Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Copenhagenish interpretations of quantum mechanics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that any Copenhagen-style interpretation of quantum mechanics is forced to provide multiple valid but mutually uncombinable descriptions of an experiment, and that consistency then requires epistemological rules…

desk verdict A useful four-postulate definition of Copenhagenish interpretations and a clever Wigner's-friend analysis, but the central non-combinability conclusion rests on an asserted 'highest Heisenberg cut' rather than on the postulates themselves. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00112 v2 pith:74Q6FH7I submitted 2025-05-30 quant-ph

David Schmid , Yìlè Yīng , Matthew Leifer This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords CopenhageninterpretationquantumfoundationsHeisenbergcutWigner'sfriendanti-psi-ontologymeasurementproblemepistemicconstraintsinterpretationsofmechanics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a precise definition of the family of Copenhagen-style interpretations of quantum mechanics, capturing the modern descendants of the Copenhagen tradition under four postulates: observers genuinely experience definite outcomes; quantum theory applies to any subsystem; the wavefunction is not an intrinsic property of an individual system; and there is no deeper description than the quantum formalism. It then argues that any interpretation satisfying these postulates is forced to give multiple complementary descriptions of a single experiment, each individually valid for the predictions of actually performed measurements but impossible to fuse into one global description. The reason is that the boundary between quantum and classical description, the Heisenberg cut, can be placed at different levels, yet cannot be placed above an observer whose definite outcomes one wants to reason about. Consistency therefore requires explicit epistemological constraints forbidding an agent to combine information from incompatible cut placements, and the paper shows, through the friend scenario and three variants (enemy, stalkee, penpal), exactly where those constraints bite. The payoff is a common core for a family of views that has often been left imprecise, and a sharper target for future no-go arguments.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the movable Heisenberg cut together with the assumption that it has a highest level. The cut separates the part of the world described quantum mechanically from the part described classically; the lowest level at which it can be placed is set by coherence, with decoherence theory helping to locate it, and the highest level is set by the need to describe observers' definite outcomes in classical terms. Different placements yield different quantum states and different narratives, and anti-ψ-ontology ensures these do not contradict each other. The paper introduces the notions of range compatibility and range conflict to say when two observers can agree on a common cut placement, and it argues that the friend variants produce genuine range conflicts. The requirement that the cut has a highest level is what blocks a single all-quantum description and is thus the load-bearing piece behind the epistemological constraints.

What would settle it

Build a concrete version of the penpal scenario in which the friend receives, through the box, the outcome record of a measurement made on the system-and-friend from outside, and check whether the friend can consistently reason from both records at once; the paper predicts such joint reasoning is forbidden, so a demonstration that joint reasoning yields predictions matching the observed relative frequencies would undermine the claimed constraint. A more direct test would construct a fully quantum description of a device that registers a definite outcome, say via decoherence producing a robust record inside the unitary state, and show that an agent can reason about that record while the device remains inside the quantum description; that would falsify the existence of the highest cut level.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that Copenhagenish interpretations necessarily produce multiple complementary descriptions of an experiment, where each description is true but no single description contains all of them. Two descriptions may assign different quantum states to the same system, yet under anti-ψ-ontology those assignments are not competing claims about reality; they are just different placements of the Heisenberg cut, valid as long as they agree on the probabilities of measurements actually performed. When one observer models another observer unitarily while the modelled observer reasons about their own definite outcome, the two accounts cannot be combined, and the paper locates the reason in the existence of a highest level for the cut: reasoning about an observer's definite outcomes requires describing that observer classically. The same logic dissolves the measurement problem for Copenhagenish views and turns the friend scenario from a contradiction into an illustration of the required epistemic constraints. In the stalkee and penpal variants, where the two outcomes coexist and can even be delivered to one consciousness at once, the paper still maintains that joint reasoning about them is ineffable, because no single description includes both.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on assuming there is a highest possible placement for the Heisenberg cut: to reason about an observer's definite outcomes, that observer must be described classically, so one cannot put every system, including the observer, on the quantum side while still accounting for their definite experience; if that assumption failed, the complementary descriptions could in principle be combined and the paper's conclusion would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The orthodox or textbook interpretation, with its eigenvalue-eigenstate link, is not a Copenhagenish view; the measurement problem and the friend paradox are problems for it, not for the Copenhagenish family.
  • Copenhagenish interpretations need no precise criterion for when a measurement occurs, because differing state assignments are not contradictory once the wavefunction is not an intrinsic property.
  • Any consistent Copenhagenish interpretation must include explicit rules about which information an agent may combine; objective versions have to impose these rules directly, while relativist versions derive them from the claim that the two facts are not true in any single world.
  • The new friend variants show that restrictions on combining reasoning apply even when both outcomes coexist and are simultaneously available to one agent, so the interpretive burden is not about hidden variables but about the epistemology of observers.
  • Future no-go arguments should target the placement of the Heisenberg cut and its highest level, rather than assuming observer-independent facts or hidden variables.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the four postulates could serve as a precise common ground for comparing relativist and objective Copenhagenish views, making the choice between them turn on whether the epistemological constraints should be grounded in metaphysics or accepted as unexplained rules.
  • One testable extension would be to formalize range conflict as a constraint on information pooling: if two agents whose allowed cut ranges do not overlap try to coordinate on a prediction, the paper's picture implies some communication protocols must fail even though each agent's local predictions are correct.
  • The paper's treatment suggests that the strongest experimental pressure on Copenhagenish views would come from demonstrating coherent reversal of a measurement while preserving the original outcome record; no such demonstration exists, but if one did, the highest-level assumption would be directly at stake.
  • The analysis also implies that the status of facts in objective Copenhagenish views is fragile: absolute facts about both outcomes can coexist only if agents are forever barred from conditioning on one of them, which connects to a general question about when unobservable correlations can be assigned probabilities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a four-postulate characterization of 'Copenhagenish' interpretations—Observers Observe, Universality, Anti-psi-ontology, and Completeness—and argues that these are neither the orthodox eigenvalue-eigenstate interpretation, nor 'shut up and calculate,' nor strict operationalism. The central lesson the authors draw is that any Copenhagenish interpretation gives multiple individually valid descriptions of an experiment corresponding to different placements of the Heisenberg cut, and that these descriptions cannot be combined into a single one; consistency therefore requires epistemological restrictions on combining information. The argument is developed through the measurement problem, Wigner's friend, and three variants (enemy, stalkee, penpal), with a distinction between objective and relativist versions of Observers Observe.

Significance. If the main claim is accepted, the paper is a useful step toward a precise common core for a family of interpretations that are often only described negatively, and it redirects Wigner's friend-style arguments away from the orthodox reading and toward the constraints that Copenhagenish views must impose. The four-postulate taxonomy, the objective/relativist distinction, and the analysis of the new Wigner variants are valuable and are presented in a generally charitable and fair way. The paper is not a technical proof, however: its central 'necessarily' claims rest on informal notions of the Heisenberg cut and range compatibility, and the treatment of the penpal scenario leaves the central constraint underspecified. The contribution is therefore conditional on making these notions explicit.

