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

Foundations of Physics

Comment on Aurélien Drezet’s Defense of Relational Quantum Mechanics

Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz, Marek Żukowski

Published Jul 2, 2024• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract Aurélien Drezet has attempted in Found. Phys. 54(1), 5 (2023) to defend Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) against our recent critique, entitled Relational Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with quantum mechanics, published in Quantum 7, 1015 (2023). Drezet not only misrepresents our work, but he also misconstructs the very theory (RQM) that he claims to defend.

DOI
10.1007/s10701-024-00784-4

Related papers

Relative facts do not exist. Relational Quantum Mechanics is Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. Response to the critique by Aurélien Drezet

Jay Lawrence, Markiewicz, Marcin, Marek Żukowski

In this comment we answer to the recent critique of our article [arXiv:2208.11793] about Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) by Aurélien Drezet [arXiv:2209.01237]. Here we point out that our critical analysis of RQM was precisely based on the most recent formulation of RQM, and that the theses found in the critique are based on neither RQM assumptions nor on our arguments.

arXiv:2210.09025•Oct 14, 2022•2 citations

Comments on `Comment on Aurélien Drezet's defense of relational quantum mechanics' by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek Źukowski

Aurélien Drezet

We respond briefly to the recent comment by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek Źukowski [arXiv:2210.09025 and Found. Phys. \textbf{54}, 45 (2024)] regarding our work defending RQM against their previous assessment. We refute the analysis proposed by the authors and rephrase our previous study in order to clarify the remaining ambiguities in our rebuttal.

arXiv:2504.02836•Mar 17, 2025•0 citations

Relative Facts of Relational Quantum Mechanics are Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics

Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz, Marek Żukowski

Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) claims to be an interpretation of quantum theory \cite{Rovelli.21}. However, there are significant departures from quantum theory: (i) in RQM measurement outcomes arise from interactions which entangle a system S and an observer A without decoherence, and (ii) such an outcome is a "fact" relative to the observer A , but it is not a fact relative to another observer B who has not interacted with S or A during the foregoing measurement process. For B the system S⊗A remains entangled. We derive a GHZ-like contradiction showing that relative facts described by these statements are incompatible with quantum theory. Hence Relational Quantum Mechanics should not be considered an interpretation of quantum theory, according to a criterion for interpretations that we have introduced. The criterion states that whenever an interpretation introduces a notion of outcomes, these outcomes, whatever they are, must follow the probability distribution specified by the Born rule.

arXiv:2208.11793•Quantum•May 23, 2023•14 citations

“What is relational is real, and what is real is relational”: an ontological assessment of Relational Quantum Mechanics

Juan Carlos Vila

Abstract The following paper explores the metaphysical significance of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). For this, I will first outline Rovelli’s philosophical framework, and then offer a reconstruction of Rovelli’s seminal argument in favour of RQM. I will then explore some healthy lines of philosophical work that may be undertaken to strengthen RQM. First, I will frame RQM in the debate between realist and antirealist readings of QM and defend the general claim that RQM is compatible with realism. Then, I discuss the main ontological interpretations of RQM, which I classify as “dispositional”, “transcendental” and “structural”, and argue that all of them remain committed to substantialist assumptions that limit the radicality of Rovelli’s proposal. Finally, I analyse recent developments on RQM’s ontology and suggest that preserving its ontological originality requires an assessment on the concept of “pattern”.

•Sep 30, 2026•0 citations

Assessing Relational Quantum Mechanics

R. Muciño, Elias Okon, Daniel Sudarsky

Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum theory based on the idea of abolishing the notion of absolute states of systems, in favor of states of systems relative to other systems. Such a move is claimed to solve the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics. Moreover, RQM has been argued to account for all quantum correlations without invoking non-local effects and, in spite of embracing a fully relational stance, to successfully explain how different observers exchange information. In this work, we carry out a thorough assessment of RQM and its purported achievements. We find that it fails to address the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics--related to the lack of clarity in its ontology and the rules that govern its behavior--and that it leads to serious conceptual problems of its own. We also uncover as unwarranted the claims that RQM can correctly explain information exchange among observers, and that it accommodates all quantum correlations without invoking non-local influences. We conclude that RQM is unsuccessful in its attempt to provide a satisfactory understanding of the quantum world.

