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

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Making Sense of the Kochen‐Dieks “No‐Collapse” Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Independent of the Measurement Problem

Rob Clifton

Published Apr 1, 1995• 27 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1111/j.1749-6632.1995.tb38997.x

Related papers

Interpretations of quantum measurement without the collapse postulate

Dipankar Home, M. A. B. Whitaker

Physics Letters A•Mar 1, 1988•14 citations

Independently Motivating the Kochen—Dieks Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Rob Clifton

The distinguishing feature of ‘modal’ interpretations of quantum mechanics is their abandonment of the orthodox eigenstate–eigenvalue rule, which says that an observable possesses a definite value if and only if the system is in an eigenstate of that observable. Kochen's and Dieks' new biorthogonal decomposition rule for picking out which observables have definite values is designed specifically to overcome the chief problem generated by orthodoxy's rule, the measurement problem, while avoiding the no-hidden-variable theorems. Otherwise, their new rule seems completely ad hoc.The ad hoc charge can only be laid to rest if there is some way to give Kochen's and Dieks' rule for picking out which observables have definite values some independent motivation. And there is, or so I will argue here. Specifically, I shall show that theirs is the only rule able to save Schrödinger's cat from a fate worse than death, and sidestep the Bell–Kochen–Specker no-hidden-variables theorem, once we impose four independently natural conditions on such rules

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Mar 1, 1995•83 citations

No-Collapse Interpretations of Quantum Theory

O. Passon

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2018•2 citations

Independently motivating the KochenDieks modal interpretation of quantum mechanics

Rob Clifton, Jeremy Butterfield, Hans Halvorson

Abstract All interpretations of quantum mechanics still face the issue vigorously debated by Einstein and Bohr in the 1930s: do the theory’s mere probabilistic predictions for measurement outcomes indicate that observables lack definite values prior to measurement? Or is it just that the theory is lacking, making it currently not possible to know with certainty what the true values are until they are measured? Kochen (1985) and Dieks (1989), or ‘KD’ for short, embrace the For countless useful comments and often penetrating criticism, I would like to thank Guido Bacciagaluppi, John L. Bell, Harvey Brown, Jeffrey Bub, Bill Demopoulos, Michael Dickson, Dennis Dieks, Arthur Fine, Martin Jones, Simon Kochen, Richard Healey, Meir Hemmo, David Malament, Hamar Pitowsky, Laura Ruetsche, Abner Shimony, and Howard Stein. (This is not a list of ‘endorsements’.) And I wish to express gratitude to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for their continued generous support.

•Sep 23, 2009•0 citations

A Note on Van Fraassen's Modal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Stephen Leeds, Richard Healey

Although there has been some discussion in the literature of Bas van Fraassen's modal interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it has for the most part been concentrated on difficulties that van Fraassen's viewpoint shares with those of some other authors, including Kochen, Dieks, and Healey. van Fraassen's approach has, however, some problems of its own; in this note we want to focus on what seems to us to be one of the most serious of these. The difficulty concerns immediately repeated non-disturbing measurements of the same observable on a single system. As is well known, von Neumann's Projection Postulate guarantees that such measurements will always give the same outcome; likewise, in the approaches of the “modalists” mentioned above, such ‘consilience of repeated measurements’ is in one way or another built into the formalism. By contrast, we shall argue, van Fraassen's modal interpretation neither guarantees this result nor adequately explains why it is unnecessary to do so.

Philosophy of Science•Mar 1, 1996•24 citations

A uniqueness theorem for ‘no collapse’ interpretations of quantum mechanics

Jeffrey Bub, Rob Clifton

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics•Jun 1, 1996•128 citations
The distinguishing feature of ‘modal’ interpretations of quantum mechanics is their abandonment of the orthodox eigenstate–eigenvalue rule, which says that an observable possesses a definite value if and only if the system is in an eigenstate of that observable. Kochen's and Dieks' new biorthogonal decomposition rule for picking out which observables have definite values is designed specifically to overcome the chief problem generated by orthodoxy's rule, the measurement problem, while avoiding the no-hidden-variable theorems. Otherwise, their new rule seems completely ad hoc.The ad hoc charge can only be laid to rest if there is some way to give Kochen's and Dieks' rule for picking out which observables have definite values some independent motivation. And there is, or so I will argue here. Specifically, I shall show that theirs is the only rule able to save Schrödinger's cat from a fate worse than death, and sidestep the Bell–Kochen–Specker no-hidden-variables theorem, once we impose four independently natural conditions on such rules
Abstract All interpretations of quantum mechanics still face the issue vigorously debated by Einstein and Bohr in the 1930s: do the theory’s mere probabilistic predictions for measurement outcomes indicate that observables lack definite values prior to measurement? Or is it just that the theory is lacking, making it currently not possible to know with certainty what the true values are until they are measured? Kochen (1985) and Dieks (1989), or ‘KD’ for short, embrace the For countless useful comments and often penetrating criticism, I would like to thank Guido Bacciagaluppi, John L. Bell, Harvey Brown, Jeffrey Bub, Bill Demopoulos, Michael Dickson, Dennis Dieks, Arthur Fine, Martin Jones, Simon Kochen, Richard Healey, Meir Hemmo, David Malament, Hamar Pitowsky, Laura Ruetsche, Abner Shimony, and Howard Stein. (This is not a list of ‘endorsements’.) And I wish to express gratitude to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for their continued generous support.
Although there has been some discussion in the literature of Bas van Fraassen's modal interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it has for the most part been concentrated on difficulties that van Fraassen's viewpoint shares with those of some other authors, including Kochen, Dieks, and Healey. van Fraassen's approach has, however, some problems of its own; in this note we want to focus on what seems to us to be one of the most serious of these. The difficulty concerns immediately repeated non-disturbing measurements of the same observable on a single system. As is well known, von Neumann's Projection Postulate guarantees that such measurements will always give the same outcome; likewise, in the approaches of the “modalists” mentioned above, such ‘consilience of repeated measurements’ is in one way or another built into the formalism. By contrast, we shall argue, van Fraassen's modal interpretation neither guarantees this result nor adequately explains why it is unnecessary to do so.