major comments (4)
  1. [II A2 and II C] The 'highest level of the Heisenberg cut' is asserted rather than derived from the four postulates. The text says that 'the definite outcomes experienced by observers cannot be described within the quantum formalism in a Copenhagenish interpretation' and that the existence of a highest level is 'necessary ... to ensure consistency,' but none of the four postulates in Section II A entails this. Observers Observe is an existence claim about definite experiences; Anti-psi-ontology denies only that the quantum state is an intrinsic property; Completeness denies deeper descriptions. A relational Copenhagenish interpretation, by the paper's own account in Section II A1, can assign definite outcomes relative to an interacting system while an external observer's quantum description of that system is unitary. The central conclusion that descriptions at different cut placements are necessarily non-combinable therefore depends on an extra, underived premise. Either derive the highest-cut claim from the postulates or state it as an explicit postulate and present the non-combinability conclusion as conditional on it.
  2. [IV A] The notion of 'range compatibility' is not defined with enough precision to support the claim that range conflicts 'necessarily occur' in Wigner's enemy. The levels of the cut are characterized only informally as the highest and lowest levels at which 'you can put the cut,' and the ordering of levels is not specified as a mathematical structure. Without a precise definition, one cannot verify whether a given experiment has a range conflict or whether an alternative placement avoids it. The paper's own footnote 20 concedes fuzziness, but the argument that Wigner's friend is range compatible while Wigner's enemy is range conflicting is load-bearing for the paper's main lesson. This should be formalized or the claim should be weakened.
  3. [IV B] The stalkee/penpal discussion does not actually resolve the penpal variant. The paper grants that a single agent can have both outcomes simultaneously available to consciousness, then says that the inference that the Friend's outcome is unperturbed relies on the eigenvalue-eigenstate link and is 'not warranted.' But the paper's response—that whether Wigner's measurement changed the Friend's outcome 'has no answer' and is 'ineffable'—is a restatement of the no-combination constraint rather than an argument that the constraint can be consistently applied when both facts are known to one agent. What is needed is a positive rule specifying when two pieces of information may be combined; the paper identifies the need for such a rule but does not provide it.
  4. [II A1 and footnote 21] In the objective version of Observers Observe, both the Friend's outcome and Wigner's outcome are absolute facts, so a joint relative frequency exists. Footnote 21 argues that this does not force convergence of probability assignments because conditioning on the joint distribution is impossible in the experiment. This defense depends on the agents never being able to learn the joint data; in Wigner's enemy the Friend's memory is erased, but in the penpal variant the Friend is handed Wigner's outcome and can be aware of both outcomes at once. The paper should state explicitly what information each agent is allowed to use and why, rather than relying on the unobservability of the joint distribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [I] There is a typo in the first paragraph: 'Copenhangenish' should be 'Copenhagenish.'
  2. [II A3] The name 'Healy' appears twice; it should be 'Healey' for consistency with the references.
  3. [II C] The spelling 'realtivist' occurs at the end of Section II C and should be 'relativist.'
  4. [IV B] In the phrase 'the Friends consciousness awareness,' 'Friends' should be 'Friend's' and the wording should be smoothed to 'the Friend's conscious awareness.'
  5. [II A4] The use of 'ineffable' properties is in some tension with the Completeness postulate: if such properties exist, saying that they exist is itself a description, albeit not a physical one. Clarify whether this is a metaphysical commitment or a purely epistemic statement.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central necessity claim partly rests on the stipulated 'highest Heisenberg cut' rather than on the four postulates alone.

  1. self definitional [Section II A.2 (Universality) and Section II C (Shifty splits)]
    "the definite outcomes experienced by observers cannot be described within the quantum formalism in a Copenhagenish interpretation. ... The highest level arises because analyzing an experiment requires us to reason about the immediate sensory experiences of observers; as those experiences are only describable in classical terms, we must place those observers on the classical side of the cut. ..."

    The paper's advertised conclusion, that Copenhagenish interpretations necessarily yield multiple complementary descriptions that cannot be combined and hence require epistemological constraints, is partially built into this stipulation. The four named postulates do not by themselves say that definite outcomes cannot be represented within the quantum formalism; that is an additional 'Copenhagenish idea' introduced here. Once that idea is assumed, the highest level of the Heisenberg cut follows, and non-combinability of cut-level descriptions becomes a restatement of the assumption rather than an independent result.

full rationale

The paper is a transparent conceptual analysis rather than an empirical prediction, and there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern and no load-bearing self-citation (Ref. [26], by the same authors, is used only for a standard presentation of the measurement formalism). However, the central claim that epistemic constraints are necessary is not fully derived from the four enumerated postulates alone: Section II A.2 stipulates that definite outcomes cannot be described within the quantum formalism, and Section II C then constructs the highest Heisenberg cut from that stipulation. The non-combinability of descriptions follows largely by construction, which is a partial self-definitional circularity. That said, the paper's consistency arguments in the Wigner's enemy, stalkee, and penpal scenarios add genuine non-tautological content, and the objective/relativist distinction is an independent conceptual contribution. The finding is therefore moderate: some definitional circularity in a load-bearing premise, but the central analysis still has independent substance.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the four postulates, which are chosen to define Copenhagenish interpretations, plus the additional assumption that the Heisenberg cut has a highest level. The postulates are not derived from more basic principles, which is normal for a definitional and foundational paper. No numerical parameters or new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Observers Observe: sufficiently complex agents observe definite outcomes when making quantum measurements.
    Postulate 1 in Section II A 1. Adopted as a defining commitment; used to require classical descriptions of outcomes.
  • domain assumption Universality: quantum theory can be applied to arbitrary subsystems of the universe.
    Postulate 2 in Section II A 2. Used to justify unitary descriptions of observers and devices.
  • domain assumption Anti-psi-ontology: the wavefunction is not an intrinsic property of an individual quantum system.
    Postulate 3 in Section II A 3. Central to allowing distinct state assignments to coexist.
  • domain assumption Completeness: there is no deeper description of reality beyond the quantum formalism.
    Postulate 4 in Section II A 4. Used to reject hidden variables and counterfactual reasoning.
  • domain assumption There exists a highest possible level for the Heisenberg cut, beyond which observers must be described classically.
    Section II C. This is assumed to derive the need for epistemological constraints, but is not given a precise criterion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Copenhagenish interpretations of quantum mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/74Q6FH7I

