Quantum theory has been criticized for not being deterministic and therefore not universal: it cannot completely describe a measurement aimed at verifying its predictions (although any given apparatus can be considered as a quantum system). We investigate the possible alternatives. Theories where the observed world is deterministic but the observer is not (whatever the reason for that) lead to Bell’s nonseparability theorem. If, on the other hand, the observer too is deterministic, the theory is not verifiable. It follows that quantum theory must be the logically preferred option. Its inability to completely describe the measurement process appears to be not a flaw of the theory but a logical necessity which is analogous to Gödel’s undecidability theorem.
Quantum theory has been criticized for not being deterministic and therefore not universal: it cannot completely describe a measurement aimed at verifying its predictions (although any given apparatus can be considered as a quantum system). We investigate the possible alternatives. Theories where the observed world is deterministic but the observer is not (whatever the reason for that) lead to Bell’s nonseparability theorem. If, on the other hand, the observer too is deterministic, the theory is not verifiable. It follows that quantum theory must be the logically preferred option. Its inability to completely describe the measurement process appears to be not a flaw of the theory but a logical necessity which is analogous to Gödel’s undecidability theorem.
We argue that for the proof of Bell's theorem no assumptions about realism or free will are necessary. The key formula E(AB∣a,b)=∫A(a,b,λ)B(a,b,λ)ρ(λ)dλ follows from the logic of plausible reasoning (the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability theory) taken alone, without any further assumptions about realism. The space Λ, usually interpreted as some space of `hidden variables', can be constructed for an arbitrary `field of discourse' using Stone's theorem. The rejection of superdeterminism follows from logical independence -- the non-existence of information which suggest a dependence -- of the free decisions of the experimenters from everything else. To prove the Bell inequality it is, then, sufficient to reduce this to E(AB∣a,b)=∫A(a,λ)B(b,λ)ρ(λ)dλ. This follows for space-like separated measurements from Einstein causality alone. So, the consequence of the violation of Bell's inequality is that Einstein causality has been empirically falsified, without any loopholes left. We consider and reject the idea of weakening the logic of plausible reasoning could be used to create a loophole. Finally, we discuss what can be used to replace Einstein causality. While weak (signal) Einstein causality holds, it follows either from a notion of strong causality or from human inability to prepare states which violate quantum uncertainty, which makes it uninteresting for fundamental considerations. A notion of strong causality has either unacceptable causal loops or requires a hidden preferred frame. Given that a hidden preferred frame is completely compatible with modern physics, it is argued that this choice is preferable.
It is argued that although quantum theory isn't an absolutely deterministic theory, it is partially deterministic. The approach followed here is in the framework of the standard (Copenhagen interpretation of) quantum mechanics without any additional assumption or alternative interpretation. The argument is based on the conceptual meaning of determinism and by means of some well-known phenomena in the quantum world (measurement of a quantum particle spin, energy values and spatial states of an electron in atoms, the so-called wavefunction collapse problem) which are usually considered in rejecting determinism.
Quantum theory is a tremendously successful physical theory, but nevertheless suffers from two serious problems: the measurement problem and the problem of interpretational underdetermination. The latter, however, is largely overlooked as a genuine problem of its own. Both problems concern the doctrine of realism, but pull, quite curiously, into opposite directions. The measurement problem can be captured such that due to scientific realism about quantum theory common sense anti-realism follows, while theory underdetermination usually counts as an argument against scientific realism. I will also consider the more refined distinctions of ontic and epistemic realism and demonstrate that quantum theory in its most viable interpretations conflicts with at least one of the various realism claims. A way out of the conundrum is to come to the bold conclusion that quantum theory is, possibly, wrong (in the realist sense).
