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:2305.07792 · Foundations of Science

Wigner and Friends, A Map is not the Territory! Contextuality in Multi-agent Paradoxes

Sidiney Bruno Montanhano

Published Jan 30, 2025• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/s10699-024-09971-y

Related papers

Wigner’s Friend as a Rational Agent

Veronika Baumann, Časlav Brukner

Jerusalem studies in philosophy and history of science•Jan 1, 2020•51 citations

The Wigner's Friend Paradox Reconsidered: Context, Synchronization, and the Ontology of Identity

Kajetan Młynarski

•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations

Wigner's friend paradox: does objective reality not exist?

Aleksandr V. Belinsky

Uspekhi Fizicheskih Nauk•May 1, 2020•8 citations

A refined Frauchiger–Renner paradox based on strong contextuality

Laurens Walleghem, Rui Soares Barbosa, Matthew F. Pusey +1 more

The Frauchiger–Renner paradox derives an inconsistency when quantum theory is used to describe the use of itself, by means of a scenario where agents model other agents quantumly and reason about each other's knowledge. We observe that logical contextuality (à la Hardy) is the key ingredient of the FR paradox, and we provide a stronger paradox based on the strongly contextual GHZ–Mermin scenario. In contrast to the FR paradox, this GHZ–FR paradox neither requires post-selection nor any reasoning by observers who are modelled quantumly. If one accepts the universality of quantum theory including superobservers, we propose a natural extension of Peres's dictum to resolve these extended Wigner's friend paradoxes.

arXiv:2409.05491•Quantum•May 26, 2026•3 citations

Agreement and Compatibility in Wigner's Friend Paradox

Julio C. F. Silva, B. F. Rizzuti, Cristhiano Duarte

There has been an upsurge of interest in the consequences for quantum physics of the so-called Wigner's Friend Paradox. In its original formulation, the paradox has been turned inside out, and virtually every aspect of it has been looked into. Consequently, it is becoming widely accepted that we can find the potentially puzzling consequences of Wigner's thought experiment only in light of its many-parties extensions. Nonetheless, this contribution returns to the source. Reframing the question as an inference problem, we advance a radically Bayesian interpretation that shows no contradiction between Wigner's and Wigner's Friend's descriptions-neither classically nor quantumly. Therefore, with no paradoxical conclusion. In doing so, we flesh out and expose previously untouched aspects of Wigner's thought experiment, in particular, the fact that compatibility and agreement are fundamental to our understanding of it. Also, by conservatively extending Wigner's original setup and incorporating what we call the 'benefit of the doubt', we see how either Wigner's or his Friend's description can be driven to match one another's -- an impossibility if either agent does not keep an open mind.

quant-pharXiv:2605.27424•May 21, 2026•0 citations

Decision-making in cognitive paradoxes with contextuality and quantum formalism

Ishwarya M.S., Aswani Kumar Cherukuri

Applied Soft Computing•Jul 3, 2020•16 citations
The Frauchiger–Renner paradox derives an inconsistency when quantum theory is used to describe the use of itself, by means of a scenario where agents model other agents quantumly and reason about each other's knowledge. We observe that logical contextuality (à la Hardy) is the key ingredient of the FR paradox, and we provide a stronger paradox based on the strongly contextual GHZ–Mermin scenario. In contrast to the FR paradox, this GHZ–FR paradox neither requires post-selection nor any reasoning by observers who are modelled quantumly. If one accepts the universality of quantum theory including superobservers, we propose a natural extension of Peres's dictum to resolve these extended Wigner's friend paradoxes.
There has been an upsurge of interest in the consequences for quantum physics of the so-called Wigner's Friend Paradox. In its original formulation, the paradox has been turned inside out, and virtually every aspect of it has been looked into. Consequently, it is becoming widely accepted that we can find the potentially puzzling consequences of Wigner's thought experiment only in light of its many-parties extensions. Nonetheless, this contribution returns to the source. Reframing the question as an inference problem, we advance a radically Bayesian interpretation that shows no contradiction between Wigner's and Wigner's Friend's descriptions-neither classically nor quantumly. Therefore, with no paradoxical conclusion. In doing so, we flesh out and expose previously untouched aspects of Wigner's thought experiment, in particular, the fact that compatibility and agreement are fundamental to our understanding of it. Also, by conservatively extending Wigner's original setup and incorporating what we call the 'benefit of the doubt', we see how either Wigner's or his Friend's description can be driven to match one another's -- an impossibility if either agent does not keep an open mind.