@misc{pith2026250600112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Copenhagenish interpretations of quantum mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/74Q6FH7I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00112}
}
abstract

We define a class of Copenhagenish interpretations encompassing modern interpretations that follow the Copenhagen spirit. These interpretations are characterized by four postulates: Observers Observe, Universality, Anti-$\psi$-ontology, and Completeness. We explain why such interpretations are not equivalent to the textbook (or orthodox) interpretation, nor to the view that one should shut up and calculate, nor to strict operationalism. We then discuss what lessons are implied for Copenhagenish interpretations by the measurement problem, the Wigner's friend thought experiment, and the simple variants of the Wigner's friend thought experiment that we term Wigner's enemy, stalkee, and penpal. In particular, we discuss how Copenhagenish interpretations give multiple distinct descriptions of each experiment, where these descriptions are each individually true, yet cannot be combined into any single description. To make such interpretations consistent, then, one requires epistemological constraints forbidding certain perspectives from being combined. We discuss these constraints, their motivations, and some of the challenges they introduce.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00112 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Agency under indefinite causality: operational eternalism in higher-order quantum theory

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In indefinite-causal-order quantum theory, an observer is a perspective-dependent grouping of input/output data, with a new 'friendliness' criterion for causally compatible agents.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    known” with certainty. This much would be accepted as fact by every physicist, up to minor quibbles about terminology (e.g., whether “known

    The orthodox interpretation The key postulate of the orthodox interpretation (also known as the textbook or Dirac-von Neumann interpretation) is the eigenvalue-eigenstate link 15. This rule specifies intrinsic properties for a quantum system, and, as such, it directly contradicts the Copenhagenish principle (alluded to above and discussed further in Secti...

    work page

  2. [2]

    If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be ‘Shut up and calculate!’

    Shut up and calculate David Mermin once stated “If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be ‘Shut up and calculate!’ ”. This term (often misattributed to Feynman [53]) is meant to invoke the attitude of many practicing physicists who are satisfied with the predictive power granted by quantum theory...

    work page 1940

  3. [3]

    about a quantum system

    Anti- ψ-ontology Anti-ψ-ontology is the view that the quantum state |ψ⟩ is not an intrinsic property of an individual quantum system10. This has to be formulated carefully, because Copenhagenishts often disagree about what the quantum state does represent. It may represent knowledge [ 16], information [2, 40], beliefs [12, 41], or advice [5, 6], about a q...

    work page

  4. [4]

    incapable of being expressed in words

    Completeness Completeness is the assumption that there is no deeper description of the world to be had than that provided by quantum theory. Taken together with Universality and Anti-ψ-ontology, this has far-reaching implications. Universality implies that any system can be given a quantum description, Anti-ψ-ontology implies that such a description does ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    shut up and calculate

    Operationalism The “shut up and calculate” view is a kind of agnosticism about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, underpinned by the claim that differences in interpretation will never make a difference to the predictions of the theory. However, if this point of view is taken to its logical conclusion then we arrive at strict operationalism or instr...

    work page

  6. [6]

    You might assert that the observer saw an outcome

    work page

  7. [7]

    You might assert that the relative frequency of these observed outcomes is distributed according to the Born rule

    work page

  8. [8]

    You might condition your reasoning on the observer having seen a particular outcome

    work page

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    the measurement problem

    You might apply a state-update rule to the state assigned by an agent to assign them a new quantum state based on which outcome they observed. This is not to say that when one chooses to model an observer as a quantum system, one must believe that the observer will not observe...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Howard, Who invented the Copenhagen interpretation? A study in mythology, Philosophy of Science71, 669 (2004)

    D. Howard, Who invented the Copenhagen interpretation? A study in mythology, Philosophy of Science71, 669 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    Bub, Quantum mechanics is about quantum information, Foundations of Physics 35, 541 (2005)

    J. Bub, Quantum mechanics is about quantum information, Foundations of Physics 35, 541 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Bub and I

    J. Bub and I. Pitowsky, Two dogmas about quantum mechanics, in Many Worlds?: Everett, Quantum Theory, & Reality, edited by S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace (Oxford University Press UK, 2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Bub, Bananaworld: Quantum Mechanics for Primates (Oxford University Press, 2016)