Does "epistemic non-signalling" ensure the peaceful coexistence of special relativity and quantum nonlocality? The possibility of an affirmative answer is of great importance to deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics given recent developments towards generalizations of Bell's theorem. By generalizations of Bell's theorem we here mean efforts that seek to demonstrate the impossibility of any deterministic theories to obey the predictions of Bell's theorem, including not only local hidden-variables theories (LHVTs) but, critically, of nonlocal hidden-variables theories (NHVTs) also, such as de Broglie-Bohm theory. Naturally, in light of the well-established experimental findings from quantum physics, whether or not a deterministic approach to quantum mechanics, including an emergent quantum mechanics, is logically possible, depends on compatibility with the predictions of Bell's theorem. With respect to deterministic NHVTs, recent attempts to generalize Bell's theorem have claimed the impossibility of any such approaches to quantum mechanics. The present work offers arguments showing why such efforts towards generalization may fall short of their stated goal. In particular, we challenge the validity of the use of the non-signalling theorem as a conclusive argument in favor of the existence of free randomness, and therefore reject the use of the non-signalling theorem as an argument against the logical possibility of deterministic approaches. We here offer two distinct counter-arguments in support of the possibility of deterministic NHVTs: one argument exposes the circularity of the reasoning which is employed in recent claims, and a second argument is based on the inconclusive metaphysical status of the non-signalling theorem itself. We proceed by presenting an entirely informal treatment of key physical and metaphysical assumptions, and of their interrelationship, in attempts seeking to generalize Bell's theorem on the basis of an ontic, foundational interpretation of the non-signalling theorem. We here argue that the non-signalling theorem must instead be viewed as an epistemic, operational theorem i.e. one that refers exclusively to what epistemic agents can, or rather cannot, do. That is, we emphasize that the non-signalling theorem is a theorem about the operational inability of epistemic agents to signal information. In other words, as a proper principle, the non-signalling theorem may only be employed as an epistemic, phenomenological, or operational principle. Critically, our argument emphasizes that the non-signalling principle must not be used as an ontic principle about physical reality as such, i.e. as a theorem about the nature of physical reality independently of epistemic agents e.g. human observers. One major reason in favor of our conclusion is that any definition of signalling or of non-signalling invariably requires a reference to epistemic agents, and what these agents can actually measure and report. Otherwise, the non-signalling theorem would equal a general "no-influence" theorem. In conclusion, under the assumption that the non-signalling theorem is epistemic (i.e. "epistemic non-signalling"), the search for deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics, including NHVTs and an emergent quantum mechanics, continues to be a viable research program towards disclosing the foundations of physical reality at its smallest dimensions.
In the Einstein-Bohr debate, Einstein considered quantum mechanics incomplete and disagreed with Born’s probabilistic interpretation of wave-functions. Observers in the axioms of quantum mechanics also bothered Einstein. Inspired by Einstein, Bell and his followers intended to complete quantum mechanics within the framework of local realism. Regrettably, the deterministic correlation between distant components of a separable system in Einstein’s local-realist description of the world is mistaken for non-locality in the world described by Bell’s theorem, leading to incorrect interpretations of experimental results obtained by testing Bell inequalities. This article introduces a new principle, the general principle of measurements, which is proved as a mathematical theorem and allows quantum mechanics to be completed within the framework of local realism while keeping the formal axiomatic definition of a general Hilbert space unchanged. The completed theory can provide the same probabilistic predictions of empirical results as those provided by the current theory. Using disjunction (“or”) as the logical relation between superposed orthonormal vectors, the completed theory precludes observers in the axioms of the current theory and inexplicable collapses of wave-functions, thus it is intuitively comprehensible and alleviates much difficulty in understanding quantum mechanics. Among various world views, Einstein’s local-realist world view is correct.
The predictions that quantum theory makes about the outcomes of measurements are generally probabilistic. This has raised the question whether quantum theory can be considered complete, or whether there could exist alternative theories that provide improved predictions. Here we review recent work that considers arbitrary alternative theories, constrained only by the requirement that they are compatible with a notion of "free choice" (defined with respect to a natural causal order). It is shown that quantum theory is "maximally informative", i.e., there is no other compatible theory that gives improved predictions. Furthermore, any alternative maximally informative theory is necessarily equivalent to quantum theory. This means that the state a system has in such a theory is in one-to-one correspondence with its quantum-mechanical state (the wave function). In this sense, quantum theory is complete.