Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2107.05817

A reply to Rovelli's response to our "Assessing Relational Quantum Mechanics''

R. Muciño, Elias Okon, Daniel Sudarsky

Published Jul 13, 2021• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a recent paper, Rovelli responds to our critical assessment of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). His main argument is that our assessment lacks merit, because we fail to understand, or cope with, the premises of his theory; instead, he argues, we judge his proposal, blinded by the preconceptions inherent to ``our camp''. Here, we explicitly show that our assessment judges RQM on its own terms, together with the basic requirements of precision, clarity, logical soundness and empirical suitability. Under those circumstances, we prove false Rovelli's claim that RQM provides a satisfactory, realistic, non-solipsistic description of the world. Moreover, his reply serves us to further exhibit the serious problems of the RQM proposal, as well as the failures of its author to understanding the basic conceptual difficulties of quantum theory.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2107.05817

Related papers

“What is relational is real, and what is real is relational”: an ontological assessment of Relational Quantum Mechanics

Juan Carlos Vila

Abstract The following paper explores the metaphysical significance of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). For this, I will first outline Rovelli’s philosophical framework, and then offer a reconstruction of Rovelli’s seminal argument in favour of RQM. I will then explore some healthy lines of philosophical work that may be undertaken to strengthen RQM. First, I will frame RQM in the debate between realist and antirealist readings of QM and defend the general claim that RQM is compatible with realism. Then, I discuss the main ontological interpretations of RQM, which I classify as “dispositional”, “transcendental” and “structural”, and argue that all of them remain committed to substantialist assumptions that limit the radicality of Rovelli’s proposal. Finally, I analyse recent developments on RQM’s ontology and suggest that preserving its ontological originality requires an assessment on the concept of “pattern”.

•Sep 30, 2026•0 citations

Assessing Relational Quantum Mechanics

R. Muciño, Elias Okon, Daniel Sudarsky

Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum theory based on the idea of abolishing the notion of absolute states of systems, in favor of states of systems relative to other systems. Such a move is claimed to solve the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics. Moreover, RQM has been argued to account for all quantum correlations without invoking non-local effects and, in spite of embracing a fully relational stance, to successfully explain how different observers exchange information. In this work, we carry out a thorough assessment of RQM and its purported achievements. We find that it fails to address the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics--related to the lack of clarity in its ontology and the rules that govern its behavior--and that it leads to serious conceptual problems of its own. We also uncover as unwarranted the claims that RQM can correctly explain information exchange among observers, and that it accommodates all quantum correlations without invoking non-local influences. We conclude that RQM is unsuccessful in its attempt to provide a satisfactory understanding of the quantum world.

arXiv:2105.13338•May 27, 2021•7 citations

Is Relational Quantum Mechanics about Facts? If So, Whose? A Reply to Di Biagio and Rovelli's Comment on Brukner and Pienaar

Blake C. Stacey

Brukner and Pienaar have critiqued the Relational Quantum Mechanics of Rovelli, and together with Di Biagio, the latter has replied. I point out a few places where, in my view, that reply needs clarification.

arXiv:2112.07830•Dec 15, 2021•1 citation

Too Many Perspectives, Not World Enough: A Metaphysical Appraisal of Relational Quantum Mechanics

Andréa Oldofredi, Antonio Vassallo

This paper examines the metaphysical foundations of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM), with special attention to its compatibility with scientific realism. We argue that RQM faces a dilemma. In its original formulation, RQM secures a sparse ontology of relative quantum events, but lacks the world-building structure needed to explain how these events jointly constitute a single, coherent reality of the kind presupposed by scientific realism. Recent discussions have already emphasized the difficulties that RQM faces concerning intersubjective agreement, communication, and the emergence of stable facts. Our contribution is to diagnose these difficulties as symptoms of a deeper metaphysical problem: RQM provides relative facts, but no clear account of what makes them facts of one world. We then assess the revised formulation proposed by Adlam and Rovelli, centered on the Cross-Perspective Links (CPL) principle. While CPL aims to restore intersubjective agreement by guaranteeing consistency across perspectives, we argue that it does so at a significant cost. It introduces observer-independent facts, persistent information-bearing structures, and global consistency constraints that sit uneasily with the relational spirit of the original interpretation. Thus, RQM either remains thoroughly relational but metaphysically too weak to support robust scientific realism, or it repairs this weakness by compromising its own relational foundations.

•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

A Dilemma for Relational Quantum Mechanics

Peter Lewis

Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is an interesting alternative to the standard responses to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. But it suffers from a distinctive kind of epistemic solipsism: an observer can’t in principle know anything beyond their immediate present experience. This makes RQM self-undermining: it takes away the evidence we have for believing in quantum mechanics in the first place. Recently, Adlam and Rovelli have proposed a solution to this problem in the form of a new postulate they call cross-perspective links. Here I argue that this postulate does indeed solve the skeptical problem, but it also removes those aspects of RQM that make it distinctively relational. Nevertheless, the result of equipping RQM with cross-perspective links is an interesting interpretation in its own right.