    J. Bub, Bananaworld: Quantum Mechanics for Primates (Oxford University Press, 2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Healey, Quantum theory: A pragmatist approach, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science63, 729 (2012)

    R. Healey, Quantum theory: A pragmatist approach, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science63, 729 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Healey,The Quantum Revolution in Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2017)

    R. Healey,The Quantum Revolution in Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Healey, Quantum theory and the limits of objectivity, Foundations of Physics 48, 1568 (2018)

    R. Healey, Quantum theory and the limits of objectivity, Foundations of Physics 48, 1568 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Healey, Pragmatist Quantum Realism, in Scientific Realism and the Quantum (Oxford University Press, 2020)

    R. Healey, Pragmatist Quantum Realism, in Scientific Realism and the Quantum (Oxford University Press, 2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Rovelli, Relational quantum mechanics, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 35, 1637 (1996)

    C. Rovelli, Relational quantum mechanics, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 35, 1637 (1996)

    1996

  11. [19]

    Rovelli, Space is blue and birds fly through it, Philosophical Transations of the Royal Society A 376, 20170312 (2018)

    C. Rovelli, Space is blue and birds fly through it, Philosophical Transations of the Royal Society A 376, 20170312 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    C. A. Fuchs, N. D. Mermin, and R. Schack, An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics, American Journal of Physics 82, 749 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    C. A. Fuchs and B. C. Stacey, Qbism: Quantum theory as a hero’s handbook (2019), arXiv:1612.07308 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Zwirn, The measurement problem: Decoherence and convivial solipsism, Found

    H. Zwirn, The measurement problem: Decoherence and convivial solipsism, Found. Phys. 46, 635 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Zwirn, Convivial solipsism as a maximally perspectival interpretation, Found

    H. Zwirn, Convivial solipsism as a maximally perspectival interpretation, Found. Phys. 54, 39 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Peres, Unperformed experiments have no results, American Journal of Physics 46, 745 (1978)

    A. Peres, Unperformed experiments have no results, American Journal of Physics 46, 745 (1978)

    1978

  17. [25]

    Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, 1995th ed

    A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, 1995th ed. (Springer, Dordrecht, 1995)

    1995

  18. [26]

    Brukner and A

    ˇC. Brukner and A. Zeilinger, Information and Fundamental Elements of the Structure of Quantum Theory (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003) pp. 323–354

    2003

  19. [27]

    Brukner and A

    ˇC. Brukner and A. Zeilinger, Quantum Physics as a Science of Information (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005) pp. 47–61

    2005

  20. [28]

    C. A. Fuchs, Coming of Age with Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    C. A. Fuchs, On Participatory Realism (Springer International Publishing, 2017) pp. 113–134

    2017

  22. [30]

    Maudlin, Three measurement problems, Topoi 14, 7 (1995)

    T. Maudlin, Three measurement problems, Topoi 14, 7 (1995)

    1995

  23. [31]

    J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  24. [32]

    C. J. Wood and R. W. Spekkens, The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum correlations: Causal explanations of bell-inequality violations require fine-tuning, New Journal of Physics 17, 033002 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    M. D. Mazurek, M. F. Pusey, R. Kunjwal, K. J. Resch, and R. W. Spekkens, An experimental test of noncontextuality without unphysical idealizations, Nature Communications 7, 10.1038/ncomms11780 (2016)

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    E. P. Wigner, Remarks on the mind-body question, in Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses, edited by J. Mehra (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995) pp. 247–260

    1995

  27. [35]

    Schmid, Y

    D. Schmid, Y. Y ¯ ıng, and M. Leifer, A review and analysis of six extended Wigner’s friend arguments, arXiv (2023), arXiv:2308.16220 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Brukner, On the quantum measurement problem (2015)

    ˇC. Brukner, On the quantum measurement problem (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Frauchiger and R

    D. Frauchiger and R. Renner, Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself, Nature Communications 9, 3711 (2018). 17 VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    2018

  30. [38]

    K.-W. Bong, A. Utreras-Alarc´ on, F. Ghafari, Y.-C. Liang, N. Tischler, E. G. Cavalcanti, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wiseman, A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox, Nature Physics 16, 1199 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    E. G. Cavalcanti and H. M. Wiseman, Implications of local friendliness violation for quantum causality, Entropy 23 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Schr¨ odinger, Die gegenw¨ artige Situation in der Quantenmechanik, Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935)

