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

Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks

Reduction and Explanation

Simon Friederich

Published Jan 1, 2015• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

One of the defining aspects of the epistemic conception of quantum states is that it conceives of quantum states as non-descriptive. In this section, I consider the criticism that any non-descriptive reading of quantum states entails an unattractive ontological quantum/classical divide. This divide is supposed to separate a realm of classical macro-objects, which are susceptible to descriptions in terms of classical concepts, from a realm of quantum micro-objects, for which no descriptive account can be given at all.

DOI
10.1057/9781137447159_9

Related papers

The quantum world and the completeness of quantum mechanics

James T. Cushing

What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 29, 1998•0 citations

Explanation and the Quantum State

John Forge

Mature theories of physical science associate states with systems, for instance with particles or waves in classical physics. The quantities whose values comprise states in classical mechanics, namely position and momentum, are chosen, first of all, for predictive purposes. Everything that one would want to say about classical systems can, it seems, be said in terms of properties: specification of the properties of a system gives a complete specification of its state, and conversely. Quantum mechanics associates states with physical systems; whatever else these might be, systems are the particulars which bear physical properties. The former is non-reduced state, the quantum state proper, while the latter is the reduced state, the class of quantitative properties possessed by the system. The state therefore determines which quantities and which properties are instantiated. The non-reductive account of states was initially appealing because it seemed to promise some additional explanatory scope.

Routledge eBooks•Aug 20, 2018•0 citations

Niels Bohr as a Physicist of Principle

Mauro Dorato, Jan Faye

Our main claim is that Bohr adopted a principle-theoretic approach to quantum mechanics in order to reconcile two principles: the distinction principle, which asserts the necessity of a clear epistemic distinction between a classical apparatus and a quantum system, and the non-separability principle, which asserts that the two systems are ontologically non-separable in any measurement process. The latter principle is a consequence of Bohr's argument that, during a measurement interaction, the quantum system and the measurement apparatus form a 'new kind of individuality'. To support our argument, we first demonstrate the overlooked fact that, according to Bohr, the measurement interaction is a physical, irreversible process and not merely an epistemic acquisition of new information. In this respect, quantum mechanics must be regarded not only as a universal theory, but also as revealing no non-arbitrary difference between a quantum realm and a classical realm; the distinction is purely pragmatic. The tension between the epistemic necessity to rely on a neatly distinguishable classical realm and the ontic non-separability of the quantum system and the classical apparatus inclined Bohr to refuse to provide a constructive account of the measurement process, such as that later proposed, for instance, by spontaneous dynamical reduction models.

physics.hist-phCross-listedarXiv:2609.04297•Sep 4, 2026•0 citations

Interpreting Heisenberg interpreting quantum states

Simon Friederich

Abstract: The paper investigates possible readings of the later Heisenberg's remarks on the nature of quantum states. It discusses, in particular, whether Heisenberg should be seen as a proponent of the epistemic conception of states---the view that quantum states are not descriptions of quantum systems but rather reflect the state assigning observers' epistemic relations to these systems. On the one hand, it seems plausible that Heisenberg subscribes to that view, given how he defends the notorious “collapse of the wave function ” by relating it to a sudden change in the epistemic situation of the observer registering a measured result. On the other hand, his remarks on quantum probabilities as “potentia ” or “objective tendencies ” are difficult to reconcile with such a reading. The accounts that are attributed to Heisenberg by the different possible readings considered are subjected to closer scrutiny; at the same time, their respective virtues and problems are discussed. 1. Heisenberg and the epistemic conception of quantum states The epistemic conception of quantum states is the idea that quantum states are not descriptions of the properties of quantum systems but rather reflect the state assigning

Philosophia Naturalis•Jan 13, 2013•2 citations

An intuition behind quantum measurement

Piotr Witas

An attempt is made to give a heuristic explanation of the distinguished role of measurement in the quantum theory. We question the notion of "naive" reductionism by stressing the difference between an isolated quantum and classical object. It is argued that the transition from the micro- to the macroscopic description should be made along some parameters not characterized by the quantum theory.

arXiv:1403.6701•Mar 25, 2014•0 citations

Making Sense of Approximate Decoherence

Guido Bacciagaluppi, Meir Hemmo

One of the main goals of no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics is to show how results of measurements are objectified, or, in a more poignant terminology, how in a measurement situation facts arise. One needs to show how in their dynamical evolution the measured system and, perhaps more importantly, the measuring apparatus acquire, or at least appear to acquire, the definite properties that are otherwise explained by the collapse of the state. This can be seen as a special case of the problem whether quantum mechanics alone can account for the classical behaviour of macroscopic systems; in particular, the permanent definiteness of at least those properties of macroscopic systems that are directly observable, such as the position of the pointer of a measuring apparatus. In other words, whether quantum mechanics can account for macrofacts of the familiar kind.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1994•15 citations
One of the defining aspects of the epistemic conception of quantum states is that it conceives of quantum states as non-descriptive. In this section, I consider the criticism that any non-descriptive reading of quantum states entails an unattractive ontological quantum/classical divide. This divide is supposed to separate a realm of classical macro-objects, which are susceptible to descriptions in terms of classical concepts, from a realm of quantum micro-objects, for which no descriptive account can be given at all.
What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]
Mature theories of physical science associate states with systems, for instance with particles or waves in classical physics. The quantities whose values comprise states in classical mechanics, namely position and momentum, are chosen, first of all, for predictive purposes. Everything that one would want to say about classical systems can, it seems, be said in terms of properties: specification of the properties of a system gives a complete specification of its state, and conversely. Quantum mechanics associates states with physical systems; whatever else these might be, systems are the particulars which bear physical properties. The former is non-reduced state, the quantum state proper, while the latter is the reduced state, the class of quantitative properties possessed by the system. The state therefore determines which quantities and which properties are instantiated. The non-reductive account of states was initially appealing because it seemed to promise some additional explanatory scope.
Our main claim is that Bohr adopted a principle-theoretic approach to quantum mechanics in order to reconcile two principles: the distinction principle, which asserts the necessity of a clear epistemic distinction between a classical apparatus and a quantum system, and the non-separability principle, which asserts that the two systems are ontologically non-separable in any measurement process. The latter principle is a consequence of Bohr's argument that, during a measurement interaction, the quantum system and the measurement apparatus form a 'new kind of individuality'. To support our argument, we first demonstrate the overlooked fact that, according to Bohr, the measurement interaction is a physical, irreversible process and not merely an epistemic acquisition of new information. In this respect, quantum mechanics must be regarded not only as a universal theory, but also as revealing no non-arbitrary difference between a quantum realm and a classical realm; the distinction is purely pragmatic. The tension between the epistemic necessity to rely on a neatly distinguishable classical realm and the ontic non-separability of the quantum system and the classical apparatus inclined Bohr to refuse to provide a constructive account of the measurement process, such as that later proposed, for instance, by spontaneous dynamical reduction models.
Abstract: The paper investigates possible readings of the later Heisenberg's remarks on the nature of quantum states. It discusses, in particular, whether Heisenberg should be seen as a proponent of the epistemic conception of states---the view that quantum states are not descriptions of quantum systems but rather reflect the state assigning observers' epistemic relations to these systems. On the one hand, it seems plausible that Heisenberg subscribes to that view, given how he defends the notorious “collapse of the wave function ” by relating it to a sudden change in the epistemic situation of the observer registering a measured result. On the other hand, his remarks on quantum probabilities as “potentia ” or “objective tendencies ” are difficult to reconcile with such a reading. The accounts that are attributed to Heisenberg by the different possible readings considered are subjected to closer scrutiny; at the same time, their respective virtues and problems are discussed. 1. Heisenberg and the epistemic conception of quantum states The epistemic conception of quantum states is the idea that quantum states are not descriptions of the properties of quantum systems but rather reflect the state assigning
One of the main goals of no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics is to show how results of measurements are objectified, or, in a more poignant terminology, how in a measurement situation facts arise. One needs to show how in their dynamical evolution the measured system and, perhaps more importantly, the measuring apparatus acquire, or at least appear to acquire, the definite properties that are otherwise explained by the collapse of the state. This can be seen as a special case of the problem whether quantum mechanics alone can account for the classical behaviour of macroscopic systems; in particular, the permanent definiteness of at least those properties of macroscopic systems that are directly observable, such as the position of the pointer of a measuring apparatus. In other words, whether quantum mechanics can account for macrofacts of the familiar kind.