Foundations of Science

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 621–648 | Cite as

Quantum Superpositions and the Representation of Physical Reality Beyond Measurement Outcomes and Mathematical Structures

  • Christian de RondeEmail author


In this paper we intend to discuss the importance of providing a physical representation of quantum superpositions which goes beyond the mere reference to mathematical structures and measurement outcomes. This proposal goes in the opposite direction to the project present in orthodox contemporary philosophy of physics which attempts to “bridge the gap” between the quantum formalism and common sense “classical reality”—precluding, right from the start, the possibility of interpreting quantum superpositions through non-classical notions. We will argue that in order to restate the problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics in truly ontological terms we require a radical revision of the problems and definitions addressed within the orthodox literature. On the one hand, we will discuss the need of providing a formal redefinition of superpositions which captures explicitly their contextual character. On the other hand, we will attempt to replace the focus on the measurement problem, which concentrates on the justification of measurement outcomes from “weird” superposed states, and introduce the superposition problem which focuses instead on the conceptual representation of superpositions themselves. In this respect, after presenting three necessary conditions for objective physical representation, we will provide arguments which show why the classical (actualist) representation of physics faces severe difficulties to solve the superposition problem. Finally, we will also argue that, if we are willing to abandon the (metaphysical) presupposition according to which ‘Actuality = Reality’, then there is plenty of room to construct a conceptual representation for quantum superpositions.


Quantum superposition Physical reality Measurement problem 



I wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of my manuscript and their many insightful comments and suggestions. This work was partially supported by the following grants: FWO project G.0405.08 and FWO-research community W0.030.06. CONICET RES. 4541-12 and the Project PIO-CONICET-UNAJ (15520150100008CO) “Quantum Superpositions in Quantum Information Processing”.


