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/9907050 · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

More about Dynamical Reduction and the Enumeration Principle

Angelo Bassi, G. C. Ghirardi

Published Dec 1, 1999• 41 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In view of the arguments put forward by Clifton and Monton [this volume], we reconsider the alleged conflict of dynamical reduction models with the enumeration principle. We prove that our original analysis of such a problem is correct, that the GRW model does not meet any difficulty and that the reasoning of the above authors is inappropriate since it does not take into account the correct interpretation of the dynamical reduction theories.

DOI
10.1093/bjps/50.4.719

Related papers

Do Dynamical Reduction Models Imply that Arithmetic Does Not Apply to Ordinary Macroscopic Objects?

G. C. Ghirardi, Angelo Bassi

We analyse a recent paper in which an alleged devastating criticism of the so called GRW proposal to account for the objectification of the properties of macroscopic systems has been presented and we show that the author has not taken into account the precise implications of the GRW theory. This fact makes his conclusions basically wrong. We also perform a survey of measurement theory aimed to focus better on the physical and the conceptual aspects of the so-called macro-objectification problem.

arXiv:quant-ph/9810041•The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Mar 1, 1999•23 citations

15. Dynamical Reduction Theories as a Natural Basis for a Realistic Worldview

G. C. Ghirardi

Princeton University Press eBooks•Dec 31, 1999•2 citations

Timing of the Penrose R-Process

Richard A. Mould

The Penrose reduction theory is applied to a particle/detector interaction where the time that it takes for a particle capture (and reduction of the original state) is constrained by the Heisenberg uncertainty between time and energy . The usual interpretation of this equation is found to conflict with the Hamiltonian dynamics of the interaction. Another interpretation of this equation seems to solve that problem, but then another difficulty arises. We conclude that the Penrose theory cannot reflect the timing implicit in the Hamiltonian dynamics unless it can be amended to take account of the probability current flow between competing states. Key Words: decoherence, probability current, stochastic choice, wave collapse.

arXiv:quant-ph/0303067•Mar 11, 2003•2 citations

A proposed solution to the tail problem of dynamical reduction models

Léa Ferreira dos Santos, Carlos O. Escobar

Physics Letters A•Jan 1, 2001•43 citations

An Interpretation Which is Appropriate for Dynamical Reduction Theories

G. C. Ghirardi, T. Weber

Boston studies in the philosophy of science•Jan 1, 1997•33 citations

Counting Marbles with 'Accessible' Mass Density: A Reply to Bassi and Ghirardi

R. Clifton, Bradley Monton

In a previous article (cf. quant-ph/9905065) we argued that, while Lewis is correct that the enumeration principle fails in dynamical wavepacket reduction theories, one need not following Lewis in rejecting these theories. Because the dynamical reduction process itself prevents the failure of enumeration from ever becoming manifest, and because one can treat the semantics for dynamical reduction theories as not adding anything of ontological import to them, it is reasonable to accept these theories notwithstanding Lewis's counting anomaly. In their response to our paper (cf. quant-ph/9907050), Bassi and Ghirardi reject our criticisms of their own response to Lewis, as well as our argument against Lewis that dynamical reduction precludes failures of enumeration from ever becoming manifest. Our intention here is to demonstrate that Bassi and Ghirardi's responses to us do not succeed.

arXiv:quant-ph/9909071•The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Mar 1, 2000•22 citations
In view of the arguments put forward by Clifton and Monton [this volume], we reconsider the alleged conflict of dynamical reduction models with the enumeration principle. We prove that our original analysis of such a problem is correct, that the GRW model does not meet any difficulty and that the reasoning of the above authors is inappropriate since it does not take into account the correct interpretation of the dynamical reduction theories.
The Penrose reduction theory is applied to a particle/detector interaction where the time that it takes for a particle capture (and reduction of the original state) is constrained by the Heisenberg uncertainty between time and energy . The usual interpretation of this equation is found to conflict with the Hamiltonian dynamics of the interaction. Another interpretation of this equation seems to solve that problem, but then another difficulty arises. We conclude that the Penrose theory cannot reflect the timing implicit in the Hamiltonian dynamics unless it can be amended to take account of the probability current flow between competing states. Key Words: decoherence, probability current, stochastic choice, wave collapse.
In a previous article (cf. quant-ph/9905065) we argued that, while Lewis is correct that the enumeration principle fails in dynamical wavepacket reduction theories, one need not following Lewis in rejecting these theories. Because the dynamical reduction process itself prevents the failure of enumeration from ever becoming manifest, and because one can treat the semantics for dynamical reduction theories as not adding anything of ontological import to them, it is reasonable to accept these theories notwithstanding Lewis's counting anomaly. In their response to our paper (cf. quant-ph/9907050), Bassi and Ghirardi reject our criticisms of their own response to Lewis, as well as our argument against Lewis that dynamical reduction precludes failures of enumeration from ever becoming manifest. Our intention here is to demonstrate that Bassi and Ghirardi's responses to us do not succeed.