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Die gegenw¨ artige Situation in der Quantenmechanik, Naturwissenschaften 23, 807 (1935)

    1935

  33. [41]

    Baghramian and J

    M. Baghramian and J. A. Carter, Relativism, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2025 Edition), edited by E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Heisenberg, ¨Uber quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen., Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik33, 879 (1925)

    W. Heisenberg, ¨Uber quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen., Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik33, 879 (1925)

    1925

  35. [43]

    Bohr, Essays 1958-1962 on atomic physics and human knowledge (Wiley, 1963) Chap

    N. Bohr, Essays 1958-1962 on atomic physics and human knowledge (Wiley, 1963) Chap. Quantum Physics and Philosophy — Causality and Complementarity, p. 3

    1958

  36. [44]

    C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, Quantum-bayesian coherence, Reviews of modern physics 85, 1693 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Di Biagio and C

    A. Di Biagio and C. Rovelli, Stable facts, relative facts, Foundations of Physics 51, 1 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    J. M. Renes, Consistency in the description of quantum measurement: Quantum theory can consistently describe the use of itself, arXiv:2107.02193 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Kastner, Unitary-only quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself: On the Frauchiger–Renner paradox, Foundations of Physics50, 441 (2020)

    R. Kastner, Unitary-only quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself: On the Frauchiger–Renner paradox, Foundations of Physics50, 441 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Bub and I

    J. Bub and I. Pitowsky, Two dogmas about quantum mechanics, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.0712.4258 (2008)

    2008 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, Quantum-bayesian coherence, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.0906.2187 (2009)

    2009 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    Harrigan and R

    N. Harrigan and R. W. Spekkens, Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states, Foundations of Physics 40, 125 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, On the reality of the quantum state, Nature Physics 8, 475 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    K. B. Wharton and N. Argaman, Colloquium: Bell’s theorem and locally mediated reformulations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 021002 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    H. Price, Does time-symmetry imply retrocausality? how the quantum world says, maybe?, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 43, 75 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Adlam, Two roads to retrocausality, Synthese 200, 422 (2022)

    E. Adlam, Two roads to retrocausality, Synthese 200, 422 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Schmid, J

    D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, and R. W. Spekkens, Unscrambling the omelette of causation and inference: The framework of causal-inferential theories, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2009.03297 (2021)

    2021 doi arXiv

  49. [57]

    Ormrod and J

    N. Ormrod and J. Barrett, Quantum influences and event relativity (2024), arXiv:2401.18005 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Okon, On the objectivity of measurement outcomes, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 0, 10.1086/719046 (2022)

    E. Okon, On the objectivity of measurement outcomes, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 0, 10.1086/719046 (2022)

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    Okon, Reassessing the strength of a class of Wigner’s friend no-go theorems (2022)

    E. Okon, Reassessing the strength of a class of Wigner’s friend no-go theorems (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Fine, Probability and the interpretation of quantum mechanics, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24, 1 (1973)

    A. Fine, Probability and the interpretation of quantum mechanics, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24, 1 (1973)

    1973

  53. [61]

    M. J. R. Gilton, Whence the eigenstate-eigenvalue link?, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 55, 92 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    N. D. Mermin, Could feynman have said this?, Physics Today 57, 10 (2004)

    2004

  55. [63]

    C. A. Fuchs and N. D. Mermin, Notes on a Paulian idea: Foundational, historical, anecdotal and forward-looking thoughts on the quantum (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0105039 [quant-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  56. [64]

    C. A. Fuchs, M. Schlosshauer, and B. C. Stacey, My struggles with the block universe (2015), arXiv:1405.2390 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [65]

    N. D. Mermin, What is quantum mechanics trying to tell us?, American Journal of Physics 66, 753 (1998)

    1998

  58. [66]

    Kaiser, Quantum Legacies: Dispatches from an Uncertain World , edited by A

    D. Kaiser, Quantum Legacies: Dispatches from an Uncertain World , edited by A. Lightman (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    Bell, Against ‘measurement’, Physics World3, 33 (1990)

    J. Bell, Against ‘measurement’, Physics World3, 33 (1990)

    1990

  60. [68]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  61. [69]

    Deutsch, Quantum theory as a universal physical theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 24, 1 (1985)

    D. Deutsch, Quantum theory as a universal physical theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 24, 1 (1985). 18

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.