arXiv:2207.00502 · Entropy

Interpretation of Quantum Theory: The Quantum “Grue-Bleen” Problem

Benjamin W. Schumacher, Michael D. Westmoreland

Published Sep 9, 2022• 0 citations

Abstract

We present a critique of the many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics, based on different "pictures" that describe the time evolution of an isolated quantum system. Without an externally imposed frame to restrict these possible pictures, the theory cannot yield non-trivial interpretational statements. This is analogous to Goodman's famous "grue-bleen" problem of language and induction. Using a general framework applicable to many kinds of dynamical theories, we try to identify the kind of additional structure (if any) required for the meaningful interpretation of a theory. We find that the "grue-bleen" problem is not restricted to quantum mechanics, but also affects other theories including classical Hamiltonian mechanics. For all such theories, absent external frame information, an isolated system has no interpretation.

DOI: 10.3390/e24091268

Related papers

Quantum Interpretations.

A. R. P. Rau

Difficulties and discomfort with the interpretation of quantum mechanics are due to differences in language between it and classical physics. Analogies to The Special Theory of Relativity, which also required changes in the basic worldview and language of non-relativistic classical mechanics, may help in absorbing the changes called for by quantum physics. There is no need to invoke extravagances such as the many worlds interpretation or specify a central role for consciousness or neural microstructures. The simple, but basic, acceptance that what is meant by the state of a physical system is different in quantum physics from what it is in classical physics goes a long way in explaining its seeming peculiarities.

arXiv:quant-ph/0606028Physics EssaysSep 1, 20061 citation

The problem of time, locality and the interpretation of quantum mechanics

Thomas Thiemann

In this chapter we are going to address the famous ‘problem of time’ which has become the headline for all the physical interpretational problems of the mathematical formalism. Roughly speaking the problem of time is that there is none in GR: at least in the spatially compact case without boundaries the Hamiltonian vanishes on the physical, constraint surface. This is physically relevant because we seem to live in a universe with precisely that spatial topology. Since the Hamiltonian generates time translations in any canonical theory we arrive at the conclusion that ‘nothing moves’ in GR, which is in obvious contradiction to experiment. Since there is no time also the usual interpretation of quantum mechanical measurements at given moments of time breaks down. One can fill books about this issue and we will not even try to cover a substantial amount of the existing literature. A superb source of information on these conceptual problems is Carlo Rovelli's book [3]. Rather, what we will do in what follows is to collect various proposals for solutions to the problem of time taken from other authors, especially Rovelli's relational approach to classical and quantum physics and Hartle et al. 's consistent history interpretation, and combine them into a consistent picture. We do not want to suggest that the resulting picture is to be accepted, rather we want to draw attention to the problems involved and to develop a working hypothesis. The discussion on the interpretation of quantum mechanics is very alive and some authors such as Penrose [243] not only propose to alter the interpretational aspect of quantum mechanics but also the mathematical framework.

Cambridge University Press eBooksSep 13, 20070 citations

Is it Necessary the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

V.A. Kasimov

Any interpretation, being a translation from one language (for example, micro-) to another language (for example, macro-), rests in the unproven possibility of the same conclusionbility or expressiveness in describing phenomena of different levels of ontology. In this sense, any interpretation is inherently speculative. There is the language of the theory - and we should communicate by it. In addition, there is a meta-language of philosophical generalizations.

Apr 1, 20180 citations

Philosophical foundations of interpretations of quantum mechanics

Безлепкин Евгений Алексеевич

It is demonstrated that the reason for the diversity of interpretations of quantum mechanics is that they are not connected by continuity relations with classical physics, and also the reason is the impossibility of operationalist definition of the vector of state. The problem lies in the incompatibility of the philosophical foundations of interpretations, which results in the difficulty of building a unified picture of the world. To solve the problem, we identify general philosophical foundation of interpretations of quantum mechanics and built their classification. We also show that in more general theories, the part of which is quantum mechanics, it is possible to integrate (reconcile) the philosophical foundations of interpretations.

arXiv:1602.02253Feb 6, 20160 citations

Quantum logic: what it can and can't do

Peter Gibbins

What do we expect of a quantum logical interpretation of quantum mechanics worthy of the name? In what sense should it resolve the paradoxes? What scope should it have? Should quantum logic, if it is successful in the micro world, replace classical logic in the macro world and in mathematics? We distinguish between two kinds of quantum logical interpretations of quantum mechanics. An example of the first kind, the activist kind, will do much more than simply rewrite the assertions that quantum mechanics makes about the quantum world in an unfamiliar notation - in the elementary language of quantum mechanics. It will offer a solution to the major puzzles of quantum mechanics. It will show that the paradoxes of quantum mechanics can be resolved if we do away with classical logic and replace it with quantum logic, at least in our descriptions of quantum phenomena. It may defend a form of quantum-mechanical realism, a sort of quantum logical particle view of quantum systems, protecting it from the paradoxes that classical logic would impose on it. The second kind of quantum logical interpretation, the passive or quietist kind, is less ambitious. A quietist interpretation offers a solution to the paradoxes only in the following sense. It will assert that quantum mechanics, when it describes quantum phenomena in the elementary language, need not generate paradox, that the so-called paradoxes are not even formulable in quantum logic.

Cambridge University Press eBooksSep 25, 19870 citations

Philosophy of Science for Scientists: The Probabilistic Interpretation of Science

Shiro Ishikawa

Recently we proposed "quantum language" (or, "the linguistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics", "measurement theory") as the language of science.This theory asserts the probabilistic interpretation of science (=the linguistic quantum mechanical worldview), which is a kind of mathematical generalization of Born's probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics.In this paper, we consider the most fundamental problems in philosophy of science such as Hempel's raven paradox, Hume's problem of induction, Goodman's grue paradox, Peirce's abduction, flagpole problem, which are closely related to measurement.We believe that these problems can never be solved without the basic theory of science with axioms.Since our worldview (=quantum language) has the axiom concerning measurement, these problems can be solved easily.Thus we believe that quantum language is the central theory in philosophy of science.Hence there is a reason to assert that quantum language gives the mathematical foundations to science.

Journal of Quantum Information ScienceJan 1, 20195 citations