistemic reading of KS theorem as related to statistical statements of measurement outcomes.

show abstract

“…The so-called 'spin quantum machine', also known as the ' -model', or 'sphere model' [1,2,3], is an extension of the standard (3-dimensional) Bloch sphere representation that includes a description also of the measurements, as (weighted) symmetry breaking processes selecting (in a non-predictable way) the hidden-measurement interactions responsible for producing the transitions towards the outcome-states. Recently, the model has been extended, so that measurements having an arbitrary number N of (possibly degenerate) outcomes can also be described, in what has been called the 'extended Bloch representation' (EBR) of quantum mechanics [4,5,6,7,8,9,10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Extended Bloch Representation of Quantum Mechanics for Infinite-Dimensional Entities

Aerts¹,

Bianchi²

2018

Probing the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Many-Measurements or Many-Worlds? A Dialogue

Cited by 14 publications

References 47 publications

Quantum Superpositions and the Representation of Physical Reality Beyond Measurement Outcomes and Mathematical Structures

Quantum Superpositions and the Representation of Physical Reality Beyond Measurement Outcomes and Mathematical Structures

Unscrambling the Omelette of Quantum Contextuality (Part I): Preexistent Properties or Measurement Outcomes?

The Extended Bloch Representation of Quantum Mechanics for Infinite-Dimensional Entities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About