On the unavoidability of the interpretations of quantum mechanics

Ryan Lee

Roberto Beneduci, Franklin E. Schroeck

Recently, the presence in the literature (also recent) of voluminous discussions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics has been labelled as scandalous. We claim that a weak point of the debate which hosted such a conclusion is a lack of a definition of the term "interpretation". In the present note, we would "like to make precise" that meaning and to show how such a clarification is necessary in order to avoid misunderstandings.

Bernd A. Berg

Arguments have been raised that the system--observer cut of quantum mechanics can be shifted arbitrarily close to, or even into, the conscious observer. Here I show that this view leads to {\it observable} contradictions (despite our inability to control the phases of macroscopic states). For this purpose I modify and extend Schrödinger's well--known superposition of a cat in its dead and alive state. Implications for other interpretations of quantum mechanics are also discussed. My conclusion is that quantum mechanics is incomplete. The question ``When does the state vector collapse?'' seems to be unavoidable, has observable consequences, and is not answered by quantum mechanics.

Sara Taglialagamba, Gino Tarozzi

At variance with some recent interpretations emphasizing the relevance of Leonardo’s natural philosophy for contemporary science, the aim of this paper is neither to interpret Leonardo as a precursor of quantum mechanics nor to assimilate his conception of nature to contemporary relational interpretations of quantum theory. Rather, we argue that Leonardo’s organic and holistic perspective offers an alternative to mechanistic reductionism while still preserving the epistemological distinction between observer and observed reality. Quantum mechanics, by contrast, radicalizes the crisis of separability by undermining not only the independence of physical systems through entanglement and nonlocality, but also the classical distinction between subject and object through the unavoidable interaction involved in measurement processes. Leonardo’s relational and organic conception of nature should therefore not be confused with contemporary anti-realist or purely relational ontologies, since it remains grounded in a fundamentally realist and empiricist epistemology.

L. E. Ballentine