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

arXiv:quant-ph/0303170 · Foundations of Physics

Remarks on Mohrhoff's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Louis Marchildon

Published Jan 1, 2004• 7 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1023/b:foop.0000012009.79192.ff

Related papers

A critique of Mohrhoff's interpretation of quantum mechanics

Afshin Shafiee, Maryam Jafar-Aghdami, Mehdi Golshani

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics•Mar 14, 2006•1 citation

A remark on the interpretation of quantum mechanics

F. Ghaboussi

Physics Letters A•Oct 1, 1985•1 citation

Remarks on the interpretation of quantum mechanics

Ishwar S Singh, M. A. B. Whitaker

American Journal of Physics•Mar 1, 1984•5 citations

Remarks on the interpretation of quantum mechanics

L. E. Ballentine

American Journal of Physics•Mar 1, 1984•6 citations

Remarks on the Everett-Wheeler Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Roland E. Allen

American Journal of Physics•Jul 1, 1971•2 citations

Comment on Mohrhoff's "What quantum mechanics is trying to tell us"

Ruth E. Kastner

Mohrhoff proposes using the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule for time-symmetric ``objective'' (meaning non-epistemic) probabilities corresponding to the possible outcomes of not-actually-performed measurements between specified pre- and post-selection measurement outcomes. It is emphasized that the ABL rule was formulated on the assumption that such intervening measurements are actually made and that it does not necessarily apply to counterfactual situations. The exact nature of the application of the ABL rule considered by Mohrhoff is made explicit and is shown to fall short of his stated counterfactual claim.

arXiv:quant-ph/0003098•Mar 21, 2000•2 citations
Mohrhoff proposes using the Aharonov-Bergmann-Lebowitz (ABL) rule for time-symmetric ``objective'' (meaning non-epistemic) probabilities corresponding to the possible outcomes of not-actually-performed measurements between specified pre- and post-selection measurement outcomes. It is emphasized that the ABL rule was formulated on the assumption that such intervening measurements are actually made and that it does not necessarily apply to counterfactual situations. The exact nature of the application of the ABL rule considered by Mohrhoff is made explicit and is shown to fall short of his stated counterfactual claim.