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

Point–Counterpoint: Can Anything Be Learned from Surveys on the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics?

Matthew Leifer, Nathan L. Harshman

Published Jan 1, 2013• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

"In what follows, Matt Leifer and Nathan Harshman present opposing views on the value of surveys on foundational attitudes towards quantum mechanics. Three such surveys were recently published and their results are summarized in Table 1. Matt takes the `point,’ arguing that such surveys are not useful, while Nathan takes the `counterpoint.’ A complete set of references for both is given at the end."

Related papers

Yet Another Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics

Travis Norsen, Sarah Nelson

A survey probing respondents' views on various foundational issues in quantum mechanics was recently created by Schlosshauer, Kofler, and Zeilinger [arXiv:1301.1069] and then given to 33 participants at a quantum foundations conference. Here we report the results of giving this same survey to the attendees at another recent quantum foundations conference. While it is rather difficult to conclude anything of scientific significance from the poll, the results do strongly suggest several interesting cultural facts -- for example, that there exist, within the broad field of "quantum foundations", sub-communities with quite different views, and that (relatedly) there is probably even significantly more controversy about several fundamental issues than the already-significant amount revealed in the earlier poll.

arXiv:1306.4646•Jun 19, 2013•18 citations

Another Survey of Foundational Attitudes Towards Quantum Mechanics

Christoph Sommer

Although it has been almost 100 years since the beginnings of quantum mechanics, the discussions about its interpretation still do not cease. Therefore, a survey of opinions regarding this matter is of particular interest. This poll was conducted following an idea and using the methodology of Schlosshauer et al. (arXiv:1301.1069 [quant-ph]), but among a slightly different group. It is supposed to give another snapshot of attitudes towards the interpretation of quantum mechanics and keep discourse about this topic alive.

arXiv:1303.2719•Mar 11, 2013•10 citations

Surveying the Attitudes of Physicists Concerning Foundational Issues of Quantum Mechanics

Sujeevan Sivasundaram, Kristian Hvidtfelt Nielsen

Even though quantum mechanics has existed for almost 100 years, questions concerning the foundation and interpretation of the theory still remain. These issues have gathered more attention in recent years, but does this mean that physicists are more aware of foundational issues concerning quantum mechanics? A survey was sent out to 1234 physicists affiliated to 8 different universities. 149 responded to the questions, which both concerned foundational issues related to quantum mechanics, specifically, as well as questions concerning interpretations of physical theories in general. The answers to the survey revealed that foundational concepts in quantum mechanics are still a topic that only a minority of physicists are familiar with, although a clear majority of physicists find that interpretations of physical theories are important. The various questions, as well as how the respondents answered, are presented. The survey intends to give an overview of what the opinion of the physics community, in general, is concerning issues related to quantum mechanics.

arXiv:1612.00676•Dec 2, 2016•9 citations

A snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics

Schlosshauer, M., Kofler, J., Anton Zeilinger

Foundational investigations in quantum mechanics, both experimental and theoretical, gave birth to the field of quantum information science. Nevertheless, the foundations of quantum mechanics themselves remain hotly debated in the scientific community, and no consensus on essential questions has been reached. Here, we present the results of a poll carried out among 33 participants of a conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics. The participants completed a questionnaire containing 16 multiple-choice questions probing opinions on quantum-foundational issues. Participants included physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians. We describe our findings, identify commonly held views, and determine strong, medium, and weak correlations between the answers. Our study provides a unique snapshot of current views in the field of quantum foundations, as well as an analysis of the relationships between these views.

•Aug 1, 2013•251 citations

The Counterinutitve-ness of Quantum Mechanics: A Short Summary of Current Interpretations

Allan Porter

Exploring why quantum mechanics is considered to be counterintuitive and some of its most popular interpretations

•May 9, 2022•0 citations

Determinism: What We Have Learned and What We Still Don’t Know

John Earman

The purpose of this paper is to give a brief survey the implications of the theories of modern physics for the doctrine of determinism. The survey will reveal a curious feature of determinism: in some respects it is fragile, requiring a number of enabling assumptions to give it a fighting chance; but in other respects it is quite robust and very difficult to kill. The survey will also aim to show that, apart from its own intrinsic interest, determinism is an excellent device for probing the foundations of classical, relativistic, and quantum physics. The survey is conducted under three major presuppositions. First, I take a realistic attitude towards scientific theories in that I assume that to give an interpretation of a theory is, at a minimum, to specify what the world would have to be like in order for the theory to be true. But we will see that the demand for a deterministic interpretation of a theory can force us to abandon a naively realistic reading of the theory. Second, I reject the “no laws” view of science and assume that the field equations or laws of motion of the most fundamental theories of current physics represent science’s best guesses as to the form of the basic laws of nature. Third, I take determinism to be an ontological doctrine, a doctrine about the temporal evolution of the world. This ontological doctrine must not be confused with predictability, which is an epistemological doctrine, the failure of which need not entail a failure of determinism. From time to time I will comment on ways in which predictability can fail in a deterministic setting. Finally, my survey will concentrate on the Laplacian variety of determinism according to which the instantaneous state of the world at any time uniquely determines the state at any other time. The plan of the survey is as follows. Section 2 illustrates the fragility of determinism by means of a Zeno type example. Then sections 3 and 4 survey successively the fortunes of determinism in the Newtonian and the special relativistic settings..

The MIT Press eBooks•Jun 4, 2004•105 citations
"In what follows, Matt Leifer and Nathan Harshman present opposing views on the value of surveys on foundational attitudes towards quantum mechanics. Three such surveys were recently published and their results are summarized in Table 1. Matt takes the point,’ arguing that such surveys are not useful, while Nathan takes the counterpoint.’ A complete set of references for both is given at the end."
A survey probing respondents' views on various foundational issues in quantum mechanics was recently created by Schlosshauer, Kofler, and Zeilinger [arXiv:1301.1069] and then given to 33 participants at a quantum foundations conference. Here we report the results of giving this same survey to the attendees at another recent quantum foundations conference. While it is rather difficult to conclude anything of scientific significance from the poll, the results do strongly suggest several interesting cultural facts -- for example, that there exist, within the broad field of "quantum foundations", sub-communities with quite different views, and that (relatedly) there is probably even significantly more controversy about several fundamental issues than the already-significant amount revealed in the earlier poll.
Although it has been almost 100 years since the beginnings of quantum mechanics, the discussions about its interpretation still do not cease. Therefore, a survey of opinions regarding this matter is of particular interest. This poll was conducted following an idea and using the methodology of Schlosshauer et al. (arXiv:1301.1069 [quant-ph]), but among a slightly different group. It is supposed to give another snapshot of attitudes towards the interpretation of quantum mechanics and keep discourse about this topic alive.
Even though quantum mechanics has existed for almost 100 years, questions concerning the foundation and interpretation of the theory still remain. These issues have gathered more attention in recent years, but does this mean that physicists are more aware of foundational issues concerning quantum mechanics? A survey was sent out to 1234 physicists affiliated to 8 different universities. 149 responded to the questions, which both concerned foundational issues related to quantum mechanics, specifically, as well as questions concerning interpretations of physical theories in general. The answers to the survey revealed that foundational concepts in quantum mechanics are still a topic that only a minority of physicists are familiar with, although a clear majority of physicists find that interpretations of physical theories are important. The various questions, as well as how the respondents answered, are presented. The survey intends to give an overview of what the opinion of the physics community, in general, is concerning issues related to quantum mechanics.
Foundational investigations in quantum mechanics, both experimental and theoretical, gave birth to the field of quantum information science. Nevertheless, the foundations of quantum mechanics themselves remain hotly debated in the scientific community, and no consensus on essential questions has been reached. Here, we present the results of a poll carried out among 33 participants of a conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics. The participants completed a questionnaire containing 16 multiple-choice questions probing opinions on quantum-foundational issues. Participants included physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians. We describe our findings, identify commonly held views, and determine strong, medium, and weak correlations between the answers. Our study provides a unique snapshot of current views in the field of quantum foundations, as well as an analysis of the relationships between these views.
The purpose of this paper is to give a brief survey the implications of the theories of modern physics for the doctrine of determinism. The survey will reveal a curious feature of determinism: in some respects it is fragile, requiring a number of enabling assumptions to give it a fighting chance; but in other respects it is quite robust and very difficult to kill. The survey will also aim to show that, apart from its own intrinsic interest, determinism is an excellent device for probing the foundations of classical, relativistic, and quantum physics. The survey is conducted under three major presuppositions. First, I take a realistic attitude towards scientific theories in that I assume that to give an interpretation of a theory is, at a minimum, to specify what the world would have to be like in order for the theory to be true. But we will see that the demand for a deterministic interpretation of a theory can force us to abandon a naively realistic reading of the theory. Second, I reject the “no laws” view of science and assume that the field equations or laws of motion of the most fundamental theories of current physics represent science’s best guesses as to the form of the basic laws of nature. Third, I take determinism to be an ontological doctrine, a doctrine about the temporal evolution of the world. This ontological doctrine must not be confused with predictability, which is an epistemological doctrine, the failure of which need not entail a failure of determinism. From time to time I will comment on ways in which predictability can fail in a deterministic setting. Finally, my survey will concentrate on the Laplacian variety of determinism according to which the instantaneous state of the world at any time uniquely determines the state at any other time. The plan of the survey is as follows. Section 2 illustrates the fragility of determinism by means of a Zeno type example. Then sections 3 and 4 survey successively the fortunes of determinism in the Newtonian and the special relativistic settings..