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:2504.02836

Comments on `Comment on Aurélien Drezet's defense of relational quantum mechanics' by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek Źukowski

Aurélien Drezet

Published Mar 17, 2025• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We respond briefly to the recent comment by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek Źukowski [arXiv:2210.09025 and Found. Phys. \textbf{54}, 45 (2024)] regarding our work defending RQM against their previous assessment. We refute the analysis proposed by the authors and rephrase our previous study in order to clarify the remaining ambiguities in our rebuttal.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2504.02836

Related papers

A Critical Analysis of ‘Relative Facts Do Not Exist: Relational Quantum Mechanics Is Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics’ by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek Źukowski

Aurélien Drezet

arXiv:2209.01237•Foundations of Physics•Dec 11, 2023•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

Comment on Aurélien Drezet’s Defense of Relational Quantum Mechanics

Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz, Marek Żukowski

Abstract Aurélien Drezet has attempted in Found. Phys. 54(1), 5 (2023) to defend Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) against our recent critique, entitled Relational Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with quantum mechanics, published in Quantum 7, 1015 (2023). Drezet not only misrepresents our work, but he also misconstructs the very theory (RQM) that he claims to defend.

Foundations of Physics•Jul 2, 2024•0 citations

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

R. Muciño, Elias Okon, Daniel Sudarsky

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.

arXiv:2107.05817•Jul 13, 2021•1 citation

Reply to Jay Lawrence. Comments on Piero Quarati et al. Negentropy in Many-Body Quantum Systems. Entropy 2016, 18, 63

P. Quarati, M. Lissia, Antonio Maria Scarfone

The Comments are explicitly related to contents of two published papers: actual [1] and [2].[...]

Entropy•Apr 7, 2016•0 citations

Reply to comment in arXiv:1802.01382

Tian‐Jian Xiong, L. L. Yan, Fang-Jie Zhou +7 more

Here we respond to a comment [arXiv:1802.01382] submitted recently on 'Experimental Verification of a Jarzynski-Related Information-Theoretic Equality by a Single Trapped Ion' PRL 120 010601 (2018). We consider that the argument is the thermalization in a quantum system, which is different from the counterpart in conventional thermodynamics.

arXiv:1802.02392•Feb 7, 2018•0 citations
We respond briefly to the recent comment by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek Źukowski [arXiv:2210.09025 and Found. Phys. \textbf{54}, 45 (2024)] regarding our work defending RQM against their previous assessment. We refute the analysis proposed by the authors and rephrase our previous study in order to clarify the remaining ambiguities in our rebuttal.
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.