arXiv:2105.13338•May 27, 2021•7 citations

On the consistency of relative facts

Eric G. Cavalcanti, Andrea Di Biagio, Carlo Rovelli C

Abstract Lawrence et al. have presented an argument purporting to show that “relative facts do not exist” and, consequently, “Relational Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with quantum mechanics”. The argument is based on a GHZ-like contradiction between constraints satisfied by measurement outcomes in an extended Wigner’s friend scenario. Here we present a strengthened version of the argument, and show why, contrary to the claim by Lawrence et al., these arguments do not contradict the consistency of a theory of relative facts. Rather, considering this argument helps clarify how one should not think about a theory of relative facts, like RQM.

arXiv:2305.07343•European Journal for Philosophy of Science•Nov 22, 2023•8 citations
Abstract Aurélien Drezet has attempted in Found. Phys. 54(1), 5 (2023) to defend Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) against our recent critique, entitled Relational Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with quantum mechanics, published in Quantum 7, 1015 (2023). Drezet not only misrepresents our work, but he also misconstructs the very theory (RQM) that he claims to defend.
Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) claims to be an interpretation of quantum theory \cite{Rovelli.21}. However, there are significant departures from quantum theory: (i) in RQM measurement outcomes arise from interactions which entangle a system S and an observer A without decoherence, and (ii) such an outcome is a "fact" relative to the observer A , but it is not a fact relative to another observer B who has not interacted with S or A during the foregoing measurement process. For B the system S⊗A remains entangled. We derive a GHZ-like contradiction showing that relative facts described by these statements are incompatible with quantum theory. Hence Relational Quantum Mechanics should not be considered an interpretation of quantum theory, according to a criterion for interpretations that we have introduced. The criterion states that whenever an interpretation introduces a notion of outcomes, these outcomes, whatever they are, must follow the probability distribution specified by the Born rule.
Abstract The following paper explores the metaphysical significance of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). For this, I will first outline Rovelli’s philosophical framework, and then offer a reconstruction of Rovelli’s seminal argument in favour of RQM. I will then explore some healthy lines of philosophical work that may be undertaken to strengthen RQM. First, I will frame RQM in the debate between realist and antirealist readings of QM and defend the general claim that RQM is compatible with realism. Then, I discuss the main ontological interpretations of RQM, which I classify as “dispositional”, “transcendental” and “structural”, and argue that all of them remain committed to substantialist assumptions that limit the radicality of Rovelli’s proposal. Finally, I analyse recent developments on RQM’s ontology and suggest that preserving its ontological originality requires an assessment on the concept of “pattern”.
Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum theory based on the idea of abolishing the notion of absolute states of systems, in favor of states of systems relative to other systems. Such a move is claimed to solve the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics. Moreover, RQM has been argued to account for all quantum correlations without invoking non-local effects and, in spite of embracing a fully relational stance, to successfully explain how different observers exchange information. In this work, we carry out a thorough assessment of RQM and its purported achievements. We find that it fails to address the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics--related to the lack of clarity in its ontology and the rules that govern its behavior--and that it leads to serious conceptual problems of its own. We also uncover as unwarranted the claims that RQM can correctly explain information exchange among observers, and that it accommodates all quantum correlations without invoking non-local influences. We conclude that RQM is unsuccessful in its attempt to provide a satisfactory understanding of the quantum world.
Abstract Lawrence et al. have presented an argument purporting to show that “relative facts do not exist” and, consequently, “Relational Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with quantum mechanics”. The argument is based on a GHZ-like contradiction between constraints satisfied by measurement outcomes in an extended Wigner’s friend scenario. Here we present a strengthened version of the argument, and show why, contrary to the claim by Lawrence et al., these arguments do not contradict the consistency of a theory of relative facts. Rather, considering this argument helps clarify how one should not think about a theory of relative facts, like RQM.