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.
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.
We derive the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics from epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. An epistemic formalism is developed, where concepts like individual and collective knowledge are used, and knowledge may be actual or potential. The physical state
S corresponds to the collective potential knowledge. The state
S is a subset of a state space
S={Z}, such that
S always contains several elements
Z, which correspond to unattainable states of complete potential knowledge of the world. The evolution of
S cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements
Z, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of
S is described in terms of sequential time
n∈N, which is updated according to
n→n+1 each time potential knowledge changes. In certain experimental contexts
C, there is initial knowledge at time
n that a given series of properties
P,P′,… will be observed within a given time frame, meaning that a series of values
p,p′,… of these properties will become known. At time
n, it is just known that these values belong to predefined, finite sets
{p},{p′},…. In such a context
C, it is possible to define a complex Hilbert space
HC on top of
S, in which the elements are contextual state vectors
SˉC. Born's rule to calculate the probabilities to find the values
p,p′,… is derived as the only generally applicable such rule. Also, we can associate a self-adjoint operator
Pˉ with eigenvalues
{p} to each property
P observed within
C. These operators obey
[Pˉ,Pˉ′]=0 if and only if the precise values of
P and
P′ are simultaneoulsy knowable.
Since the famous debates of Einstein & Bohr, physicists have argued about the nature of the quantum state. Is it best thought of as describing the-way-things-are out there in the world, or merely as a description of our knowledge of such things? In more recent years, this has been termed the ψ-epistemic/ψ-ontic debate, and that distinction has been given a mathematical definition within the ontological models formalism. This formalism is a framework for describing a large class of interpretations of quantum mechanics. Here we show that consideration of sequential measurements, and the fact that the quantum state changes during measurements, has been a neglected topic in this area as it places nontrivial restrictions on the structure of ψ-epistemic ontological models. \n \nWe do this by finding a general restriction on the structure of ψ-epistemic models, although not one that is strong enough to rule them out categorically. We then apply this restriction to all of the known examples of ψ-epistemic ontological models and show that they can’t represent sequential measurements. We also present a new version of the ontological models formalism, based on hidden Markov models, which we develop briefly and describe how it may be useful for either proving a no-go theorem (i.e. ‘ψ-epistemic models can’t exist’) or for learning more about the structure of ψ-epistemic models and how to construct them.