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

Journal of Statistical Physics

Consistent Quantum Realism: A Reply to Griffiths

Angelo Bassi, G. C. Ghirardi

Published Jun 1, 2000• 3 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1023/a:1018653209350

Related papers

Consistent Quantum Realism: A Reply to Bassi and Ghirardi

Robert B. Griffiths

arXiv:quant-ph/0001093•Journal of Statistical Physics•Jun 1, 2000•20 citations

Consistent treatments of quantum mechanics Reply

Yakir Aharonov, Sandu Popescu, Jeff Tollaksen

Physics Today•Oct 1, 2011•1 citation

Hilbert Space Quantum Mechanics is Contextual (Reply to R. B. Griffiths)

Christian DE RONDE

In a recent paper Griffiths [38] has argued, based on the consistent histories interpretation, that Hilbert space quantum mechanics (QM) is noncontextual. According to Griffiths the problem of contextuality disappears if the apparatus is "designed and operated by a competent experimentalist" and we accept the Single Framework Rule (SFR). We will argue from a representational realist stance that the conclusion is incorrect due to the misleading understanding provided by Griffiths to the meaning of quantum contextuality and its relation to physical reality and measurements. We will discuss how the quite general incomprehension of contextuality has its origin in the "objective-subjective omelette" created by Heisenberg and Bohr. We will argue that in order to unscramble the omelette we need to disentangle, firstly, representational realism from naive realism, secondly, ontology from epistemology, and thirdly, the different interpretational problems of QM. In this respect, we will analyze what should be considered as Meaningful Physical Statements (MPS) within a theory and will argue that Counterfactual Reasoning (CR) -considered by Griffiths as "tricky"- must be accepted as a necessary condition for any representational realist interpretation of QM. Finally we discuss what should be considered as a problem (and what not) in QM from a representational realist perspective.

arXiv:1502.05396•Feb 18, 2015•3 citations

QUANTUM REALISM: THE INTERPRETATION OF AN INTERPRETATION?

Jan Faye

Danish Yearbook of Philosophy•Aug 2, 2006•0 citations

Particle path(s) through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer: Reply to Griffiths

Lev Vaidman A

Griffiths [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)] analyzed, in the framework of consistent histories interpretation, the controversy regarding the approach to the past of a quantum particle introduced by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 87, 052104 (2013)]. I argue that Griffith's criticism of my approach using analysis of experiments with weak probes is unfounded.

arXiv:1610.07734•Oct 25, 2016•2 citations

Griffiths replies

Robert B. Griffiths

A reply to the objections asserting that an interpretation based on quantum trajectories and consistent histories is unacceptable on physical grounds is made. (AIP)Received 23 December 1993DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.1771©1994 American Physical Society

Physical Review Letters•Mar 14, 1994•0 citations
In a recent paper Griffiths [38] has argued, based on the consistent histories interpretation, that Hilbert space quantum mechanics (QM) is noncontextual. According to Griffiths the problem of contextuality disappears if the apparatus is "designed and operated by a competent experimentalist" and we accept the Single Framework Rule (SFR). We will argue from a representational realist stance that the conclusion is incorrect due to the misleading understanding provided by Griffiths to the meaning of quantum contextuality and its relation to physical reality and measurements. We will discuss how the quite general incomprehension of contextuality has its origin in the "objective-subjective omelette" created by Heisenberg and Bohr. We will argue that in order to unscramble the omelette we need to disentangle, firstly, representational realism from naive realism, secondly, ontology from epistemology, and thirdly, the different interpretational problems of QM. In this respect, we will analyze what should be considered as Meaningful Physical Statements (MPS) within a theory and will argue that Counterfactual Reasoning (CR) -considered by Griffiths as "tricky"- must be accepted as a necessary condition for any representational realist interpretation of QM. Finally we discuss what should be considered as a problem (and what not) in QM from a representational realist perspective.