Principia an international journal of epistemology•Oct 18, 2024•2 citations

Relative facts do not exist. Relational Quantum Mechanics is Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. Response to the critique by Aurélien Drezet

Jay Lawrence, Markiewicz, Marcin, Marek Żukowski

In this comment we answer to the recent critique of our article [arXiv:2208.11793] about Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) by Aurélien Drezet [arXiv:2209.01237]. Here we point out that our critical analysis of RQM was precisely based on the most recent formulation of RQM, and that the theses found in the critique are based on neither RQM assumptions nor on our arguments.

arXiv:2210.09025•Oct 14, 2022•2 citations
In a recent paper, Rovelli responds to our critical assessment of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). His main argument is that our assessment lacks merit, because we fail to understand, or cope with, the premises of his theory; instead, he argues, we judge his proposal, blinded by the preconceptions inherent to ``our camp''. Here, we explicitly show that our assessment judges RQM on its own terms, together with the basic requirements of precision, clarity, logical soundness and empirical suitability. Under those circumstances, we prove false Rovelli's claim that RQM provides a satisfactory, realistic, non-solipsistic description of the world. Moreover, his reply serves us to further exhibit the serious problems of the RQM proposal, as well as the failures of its author to understanding the basic conceptual difficulties of quantum theory.
Abstract The following paper explores the metaphysical significance of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). For this, I will first outline Rovelli’s philosophical framework, and then offer a reconstruction of Rovelli’s seminal argument in favour of RQM. I will then explore some healthy lines of philosophical work that may be undertaken to strengthen RQM. First, I will frame RQM in the debate between realist and antirealist readings of QM and defend the general claim that RQM is compatible with realism. Then, I discuss the main ontological interpretations of RQM, which I classify as “dispositional”, “transcendental” and “structural”, and argue that all of them remain committed to substantialist assumptions that limit the radicality of Rovelli’s proposal. Finally, I analyse recent developments on RQM’s ontology and suggest that preserving its ontological originality requires an assessment on the concept of “pattern”.
Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum theory based on the idea of abolishing the notion of absolute states of systems, in favor of states of systems relative to other systems. Such a move is claimed to solve the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics. Moreover, RQM has been argued to account for all quantum correlations without invoking non-local effects and, in spite of embracing a fully relational stance, to successfully explain how different observers exchange information. In this work, we carry out a thorough assessment of RQM and its purported achievements. We find that it fails to address the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics--related to the lack of clarity in its ontology and the rules that govern its behavior--and that it leads to serious conceptual problems of its own. We also uncover as unwarranted the claims that RQM can correctly explain information exchange among observers, and that it accommodates all quantum correlations without invoking non-local influences. We conclude that RQM is unsuccessful in its attempt to provide a satisfactory understanding of the quantum world.
This paper examines the metaphysical foundations of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM), with special attention to its compatibility with scientific realism. We argue that RQM faces a dilemma. In its original formulation, RQM secures a sparse ontology of relative quantum events, but lacks the world-building structure needed to explain how these events jointly constitute a single, coherent reality of the kind presupposed by scientific realism. Recent discussions have already emphasized the difficulties that RQM faces concerning intersubjective agreement, communication, and the emergence of stable facts. Our contribution is to diagnose these difficulties as symptoms of a deeper metaphysical problem: RQM provides relative facts, but no clear account of what makes them facts of one world. We then assess the revised formulation proposed by Adlam and Rovelli, centered on the Cross-Perspective Links (CPL) principle. While CPL aims to restore intersubjective agreement by guaranteeing consistency across perspectives, we argue that it does so at a significant cost. It introduces observer-independent facts, persistent information-bearing structures, and global consistency constraints that sit uneasily with the relational spirit of the original interpretation. Thus, RQM either remains thoroughly relational but metaphysically too weak to support robust scientific realism, or it repairs this weakness by compromising its own relational foundations.
Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) is an interesting alternative to the standard responses to the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. But it suffers from a distinctive kind of epistemic solipsism: an observer can’t in principle know anything beyond their immediate present experience. This makes RQM self-undermining: it takes away the evidence we have for believing in quantum mechanics in the first place. Recently, Adlam and Rovelli have proposed a solution to this problem in the form of a new postulate they call cross-perspective links. Here I argue that this postulate does indeed solve the skeptical problem, but it also removes those aspects of RQM that make it distinctively relational. Nevertheless, the result of equipping RQM with cross-perspective links is an interesting interpretation in its own right.