In discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics the terms ‘ontic’ and ‘epistemic’ are often used in the sense of pertaining to what exists, and pertaining to cognition or knowledge respectively. The terms are also often associated with the formal definitions given by Harrigan and Spekkens for the wavefunction in quantum mechanics to be �ψ-ontic or �ψ-epistemic in the context of the ontological models framework. The formal definitions are contradictories, so that the wavefunction can be either ψ�-epistemic or ψ �-ontic but not both. However, we argue, nothing about the informal ideas of epistemic and ontic interpretations rules out wavefunctions representing both reality and knowledge. The implications of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph theorem and many other issues may be rethought in the light of our analysis.
Abstract In discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics the terms ‘ontic’ and ‘epistemic’ are often used in the sense of pertaining to what exists, and pertaining to cognition or knowledge respectively. The terms are also often associated with the formal definitions given by Harrigan and Spekkens for the wavefunction in quantum mechanics to be
ψ ψ -ontic or
ψ ψ -epistemic in the context of the ontological models framework. The formal definitions are contradictories, so that the wavefunction can be either
ψ ψ -epistemic or
ψ ψ -ontic but not both. However, we argue, nothing about the informal ideas of epistemic and ontic interpretations rules out wavefunctions representing both reality and knowledge. The implications of the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph theorem and many other issues may be rethought in the light of our analysis.
Is The Quantum Wave Function Real?The conflict between all we know about the physics of quantum systems and what we say or believe is real about them is brought forward dramatically with the concept of the quantum wave function (QWF). Is the QWF ontic or merely epistemic? Here I review and clarify through original examples the recent work of M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph who have formed a novel theorem to decide on the ontology or epistemology of a QWF based on a hidden variable (HV) theory dating back to the mid-20th century.
The status of the quantum wave function is one of the most debated issues in quantum foundations---whether it corresponds directly to the reality or just represents knowledge or information about some aspect of reality. We propose a $\ensuremath{\psi}$-ontology theorem that excludes a class of ontological explanations where the quantum wave function is treated as mere information. Our result, unlike the acclaimed Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph's theorem, does not presume the absence of holistic ontological properties for product quantum preparations. At the core of our derivation, we utilize the seminal no-go result by Bell that rules out any local realistic world view for quantum theory. We show that the observed phenomenon of quantum nonlocality cannot be incorporated in a class of $\ensuremath{\psi}$-epistemic models. Using the well-known Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality, we obtain a threshold bound on the degree of epistemicity above which the ontological models are not compatible with quantum statistics.
Within the Ontological Models Framework (OMF), Pusey, Barrett, and Rudolph (PBR) have given an argument by which they claimed that the epistemic view on the wavefunction should be ruled out. This study highlights an incorrect conclusion in PBR's arguments, which was made due to inadequacies in the definitions of OMF. To be precise, OMF models the ontology of the preparation procedure, but it does not model the ontology of the measurement device. Such an asymmetric treatment becomes problematic, in scenarios in which measurement devices have a quantum nature. Modifying the OMF's definition such that the ontology of the measurement device becomes included, we will see how PBR's result disappears.
Abstract Harrigan and Spekkens (Found Phys 40:125–157, 2010) provided a categorization of quantum ontological models classifying them as
ψ ψ -ontic or
ψ ψ -epistemic if the quantum state
ψ ψ describes respectively either a physical reality or mere observers’ knowledge. Moreover, they claimed that Einstein—who was a supporter of the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics—endorsed an epistemic view of
ψ. ψ. In this essay we critically assess such a classification and some of its consequences by proposing a twofold argumentation. Firstly, we show that Harrigan and Spekkens’ categorization implicitly assumes that a complete description of a quantum system (its ontic state,
λ λ ) only concernssingle,individualsystems instantiatingabsolute,intrinsicproperties. Secondly, we argue that such assumptions conflict with some current interpretations of quantum mechanics, which employ different ontic states as a complete description of quantum systems. In particular, we will show that, since in the statistical interpretation ontic states describe ensembles rather than individuals, such a view cannot be considered
ψ ψ -epistemic. As a consequence, the authors misinterpreted Einstein’s view concerning the nature of the quantum state. Next, we will focus onrelational quantum mechanicsandperspectival quantum mechanics, which in virtue of their relational and perspectival metaphysics employ ontic states
λ λ dealing with relational properties. We conclude that Harrigan and Spekkens’ categorization is too narrow and entails an inadequate classification of the mentioned interpretations of quantum theory. Hence, any satisfactory classification of quantum ontological models ought to take into account the variations of
λ λ across different interpretations of quantum mechanics.