  1. Aerts, D. (2009a). Quantum particles as conceptual entities: A possible explanatory framework for quantum theory. Foundations of Science, 14, 361–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts, D. (2009b). Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 314–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aerts, D. (2009c). Interpreting quantum particles as conceptual entities. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 49, 2950–2970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aerts, D. (2010). A Potentiality and conceptuality interpretation of quantum mechancis. Philosophica, 83, 15–52.Google Scholar
  5. Aerts, D., & Aerts, S. (1994). Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Foundations of Science, 1, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aerts, D., & D’Hooghe, B. (2009). Classical logical versus quantum conceptual thought: Examples in economics, decision theory and concept theory. In Proceedings of QI 2009-third international symposium on quantum interaction, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 128–142). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aerts, D., & D’Hooghe, B. (2010). A Potentiality and conceptuality interpretation of quantum mechancis. Philosophica, 83, 15–52.Google Scholar
  8. Aerts, D., & Sassoli di Bianchi, M. (2015). Many-measurements or many-worlds? A dialogue. Foundations of Science, 20, 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aerts, D., & Sassoli di Bianchi, M. (2017). Do spins have directions? Soft Computing, 21, 1483–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Albert, D. Z., & Loewer, B. (1988). Interpreting the many worlds interpretation. Synthese, 77, 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arenhart, J. R., & Krause, D. (2015). Potentiality and contradiction in quantum mechanics. In A. Koslow & A. Buchsbaum (Eds.), The road to universal logic (Vol. II, pp. 201–211). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Arenhart, J. R., & Krause, D. (2016). Contradiction, Quantum mechanics, and the square of opposition. Logique et Analyse, 59, 273–281.Google Scholar
  13. Bacciagaluppi, G. (1996). Topics in the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Blatter, G. (2000). Schrodinger’s cat is now fat. Nature, 406, 25–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bokulich, A. (2004). Open or llosed? Dirac, Heisenberg, and the relation between classical and quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 35, 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bub, J. (1997). Interpreting the quantum world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Curd, M., & Cover, J. A. (1998). Philosophy of science. The central issues. In Norton and Company (Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. da Costa, N., & de Ronde, C. (2016). Revisiting the applicability of metaphysical identity in quantum mechanics. Preprint. arXiv:1609.05361
  19. da Costa, N., & de Ronde, C. (2013). The paraconsistent logic of quantum superpositions. Foundations of Physics, 43, 845–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. D’Ariano, M. G., & Perinotti, P. (2016). Quantum theory is an information theory. The operational framework and the axioms. Foundations of Physics, 46, 269–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dawin, R., & Thébault, K. (2015). Many worlds: Incoherent or decoherent? Synthese, 192, 1559–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. de Ronde, C. (2014). The problem of representation and experience in quantum mechanics. In D. Aerts, S. Aerts, & C. de Ronde (Eds.), Probing the meaning of quantum mechanics: Physical, philosophical and logical perspectives (pp. 91–111). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. de Ronde, C. (2015). Modality, potentiality and contradiction in quantum mechanics. In J.-Y. Beziau, M. Chakraborty, & S. Dutta (Eds.), New directions in paraconsistent logic (pp. 249–265). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Ronde, C. (2016a). Probabilistic knowledge as objective knowledge in quantum mechanics: Potential powers instead of actual properties. In D. Aerts, C. de Ronde, H. Freytes, & R. Giuntini (Eds.), Probing the meaning and structure of quantum mechanics: Superpositions, semantics, dynamics and identity (pp. 141–178). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. de Ronde, C. (2016b). Representational realism, closed theories and the quantum to classical limit. In R. E. Kastner, J. Jeknic-Dugic, & G. Jaroszkiewicz (Eds.), Quantum structural studies (pp. 105–136). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  26. de Ronde, C. (2017a). Causality and the modeling of the measurement process in quantum theory. Disputatio (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  27. de Ronde, C. (2017b). Hilbert space quantum mechanics is contextual. (Reply to R. B. Griffiths). Cadernos de Filosofia (forthcoming). arXiv:1502.05396
  28. de Ronde, C., Freytes, H., & Domenech, G. (2014). Interpreting the modal Kochen–Specker theorem: Possibility and many worlds in quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 45, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Deutsch, D. (1999). Quantum theory of probability and decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A455, 3129–3137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. DeWitt, B., & Graham, N. (1973). The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Dieks, D. (1988). The formalism of quantum theory: An objective description of reality. Annalen der Physik, 7, 174–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dieks, D. (2007). Probability in the modal interpretation of quantum mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38, 292–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dieks, D. (2010). Quantum mechanics, chance and modality. Philosophica, 83, 117–137.Google Scholar
  34. Dirac, P. A. M. (1974). The principles of quantum mechanics (4th ed.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Dorato, M. (2006). Properties and dispositions: Some metaphysical remarks on quantum ontology. Proceedings of the AIP, 844, 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dorato, M. (2015). Events and the ontology of quantum mechanics. Topoi, 34, 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Einstein, A. (1916). Ernst Mach. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 17, 101–104.Google Scholar
  38. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Everett, H. (1973). The theory of the universal wave function (Ph.D. Thesis, 1956). In Dewitt, B., & Graham, N. (Eds.), The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (pp. 3–140). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Fuchs, C., Mermin, N., & Schack, R. (2014). An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 82, 749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fuchs, C., & Peres, A. (2000). Quantum theory needs no interpretation. Physics Today, 53, 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gao, S. (2015). What does it feel like to be in a quantum superposition? (preprint).
  43. Griffiths, R. B. (2002). Consistent quantum theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Griffiths, R. B. (2013). Hilbert space quantum mechanics is non contextual. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44, 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hartle, J. (2015). Living in a quantum superposition (preprint). arXiv:1511.01550
  46. Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy, world perspectives. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  47. Heisenberg, W. (1971). Physics and beyond. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  48. Heisenberg, W. (1973). Development of concepts in the history of quantum theory. In J. Mehra (Ed.), The physicist’s conception of nature (pp. 264–275). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Howard, D. (1993). Was Einstein really a realist? Perspectives on Science, 1, 204–251.Google Scholar
  50. Howard, D. (2010). Einstein’s philosophy of science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition).
  51. Jammer, M. (1993). Concepts of space. The history of theories of space in physics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  52. Jansson, L. (2016). Everettian quantum mechanics and physical probability: Against the principle of ‘State Supervenience’. Studies in history and philosophy of modern physics, 53, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kastner, R. (2012). The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics: The reality of possibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kastner, R. (2014). Einselection’ of pointer observables: The new H-theorem? Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 48, 56–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kastner, R. (2015). Understanding our unseen reality: Solving quantum riddles. London: Imperial College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kochen, S., & Specker, E. (1967). On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17, 59–87. (Reprinted in Hooker, 1975, 293–328).Google Scholar
  57. Kovachy, T., Asenbaum, P., Overstreet, C., Donnelly, C. A., Dickerson, S. M., Sugarbaker, A., et al. (2015). Quantum superposition at the half-metre scale. Nature, 528, 530–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Laplace, P.S. (1951). A philosophical essay on probabilities. Translated into English from the original French 6th ed. In F. W. Truscott, & F. L. Emory. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  59. Melamed, Y. (2013). Spinoza’s metaphysics and thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mermin, D. (2015). Why QBism is not the Copenhagen interpretation and what John Bell might have thought of it (preprint). arXiv:1409.2454
  61. Nimmrichter, S., & Hornberger, K. (2013). Macroscopicity of mechanical quantum superposition states. Physical Review Letters, 110, 160403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Omnès, R. (1994). Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Piron, C. (1983). Le realisme en physique quantique: une approche selon Aristote. In The concept of physical reality. Proceedings of a conference organized by the Interdisciplinary Research Group, University of Athens.Google Scholar
  64. Rédei, M. (2012). Some historical and philosophical aspects of quantum probability theory and its interpretation. In D. Dieks, et al. (Eds.), Probabilities, laws, and structures (pp. 497–506). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., & Wallace, D. (Eds.). (2012). Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory, & reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Schrödinger, E. (1935). The present situation in quantum mechanics. Naturwiss, 23, 807–812. Translated to English In J. A. Wheeler, W. H. Zurek (Eds.) Quantum Theory and Measurement, 1983, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  67. Sudbery, T. (2016). Time, chance and quantum theroy. In D. Aerts, C. de Ronde, H. Freytes, & R. Giuntini (Eds.), Probing the meaning and structure of quantum mechanics: Superpositions, semantics, dynamics and identity (pp. 324–339). Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Verelst, K., & Coecke, B. (1999). Early Greek thought and perspectives for the interpretation of quantum mechanics: Preliminaries to an ontological approach. In D. Aerts (Ed.), The Blue Book of Einstein meets Magritte (pp. 163–196). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  70. Wallace, D. (2007). Quantum probability from subjective likelihood: Improving on Deutsch’s proof of the probability rule. Studies in the history and philosophy of modern physics, 38, 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wallace, D. (2012). The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the everett interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wheeler, J. A., & Zurek, W. H. (Eds.). (1983). Theory and measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CONICETBuenos Aires UniversityBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Center Leo Apostel and Foundations of the Exact SciencesVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations