Abstract This chapter argues that the intractable part of the measurement problem — the ‘big’ measurement problem — is a pseudo-problem that depends for its legitimacy on the acceptance of two dogmas. The first dogma is John Bell's assertion that measurement should never be introduced as a primitive process in a fundamental mechanical theory like classical or quantum mechanics, but should always be open to a complete analysis, in principle, of how the individual outcomes come about dynamically. The second dogma is the view that the quantum state has an ontological significance analogous to the significance of the classical state as the ‘truthmaker’ for propositions about the occurrence and non-occurrence of events, i.e., that the quantum state is a representation of physical reality. The chapter shows how both dogmas can be rejected in a realist information-theoretic interpretation of quantum mechanics as an alternative to the Everett interpretation. The Everettian, too, regards the ‘big’ measurement problem as a pseudo-problem, because the Everettian rejects the assumption that measurements have definite outcomes, in the sense that one particular outcome, as opposed to other possible outcomes, actually occurs in a quantum measurement process. By contrast with the Everettians, the chapter accepts that measurements have definite outcomes. By contrast with the Bohmians and the GRW ‘collapse’ theorists who add structure to the theory and propose dynamical solutions to the ‘big’ measurement problem, we take the problem to arise from the failure to see the significance of Hilbert space as a new kinematic framework for the physics of an indeterministic universe, in the sense that Hilbert space imposes kinematic (i.e., pre-dynamic) objective probabilistic constraints on correlations between events.
Abstract This chapter argues that the intractable part of the measurement problem — the ‘big’ measurement problem — is a pseudo-problem that depends for its legitimacy on the acceptance of two dogmas. The first dogma is John Bell's assertion that measurement should never be introduced as a primitive process in a fundamental mechanical theory like classical or quantum mechanics, but should always be open to a complete analysis, in principle, of how the individual outcomes come about dynamically. The second dogma is the view that the quantum state has an ontological significance analogous to the significance of the classical state as the ‘truthmaker’ for propositions about the occurrence and non-occurrence of events, i.e., that the quantum state is a representation of physical reality. The chapter shows how both dogmas can be rejected in a realist information-theoretic interpretation of quantum mechanics as an alternative to the Everett interpretation. The Everettian, too, regards the ‘big’ measurement problem as a pseudo-problem, because the Everettian rejects the assumption that measurements have definite outcomes, in the sense that one particular outcome, as opposed to other possible outcomes, actually occurs in a quantum measurement process. By contrast with the Everettians, the chapter accepts that measurements have definite outcomes. By contrast with the Bohmians and the GRW ‘collapse’ theorists who add structure to the theory and propose dynamical solutions to the ‘big’ measurement problem, we take the problem to arise from the failure to see the significance of Hilbert space as a new kinematic framework for the physics of an indeterministic universe, in the sense that Hilbert space imposes kinematic (i.e., pre-dynamic) objective probabilistic constraints on correlations between events.
The interaction between Schrodinger’s cat and a radioactive atom is the sort of thing that happens in a quantum measurement. The “measurement problem” of quantum mechanics is to explain how the cat can be considered to end up either definitely alive or definitely dead if the final state is an entangled state of the radioactive atom and the cat. This chapter discusses Bohm’s theory and the Everett interpretation as solutions to the measurement problem. The Everett interpretation is fundamentally a proposal to solve what Pitowsky calls the “big” measurement problem: how a quantum measurement can produce a definite outcome. On the information-theoretic interpretation proposed here, the “big” measurement problem is a pseudo-problem. The chapter concludes with some remarks on the “small” measurement problem: how a classical probability distribution over macroscopic measurement outcomes emerges in a measurement process – how probabilities of “what you’ll obtain if you measure” become transformed to probabilities of “what’s there.”
The quantum measurement problem remains a central unresolved issue in theoretical physics, arising from the incompatibility between unitary quantum dynamics and the emergence of definite measurement outcomes. Closely related is the question of the physical status of the wavefunction within contemporary quantum theory. This review critically surveys leading approaches to the measurement problem, focusing on their formal consistency, physical assumptions, and empirical implications. We examine the standard measurement framework, the role of environment-induced decoherence and quantum Darwinism, and the restrictions imposed by no-go theorems such as Bell, Kochen–Specker, and Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph. Interpretations including Everettian many-worlds, Bohmian mechanics, spontaneous collapse models, relational quantum mechanics, QBist approaches, and Copenhagen-type frameworks are assessed in terms of their ability to account for classical definiteness without sacrificing empirical adequacy. We also review experimental efforts probing macroscopic superpositions and collapse dynamics. The analysis indicates that, despite its predictive success, quantum theory lacks a complete physical account of outcome selection. This suggests that the measurement problem reflects a fundamental structural limitation of current theory, motivating either new physical principles or a redefinition of the wavefunction’s ontological role.
The measurement problem of quantum mechanics is predominantly treated in contemporary foundations research as an unresolved problem of dynamics or ontology. Accordingly, dominant solution approaches aim either at additional collapse mechanisms (e.g., GRW-type models), at ontological branching (Many-Worlds interpretations), or at an information-theoretic reinterpretation of state and measurement.The present contribution advances a different thesis. It shows that, despite their methodological differences, these approaches share a common categorical presupposition: they treat the transition from possibility to facticity as an intra-worldly describable occurrence—whether as a dynamical process, an ontological splitting, or a state update. It is precisely this presupposition that is called into question here.Starting from an ontological distinction between possibility and facticity, it is argued that measurement cannot be understood as a temporal event within an already structured world. Rather, it marks a boundary at which temporal, processual, and informational descriptions lose their applicability. The transition to objectivity is therefore not an explainable event, but an irreversible restriction of the space of possibility, through which world becomes factically binding in the first place.Against this background, dynamical collapse models, Many-Worlds interpretations, and information-theoretic ontologies are comparatively analyzed. The aim is not a refutation of these approaches, but a precise boundary determination: it is shown in what way they each provide formally successful answers to partial aspects of the measurement problem, while at the same time presupposing the categorical status of facticization that they claim to explain.The contribution does not understand itself as an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics, but as an ontological clarification of its domain of validity. It proposes that the measurement problem should no longer be treated as the search for a hidden mechanism, but as an indication of a structural boundary of physical description itself.
The aim of this paper is to consider the consequences of an information-theoretic interpretation of quantum mechanics for the measurement problem. The motivating idea of the interpretation is that the relation between quantum mechanics and the structure of information is analogous to the relation between special relativity and the structure of space-time. Insofar as quantum mechanics deals with a class of probabilistic correlations that includes correlations structurally different from classical correlations, the theory is about the structure of information: the possibilities for representing, manipulating, and communicating information in a genuinely indeterministic quantum world in which measurement outcomes are intrinsically random are different than we thought. Part of the measurement problem is deflated as a pseudo-problem on this view, and the theory has the resources to deal with the remaining part, given certain idealizations in the treatment of macrosystems.
Abstract Until recently Jeffrey Bub and Itamar Pitowsky, in the framework of an information-theoretic view of quantum mechanics, claimed first that to the measurement problem in its ordinary formulation there correspond in effect two measurement problems (simply called the big and the small measurement problems), with a different degree of relevance and, second, that the analysis of a quantum measurement is a problem only if other assumptions – taken by Pitowsky and Bub to be unnecessary ‘dogmas’ – are assumed. Here I critically discuss this unconventional stance on the measurement problem and argue that the Bub-Pitowsky arguments are inconclusive, mainly because they rely on an unwarranted extension to the quantum realm of a distinction concerning the foundations of special relativity which is in itself rather controversial.
This work is a critique of the program of "environment-induced decoherence" as advocated by Zurek, Zeh and Joos, among others. In particular, the alleged relevance of decoherence for a solution of the "measurement problem" is subjected to a detailed philosophical analysis. In the first chapter, an attempt is made to unravel what exactly this "measurement problem" amounts to for the decoherence theorists. The second chapter reviews the standard decoherence literature. The third chapter starts with a brief discussion of the philosophical implications of the decoherence program, followed by a non-standard reconstruction of the decoherence argument that aims to uncover some (mostly hidden) assumptions underlying the approach. It is argued that different subsets of these assumptions result in different versions of the decoherence argument. Next, these assumptions are investigated in more detail, and a number of open problems for the decoherence approach is formulated, in addition to the well-known "problem of outcomes". These problems concern the interpretational relevance of the preferred basis, the role and status of the ignorance interpretation of mixed states, imperfect decoherence and the role of the environment and the definition of subsystems. The fourth chapter addresses the question to what extent the embedding of decoherence in an Everett-like interpretational framework, such as Zurek's "existentional interpretation" and Wallace's structural-realistic version of the many-worlds interpretation, helps to resolve these problems. The main conclusions are formulated in the fifth chapter. Namely: 1) decoherence cannot address the "preferred-basis problem" without adding new interpretational axioms to the standard formalism, 2) the the locality principle (that says that the environment is the "irrelevant" part and should therefore be ignored) is not only problematic but also interpretationally superfluous, 3) the decoherence approach, when formulated in terms of the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, is predicated on a solution of the "problem of outcomes" and thus cannot claim to account (even partially) for the latter, and 4) that the results of the decoherence program do not increase the plausibility of a realist interpretation of the quantum state.