pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.10524 · v1 · pith:3CWDOVYInew · submitted 2019-06-23 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.hist-ph

The limits of quantum superposition: Should "Schr\"{o}dinger's cat" and "Wigner's friend" be considered "miracle" narratives?

Antoine Suarez This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 17:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.hist-ph
keywords quantum superpositionSchrödinger's catWigner's friendirreversibilityquantum detectionobserver independencemeasurement problem
0
0 comments X

The pith

Detection outcomes are irreversible like death, excluding superposition for visible objects with observer-dependent results.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes adding Principle D to quantum physics, stating that detection outcomes are ordinarily irreversible and observer-independent, drawing directly from the medical definition of death as irreversible breakdown of brain functions. This principle is invoked to argue that quantum superposition cannot be generalized to macroscopic objects that would produce outcomes depending on the observer. The author concludes that the Schrödinger's cat and Wigner's friend scenarios therefore count as miracle narratives lying outside the domain of science. A sympathetic reader would care because the move draws a sharp boundary on what quantum mechanics can describe without invoking extraordinary events.

Core claim

Completing the definition of quantum physics by Principle D, which states that detection outcomes (like death) are ordinarily irreversible and observer-independent, excludes generalization of quantum superposition to visible objects bearing observer-dependent outcomes; this means Schrödinger's cat and Wigner's friend should be considered miracle narratives beyond the domain of science.

What carries the argument

Principle D (Detection): the rule that detection outcomes are ordinarily irreversible and observer-independent, modeled on medical irreversibility of death, which blocks superposition for visible observer-dependent cases.

If this is right

  • Superposition does not extend to visible objects producing observer-dependent outcomes.
  • Schrödinger's cat and Wigner's friend count as narratives outside scientific inquiry.
  • Quantum physics is completed by this addition without altering its existing formalism.
  • The domain of quantum mechanics is limited to cases where detection remains ordinarily irreversible and observer-independent.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same irreversibility criterion might be used to assess other proposed macroscopic quantum experiments.
  • This framing shifts the measurement problem from interpretation to a demarcation between ordinary physics and extraordinary events.

Load-bearing premise

The medical definition of irreversible death can be transferred directly to quantum detection events to establish an observer-independent irreversibility principle.

What would settle it

Demonstration of a reversible superposition outcome for a visible object whose result depends on the observer would falsify Principle D and the claimed exclusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.10524 by Antoine Suarez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (a) House where Erwin Schr¨odinger lived while he [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Physicians define death as the "irreversible" breakdown of all brain-functions including brain-stem. By "irreversible" they mean a damage that is beyond the human capacity to restore the patient's healthy state. In the same line I propose to complete the definition of quantum physics in [1] by Principle D (Detection): "Detection outcomes (like death) are ordinarily irreversible and observer-independent". It is then argued that this principle excludes generalization of quantum superposition to visible objects bearing observer-dependent outcomes. However this exclusion is not absolute: It rather means that "Schr\"{o}dinger's cat" and "Wigner's friend" should be considered "miracle" narratives beyond the domain of science.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper claims that supplementing the definition of quantum physics with a new Principle D—'Detection outcomes (like death) are ordinarily irreversible and observer-independent,' modeled on the medical definition of death as irreversible breakdown of brain functions—excludes generalization of quantum superposition to visible objects bearing observer-dependent outcomes. It concludes that Schrödinger's cat and Wigner's friend thought experiments should therefore be treated as 'miracle' narratives beyond the domain of science.

Significance. If the proposed principle were accepted as a valid addition to quantum theory, it would supply an observer-independent irreversibility criterion to bound the applicability of superposition, potentially addressing interpretational puzzles in macroscopic thought experiments. No such grounding from existing postulates is provided, however, so the result remains an interpretive stipulation rather than a derived consequence of quantum mechanics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Principle D] Abstract and the paragraph introducing Principle D: the principle is asserted by direct analogy to medical irreversibility without any derivation from the Schrödinger equation, Born rule, or other quantum postulates, yet this principle is the sole basis for excluding superposition in the cited thought experiments.
  2. [Argument after Principle D] The argument following the introduction of Principle D: the claim that detection outcomes must be observer-independent is introduced precisely to rule out observer-dependent macroscopic superpositions, rendering the exclusion circular rather than a consequence of standard quantum theory (in which unitary evolution remains time-reversible on isolated systems including apparatus and environment).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the comments and respond point by point below. Principle D is explicitly proposed as a supplementary principle to complete the definition of quantum physics, motivated by observed irreversibility rather than derived from existing postulates.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Principle D] Abstract and the paragraph introducing Principle D: the principle is asserted by direct analogy to medical irreversibility without any derivation from the Schrödinger equation, Born rule, or other quantum postulates, yet this principle is the sole basis for excluding superposition in the cited thought experiments.

