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

On the Usefulness of Philosophical Terminological Rigorousness in Quantum Mechanics

A. V. Grigorov

Published Feb 1, 2019• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

A lot of the confusion with regards to the meaning of Quantum Mechanics arises from improper use of language (in the philosophical sense). The following brief discussion demonstrates how this could be avoided, and the benefits of using more philosophically rigorous language and concepts.

Related papers

Is it Necessary the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?

V.A. Kasimov

Any interpretation, being a translation from one language (for example, micro-) to another language (for example, macro-), rests in the unproven possibility of the same conclusionbility or expressiveness in describing phenomena of different levels of ontology. In this sense, any interpretation is inherently speculative. There is the language of the theory - and we should communicate by it. In addition, there is a meta-language of philosophical generalizations.

•Apr 1, 2018•0 citations

Against "Reality" in Physics

S. P. Boughn

The concept of "reality" is often raised in the context of philosophical foundations of physics or interpretations of quantum mechanics. When this term is so raised, it is a warning to me that I am about to be led down a rabbit hole. Such diversions usually lead nowhere unless you consider endless discussions of Schrodinger's cat, wave function collapse, quantum non-locality, and parallel universes to be useful. A prime example is the famous Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen paper wherein they concluded that the quantum wave function cannot provide a complete description of physical reality. In this essay I suggest that, in physics discourse, the term "reality" should be avoided at all costs.

arXiv:1903.08673•Mar 20, 2019•1 citation

Quantum Language Games

Amitabh Vikram Dwivedi

This paper examines the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics through the lens of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, particularly the concept of “language games” and rule-following. The discourse surrounding quantum mechanics – characterized by terms like superposition, measurement, observer and entanglement – is deeply metaphoric and often stretches the bounds of classical language-use. This creates interpretative confusions not just in science, but in the metaphysical and epistemological debates that follow. Building on Philosophical Investigations, this paper argues that many foundational problems in quantum mechanics (e.g., the measurement problem, wave-function collapse, observer effect) are not exclusively ontological or physical but are entangled in language-use anomalies. The paper proposes that interpretative divergence among schools (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, QBism, etc.) can be partly understood as conflicts between distinct language games with different rule-sets about what counts as a “measurement”, “reality”, or “causality”. By reading quantum discourse through Wittgensteinian criteria of meaning-as-use, the paper shows how the scientific community performs tacit normativity in deploying quantum terms – frequently without shared agreement on referents. Quantum mechanics, then, becomes a philosophical case study in the fragility and productivity of linguistic scaffolds in scientific theory. Finally, this paper makes a case for a deflationary yet clarifying approach: instead of seeking a “true” interpretation of quantum mechanics, we may better understand the philosophical stakes by analyzing the discursive rules, contextual boundaries, and pragmatic criteria that underlie quantum speech acts.

Epistemology & Philosophy of Science•Jan 1, 2025•0 citations

On the Unavoidability of the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

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.

arXiv:1211.3883•Nov 16, 2012•0 citations

Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics

David Wallace

This is a general introduction to and review of the philosophy of quantum mechanics, aimed at readers with a physics background and assuming no prior exposure to philosophy. It is a draft version of an article to appear in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Physics.

•Nov 25, 2016•68 citations

Classical mechanics vs. quantum mechanics

Carson L. Tang

What is quantum mechanics and what does it do ? In very general terms, the basic problem that both classical Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics seek to address can be stated very simply: if the state of a dynamic system is known initially and something is done to it, how will the state of the system change with time in response ? In this chapter, we will give a brief overview of, first, how Newtonian mechanics goes about solving the problem for systems in the macroscopic world and, then, how quantum mechanics does it for systems on the atomic and subatomic scale. We will see qualitatively what the differences and similarities of the two schemes are and what the domain of applicability of each is. Brief overview of classical mechanics To answer the question posed above systematically, we must first give a more rigorous formulation of the problem and introduce the special language and terminology (in double quotation marks) that will be used in subsequent discussions. For the macroscopic world, common sense tells us that, to begin with, we should identify the “system” that we are dealing with in terms of a set of “static properties” that do not change with time in the context of the problem. For example, the mass of an object might be a static property. The change in the “state” of the system is characterized by a set of “dynamic variables.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jun 23, 2005•0 citations
The concept of "reality" is often raised in the context of philosophical foundations of physics or interpretations of quantum mechanics. When this term is so raised, it is a warning to me that I am about to be led down a rabbit hole. Such diversions usually lead nowhere unless you consider endless discussions of Schrodinger's cat, wave function collapse, quantum non-locality, and parallel universes to be useful. A prime example is the famous Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen paper wherein they concluded that the quantum wave function cannot provide a complete description of physical reality. In this essay I suggest that, in physics discourse, the term "reality" should be avoided at all costs.
This paper examines the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics through the lens of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, particularly the concept of “language games” and rule-following. The discourse surrounding quantum mechanics – characterized by terms like superposition, measurement, observer and entanglement – is deeply metaphoric and often stretches the bounds of classical language-use. This creates interpretative confusions not just in science, but in the metaphysical and epistemological debates that follow. Building on Philosophical Investigations, this paper argues that many foundational problems in quantum mechanics (e.g., the measurement problem, wave-function collapse, observer effect) are not exclusively ontological or physical but are entangled in language-use anomalies. The paper proposes that interpretative divergence among schools (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, QBism, etc.) can be partly understood as conflicts between distinct language games with different rule-sets about what counts as a “measurement”, “reality”, or “causality”. By reading quantum discourse through Wittgensteinian criteria of meaning-as-use, the paper shows how the scientific community performs tacit normativity in deploying quantum terms – frequently without shared agreement on referents. Quantum mechanics, then, becomes a philosophical case study in the fragility and productivity of linguistic scaffolds in scientific theory. Finally, this paper makes a case for a deflationary yet clarifying approach: instead of seeking a “true” interpretation of quantum mechanics, we may better understand the philosophical stakes by analyzing the discursive rules, contextual boundaries, and pragmatic criteria that underlie quantum speech acts.
What is quantum mechanics and what does it do ? In very general terms, the basic problem that both classical Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics seek to address can be stated very simply: if the state of a dynamic system is known initially and something is done to it, how will the state of the system change with time in response ? In this chapter, we will give a brief overview of, first, how Newtonian mechanics goes about solving the problem for systems in the macroscopic world and, then, how quantum mechanics does it for systems on the atomic and subatomic scale. We will see qualitatively what the differences and similarities of the two schemes are and what the domain of applicability of each is. Brief overview of classical mechanics To answer the question posed above systematically, we must first give a more rigorous formulation of the problem and introduce the special language and terminology (in double quotation marks) that will be used in subsequent discussions. For the macroscopic world, common sense tells us that, to begin with, we should identify the “system” that we are dealing with in terms of a set of “static properties” that do not change with time in the context of the problem. For example, the mass of an object might be a static property. The change in the “state” of the system is characterized by a set of “dynamic variables.