, Volume 196, Issue 1, pp 299–311 | Cite as

The measurement problem revisited

  • Shan GaoEmail author


It has been realized that the measurement problem of quantum mechanics is essentially the determinate-experience problem, and in order to solve the problem, the physical state representing the measurement result is required to be also the physical state on which the mental state of an observer supervenes. This necessitates a systematic analysis of the forms of psychophysical connection in the solutions to the measurement problem. In this paper, I propose a new, mentalistic formulation of the measurement problem which lays more stress on psychophysical connection. By this new formulation, it can be seen more clearly that the three main solutions to the measurement problem, namely Everett’s theory, Bohm’s theory and collapse theories, correspond to three different forms of psychophysical connection. I then analyze these forms of psychophysical connection. It is argued that the forms of psychophysical connection required by Everett’s and Bohm’s theories have potential problems, while an analysis of how the mental state of an observer supervenes on her wave function may help solve the structured tails problem of collapse theories.


Measurement problem Psychophysical supervenience Everett’s theory Bohm’s theory Collapse theories Structured tails problem 



I am very grateful to two anonymous referees of this journal for their insightful comments, constructive criticisms and helpful suggestions. The basic idea of this paper came to my mind when I taught the course The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics to the postgraduates at the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. I thank the International Conference Center of the University for providing comfortable accommodation. I am also grateful to Arthur Fine, Kelvin McQueen, Peter Lewis, Mark Stuckey, and Ken Wharton for helpful discussions at the 2016 International Workshop on Quantum Observers hosted by International Journal of Quantum Foundations. This work is partly supported by a research project grant from Chinese Academy of Sciences and the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 16BZX021).


  1. Albert, D. Z. (1992). Quantum mechanics and experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, D. Z., & Loewer, B. (1988). Interpreting the many worlds interpretation. Synthese, 77, 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albert, D. Z., & Loewer, B. (1996). Tails of schr\(\ddot{{\rm o}}\)dinger’s cat. In R. Clifton (Ed.), Perspectives on quantum reality. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, J. A. (1999). The quantum mechanics of minds and worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, J. A. (2005). The preferred basis problem and the quantum mechanics of everything. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56(2), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bedard, K. (1999). Material objects in Bohm’s interpretation. Philosophy of Science, 66, 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables I and II. Physical Review, 85, 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, H. R. (1996). Mindful of quantum possibilities. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, H. R., & Wallace, D. (2005). Solving the measurement problem: de Broglie-Bohm loses out to Everett. Foundations of Physics, 35, 517–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butterfield, J. (1998). Quantum curiosities of psychophysics. In J. Cornwell (Ed.), Consciousness and human identity (pp. 122–157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. DeWitt, B. S., & Graham, N. (Eds.). (1973). The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Everett, H. (1957). ‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29, 454–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gao, S. (2016). What does it feel like to be in a quantum superposition?
  14. Gao, S. (2017). Failure of psychophysical supervenience in Everett’s theory.
  15. Ghirardi, G. C. (2011). Collapse theories. In E. N. Zalta (eds.) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition).
  16. Lewis, P. J. (2007a). How Bohm’s theory solves the measurement problem. Philosophy of Science, 74, 749–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, P. J. (2007b). Empty waves in Bohmian quantum mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 58, 787–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maudlin, T. (1995a). Three measurement problems. Topoi, 14, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maudlin, T. (1995b). Why Bohm’s theory solves the measurement problem. Philosophy of Science, 62, 479–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maudlin, T. (2007). Completeness, supervenience, and ontology. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40, 3151–3171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McLaughlin, B., & Bennett, K. (2014). Supervenience, the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition). In E. N. Zalta (ed.)
  22. McQueen, K. J. (2015). Four tails problems for dynamical collapse theories. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 49, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stone, A. D. (1994). Does the Bohm theory solve the measurement problem? Philosophy of Science, 62, 250–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Valentini, A. (1992). On the pilot-wave theory of classical, quantum and subquantum physics. Ph.D. Dissertation. Trieste: International School for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
  25. Wallace, D. (2012). The emergent multiverse: quantum theory according to the Everett interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zeh, H. D. (1981). The problem of conscious observation in quantum mechanical description. In Epistemological letters of the Ferdinand-Gonseth Association in Biel (Switzerland), 63. Also Published in Foundations of Physics Letters, 13(2000), 221–233.Google Scholar
  27. Zeh, H. D. (1999). Why Bohm’s quantum theory? Foundations of Physics Letters, 12, 197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center for Philosophy of Science and TechnologyShanxi UniversityTaiyuanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations