Advertisement

Erkenntnis

pp 1–7 | Cite as

Is the Reality Criterion Analytic?

  • David GlickEmail author
  • Florian J. Boge
Critical Discussion

Abstract

Tim Maudlin has claimed that EPR’s Reality Criterion is analytically true. We argue that it is not. Moreover, one may be a subjectivist about quantum probabilities without giving up on objective physical reality. Thus, would-be detractors must reject QBism and other epistemic approaches to quantum theory on other grounds.

Notes

Acknowledgements

F. J. Boge was employed with the research unit The Epistemology of the Large Hadron Collider (German Research Foundation (DFG); grant FOR 2063) while working on this paper, and hence acknowledges the funding. We otherwise thank Richard Healey and John DeBrota for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, as well as Chris Fuchs for discussions on the subject at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study.

References

  1. Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika, 1(3), 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boge, F. J. (2018). Quantum mechanics between ontology and epistemology, Volume 10 of European Studies in Philosophy of Science. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, H. R. (2019). The reality of the wavefunction: Old arguments and new. In A. Cordero (Ed.), Philosophers Look at Quantum Mechanics (pp. 63–86). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brukner, Č. (2018). A no-go theorem for observer-independent facts. Entropy, 20(5), 350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caves, C. M., Fuchs, C. A., & Schack, R. (2007). Subjective probability and quantum certainty. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38(2), 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeBrota, J. B., Fuchs, C. A., & Stacey, B. C. (2018). Symmetric informationally complete measurements identify the essential difference between classical and quantum. arXiv:1805.08721.
  7. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47(10), 777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fine, A. (1986). The shaky game. Einstein and the quantum theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Frauchiger, D., & Renner, R. (2018). Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Nature Communications, 9(1), 3711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Friederich, S. (2015). Interpreting Quantum Theory: A Therapeutic Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuchs, C. A. (2017). On participatory realism. In I. T. Durham & D. Rickles (Eds.), Information and interaction: Eddington, wheeler, and the limits of knowledge (pp. 113–134). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fuchs, C. A., Mermin, N. D., & Schack, R. (2014). An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 82(8), 749–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Healey, R. (2017). The quantum revolution in philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Healey, R. (2018). Quantum theory and the limits of objectivity. Foundations of Physics, 48(11), 1568–1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leegwater, G. (2018). When Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger meet Wigner’s Friend. arXiv:1811.02442.
  16. Lewis, P. J. (2019). Bell’s theorem, realism, and locality. In A. Cordero (Ed.), Philosophers look at quantum mechanics (pp. 33–43). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maudlin, T. (2014). What Bell did. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47(42), 424010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Norsen, T. (2016). Quantum solipsism and non-locality. In M. Bell & S. Gao (Eds.), Quantum nonlocality and reality: 50 years of Bell’s theorem (pp. 204–237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pusey, M. F., Barrett, J., & Rudolph, T. (2012). On the reality of the quantum state. Nature Physics, 8(6), 475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stairs, A. (2011). A loose and separate certainty: Caves, Fuchs and Schack on quantum probability one. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42(3), 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Timpson, C. G. (2008). Quantum Bayesianism: A study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39(3), 579–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Werner, R. F. (2014). Comment on ‘What Bell did’. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47(42), 424011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Williamson, T. (2007). How probable is an infinite sequence of heads? Analysis, 67(3), 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS)Wallenberg Research Centre at Stellenbosch UniversityStellenboschSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Institute for Theoretical Particle Physics and CosmologyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations