2015/10/28 by Olímpia Lombardi, Olimpia Lombardi, Sebastian Fortin +3
Arts and Humanities · Chemistry · Mathematics · Physics and Astronomy · #Computer science #Epistemology #History and advancements in chemistry #Ideal (ethics) #Imperfect #Instrumentalism #Interpretation (philosophy) #Interpretations of quantum mechanics #Mathematical economics #Mathematics #Meaning (existential) #Minority interpretations of quantum mechanics #Modal #Philosophy #Philosophy and History of Science #Physics #Quantum #Quantum Mechanics and Applications #Quantum mechanics #Quantum process #Statistical physics #Theoretical physics #quant-ph
paper · pdf · doi:10.3390/e17117310
published as Entropy 2015, 17(11), 7310-7330 · 19 pages
openalex publication_date 2015/10/28 · arxiv created 2016/03/12 · arxiv updated 2016/03/15 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
During many years since the birth of quantum mechanics, instrumentalist interpretations prevailed: the meaning of the theory was expressed in terms of measurements results. However, in the last decades, several attempts to interpret it from a realist viewpoint have been proposed. Among them, modal interpretations supply a realist non-collapse account, according to which the system always has definite properties and the quantum state represents possibilities, not actualities. But the traditional modal interpretations faced some conceptual problems when addressing imperfect measurements. The modal-Hamiltonian interpretation, on the contrary, proved to be able to supply an adequate account of the measurement problem, both in its ideal and its non-ideal versions. Moreover, in the non-ideal case, it gives a precise criterion to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable measurements. Nevertheless, that criterion depends on the particular state of the measured system, and this might be considered as a shortcoming of the proposal. In fact, one could ask for a criterion of reliability that does not depend on the features of what is measured but only on the properties of the measurement device. The aim of this article is precisely to supply such a criterion: we will adopt an informational perspective for this purpose.During many years since the birth of quantum mechanics, instrumentalistinterpretations prevailed: the meaning of the theory was expressed in terms of measurementsresults. However, in the last decades, several attempts to interpret it from a realist viewpointhave been proposed. Among them, modal interpretations supply a realist non-collapseaccount, according to which the system always has definite properties and the quantum staterepresents possibilities, not actualities. But the traditional modal interpretations faced someconceptual problems when addressing imperfect measurements. The modal-Hamiltonianinterpretation, on the contrary, proved to be able to supply an adequate account of themeasurement problem, both in its ideal and its non-ideal versions. Moreover, in the non-idealcase, it gives a precise criterion to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable measurements.Nevertheless, that criterion depends on the particular state of the measured system, and thismight be considered as a shortcoming of the proposal. In fact, one could ask for a criterionof reliability that does not depend on the features of what is measured but only on theproperties of the measurement device. The aim of this article is precisely to supply such acriterion: we will adopt an informational perspective for this purpose.