    Authors: We acknowledge that Principle D is introduced by analogy to the medical definition of irreversible death and is not derived from the Schrödinger equation, Born rule, or other standard quantum postulates. The manuscript proposes this as an explicit addition to the definition of quantum physics to incorporate the empirical fact that detection outcomes are ordinarily irreversible and observer-independent, which the core postulates do not address. This is presented as an interpretive completion of the theory rather than a consequence derived within it. revision: no

  2. Referee: [Argument after Principle D] The argument following the introduction of Principle D: the claim that detection outcomes must be observer-independent is introduced precisely to rule out observer-dependent macroscopic superpositions, rendering the exclusion circular rather than a consequence of standard quantum theory (in which unitary evolution remains time-reversible on isolated systems including apparatus and environment).

    Authors: The motivation for Principle D is independent of the thought experiments and rests on the medical and everyday observation that outcomes such as death are irreversible and observer-independent. While unitary evolution remains reversible for isolated systems, the principle accounts for the effective irreversibility that occurs in actual detection processes involving macroscopic objects. It therefore supplies an additional criterion to bound superposition without contradicting the formalism, rather than being introduced solely to exclude the cited cases. revision: no

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Principle D added by medical-death analogy directly encodes the exclusion of observer-dependent superposition

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "By 'irreversible' they mean a damage that is beyond the human capacity to restore the patient's healthy state. In the same line I propose to complete the definition of quantum physics in [1] by Principle D (Detection): 'Detection outcomes (like death) are ordinarily irreversible and observer-independent'. It is then argued that this principle excludes generalization of quantum superposition to visible objects bearing observer-dependent outcomes. However this exclusion is not absolute: It rather means that 'Schrödinger's cat' and 'Wigner's friend' should be considered 'miracle' narratives."

    Principle D is introduced precisely to stipulate that detection outcomes are 'ordinarily irreversible and observer-independent'; the subsequent claim that this excludes superposition for objects with observer-dependent outcomes is then a direct logical consequence of the definition itself, with no separate derivation supplied from the Schrödinger equation or Born rule.

full rationale

The paper proposes Principle D by explicit analogy to the medical definition of irreversible death, then immediately uses that principle to conclude that superposition cannot apply to visible objects with observer-dependent outcomes. The exclusion and the 'miracle' classification therefore follow by construction from the added definitional premise rather than from any QM postulate, equation, or independent derivation. This matches the self-definitional pattern; the argument is otherwise self-contained as a philosophical proposal and contains no fitted predictions or load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces one new axiom (Principle D) by analogy to a medical definition and uses it to exclude certain applications of superposition. No free parameters or invented physical entities appear.

axioms (1)
  • ad hoc to paper Detection outcomes (like death) are ordinarily irreversible and observer-independent
    Introduced in the abstract as the completing principle for quantum physics; no derivation from existing axioms is given.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5656 in / 1279 out tokens · 19826 ms · 2026-05-25T17:34:27.677722+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 14 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Defining what is Quantum: Not all what matters for physical phenomena is contained in space-time

    A. Suarez, Defining what is Quantum: Not all what mat- ters for physical phenomena is contained in space-time, arXiv:1905.06131 (2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1905

  2. [2]

    J. A. Wheeler, Law Without Law. In: J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek, Quantum Theory and Measurement , Princeton University Press, 1983, p. 182-213

    work page 1983

  3. [3]

    Bohr, Physical Review, 48, 696-702 (1935)

    N. Bohr, Physical Review, 48, 696-702 (1935)

    work page 1935

  4. [4]

    J. S. Bell, Against ’measurement’, Physics World, August 1990, 33-40

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    The Conway-Kochen argument and relativistic GRW models

    A. Bassi, G. C. Ghirardi, e-print quant-ph/0610209

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror

    R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 130401 (2003), e-print quant-ph/0210001 and references therein

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    C. A. Fuchs and A. Peres, Quantum Theory Needs No ’Interpretation’. Physics Today 53, 3, 70-71 (2000); doi: 10.1063/1.883004

    work page doi:10.1063/1.883004 2000

  8. [8]

    Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself

    D. Frauchiger and R. Renner, Quantum theory can- not consistently describe the use of itself, Nature Communications 9, Article number: 3711 (2018). arXiv:1604.07422v2 (2018)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Es- says of eugne P

    E.P. Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Es- says of eugne P. Wigner ; Chapter 13: Remarks on the mind-body question, p. 171-184; Chapter 14: Two Kinds of Reality, p. 185-199; Indiana University Press, (1967)

    work page 1967

  10. [10]

    Empty waves, many worlds, parallel lives, and nonlocal decision at detection

    T. Guerreiro, B. Sanguinetti, H. Zbinden, N. Gisin, A. Suarez, Single-photon space-like antibunching, Phys. Lett. A 376, 2174-2177 (2012); A. Suarez, Empty waves, many worlds, parallel lives, and nonlocal decision at de- tection, arXiv:1204.1732 (2012)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Aaronson, Its hard to think when someone Hadamards your brain, post September 25, 2018, 3:37, cited April 6, 2019, www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975

    S. Aaronson, Its hard to think when someone Hadamards your brain, post September 25, 2018, 3:37, cited April 6, 2019, www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    C. Aw, M. Dall’Arno, V. Scarani, Knowledge by Direct Measurement versus Inference from Steering, arXiv:1904.07529 (2019)

    work page arXiv 1904

  13. [13]

    Our Lady of Fatima: The Virgin Mary promised three kids a miracle that 70,000 gathered to see

    Katherine Arcement, Washington Post, October 13, 2017: “Our Lady of Fatima: The Virgin Mary promised three kids a miracle that 70,000 gathered to see”

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    E. Specker: "The logic of non-simultaneously decidable propositions" (1960)

    E. Specker, Die Logik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer Aussagen, Dialectica 14 (1960) 239-246. English transla- tion by M.P. Seevinck: The logic of non-simultaneously decidable propositions, arXiv:1103.4537v3 [physics.hist- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1960

  15. [15]

    All-Possible-Worlds: Unifying Many-Worlds and Copenhagen, in the Light of Quantum Contextuality

    A. Suarez, All-Possible-Worlds: Unifying Many-Worlds and Copenhagen, in the Light of Quantum Contextuality, arXiv:1712.06448v2 (2017-2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    W. A. Miller and J. A. Wheeler, Delayed-Choice Experiments and Bohr’s Elementary Quantum Phe- nomenon. In: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology 1997, pp. 72-84. doi.org/10.1142/9789812819895 0008

    work page doi:10.1142/9789812819895 1997

  17. [17]

    ETH Approrach

    J¨ urg Fr¨ ohlich, Demystifying Quantum Mechanics. The “ETH Approrach”, Thursday Colloquia, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), March 21, 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    An All-Or-Nothing Flavor to the Church-Turing Hypothesis

    S. Wolf, An All-Or-Nothing Flavor to the Church-Turing Hypothesis, arXiv:1702.00923v1 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Classical Demons and Quantum Angels: On 't Hooft's deterministic Quantum Mechanics

    A. Suarez, Classical Demons and Quantum An- gels: On ’t Hooft’s deterministic Quantum Mechanics, arXiv:0705.3974 (2007)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    Time Really Passes, Science Can't Deny That

    N. Gisin, Time Really Passes. Science can’t deny that. Presentation at “Workshop on Time in Physics”, ETH Z¨ urich, September 7-11, 2015. arXiv:1602.01497 (2016)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin), On a universal tendency in nature to the dissipation of mechanical energy, Proceed- ings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh , April 19, 1852; Mathematical and Physical Papers of William Thomson (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1882), v. 1, p. 514

    work page

  22. [22]

    Born, The statistical interpretation of quantum me- chanics, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1954

    M. Born, The statistical interpretation of quantum me- chanics, Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1954

    work page 1954

  23. [23]

    C. A. Fuchs, QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism, https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5209

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    C. A. Fuchs, Notwithstanding Bohr, the Reasons for QBism, arXiv:1705.03483v1 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Deutsch, Lectures on Quantum computation, Lec- ture2: Interference; Lecture 4: The Schr¨ odinger picture, Video 34:48

    D. Deutsch, Lectures on Quantum computation, Lec- ture2: Interference; Lecture 4: The Schr¨ odinger picture, Video 34:48. Cited at August 15, 2017. http://www.quiprocone.org/Protected/DD lectures.htm

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Wigner, Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol

    E.P. Wigner, Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 13, 1-14 (1960)

    work page 1960

  27. [27]

    C. A. Fuchs, On Participatory Realism. arXiv:1601.04360v3 (2016); What a QBist Painting of Quantum Theory Might Look Like, Contextuality workshop, ETHZ, 22-23 June 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    A Reconstruction of Quantum Mechanics

    S. Kochen, A Reconstruction of quantum Mechanics, arXiv:1306.3951v3 (2015)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015