BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Christian de Ronde

Christian de Ronde appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
quant-phphysics.hist-phmath.LOmath-phmath.MPmath.RA

Catalog footprint

What is connected

25works
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

25 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Mythical Thought in Bohr's Anti-Realist Realism (Or: Lessons on How to Capture and Defeat Smoky Dragons)

In this work we argue that the power and effectiveness of the Bohrian approach to quantum mechanics is essentially grounded on an inconsistent form of anti-realist realism which supports not only the uncritical tolerance -- in physics -- towards the "standard" account of the theory of quanta but also -- in philosophy -- to the mad reproduction of mythical (inconsistent and vague) narratives -- known as "interpretations". We will discuss the existence of -- what John Archibald Wheeler named -- "smoky dragons" not only within the standard formulation of the theory but also within the many interpretations that have been -- later on -- introduced by philosophers and philosophically inclined physicists. After analyzing the role of smoky dragons within both contemporary physics and philosophy of physics we will propose a general procedure grounded on a series of necessary theoretical conditions for producing meaningful physical concepts that -- hopefully -- could be used as tools and weapons to capture and defeat these beautiful and powerful mythical creatures.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Realistic From Far But Far From Realism: Withering Scientific Realism in the Quantum Case

Much has been discussed in the philosophy of science about how we should understand the scientific enterprise. On the one hand, scientific realists believe that empirically adequate theories can be supplemented by interpretations that can mirror reality-as-it-is; on the other hand, anti-realists argue that this is not the case, as long as scientific theories make sufficiently accurate experimental predictions the addition of narratives is irrelevant for the scientific enterprise, and regarding narratives, it is preferable to remain agnostic. In this paper, we argue that realism was never really at stake in this debate.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Beyond Purity and Mixtures in Categorical Quantum Mechanics

In a recent paper [12], we discussed the serious inconsistency present within the operational and mathematical definition(s) of the notion of pure state. Continuing this analysis, in this work we attempt to address the role of 'purity' and 'mixtures' within two different categorical approaches to QM, namely, the topos approach originally presented by Chris Isham and Jeremy Butterfield [27, 28, 29] and the more recent logos categorical approach presented by the authors of this article [10, 11, 13]. While the first approach exposes the difficulties to produce a consistent understanding of pure states and mixtures, the latter approach presents a new scheme in which their reference is erased right from the start in favor of an intensive understanding of projection operators and quantum superpositions. This new account of the theory, grounded on an intensive interpretation of the Born rule, allows us not only to avoid the orthodox interpretation of projection operators --either as referring to definite valued properties or measurement outcomes-- but also to consider all matrices (of any rank) on equal footing. It is from this latter standpoint that we conclude that instead of distinguishing between pure and mixed states it would be recommendable --for a proper understanding of the theory of quanta-- to return to the original matrix formulation of quantum mechanics presented by Werner Heisenberg in 1925.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Measuring Quantum Superpositions (Or, "It is only the theory which decides what can be observed.")

In this work we attempt to confront the orthodox widespread claim present in the foundational literature of Quantum Mechanics (QM) according to which 'superpositions are never actually observed in the lab'. In order to do so, we begin by providing a critical analysis of the famous measurement problem which, we will argue, was originated by the strict application of the empirical-positivist requirements to subsume the quantum formalism under their specific understanding of 'theory'. In this context, the ad hoc introduction of the projection postulate (or measurement rule) can be understood as a necessary requirement coming from a naive empiricist standpoint which presupposes that observations are self evident givens of "common sense" experience --independent of metaphysical (categorical) presuppositions. We then turn our attention to two "non-collapse" interpretations of QM --namely, modal and many worlds-- which even though deny that the "collapse" is a real physical process anyhow retain the measurement rule as a necessary element of the theory. In contraposition, following Einstein's claim according to which "it is only the theory which decides what can be observed", we propose a return to the realist representational understanding of 'physical theories' in which 'observation' is considered as derived from theoretical presuppositions. It is from this standpoint that we discuss a new non-classical conceptual representation which allows us to understand quantum phenomena in an intuitive (anschaulicht) manner. Leaving behind the projection postulate, we discuss the general physical conditions for measuring and observing quantum superpositions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Quantum Theory Needs No 'Interpretation' But 'Theoretical Formal-Conceptual Unity' (Or: Escaping Adan Cabello's "Map of Madness" With the Help of David Deutsch's Explanations)

In the year 2000, in a paper titled Quantum Theory Needs No 'Interpretation', Chris Fuchs and Asher Peres presented a series of instrumentalist arguments against the role played by 'interpretations' in QM. Since then --quite regardless of the publication of this paper-- the number of interpretations has experienced a continuous growth constituting what Adan Cabello has characterized as a "map of madness". In this work, we discuss the reasons behind this dangerous fragmentation in understanding and provide new arguments against the need of interpretations in QM which --opposite to those of Fuchs and Peres-- are derived from a representational realist understanding of theories --grounded in the writings of Einstein, Heisenberg and Pauli. Furthermore, we will argue that there are reasons to believe that the creation of 'interpretations' for the theory of quanta has functioned as a trap designed by anti-realists in order to imprison realists in a labyrinth with no exit. Taking as a standpoint the critical analysis by David Deutsch to the anti-realist understanding of physics, we attempt to address the references and roles played by 'theory' and 'observation'. In this respect, we will argue that the key to escape the anti-realist trap of interpretation is to recognize that --as Einstein told Heisenberg almost one century ago-- it is only the theory which can tell you what can be observed. Finally, we will conclude that what QM needs is not a new interpretation but instead, a theoretical (formal-conceptual) consistent, coherent and unified scheme which allows us to understand what the theory is really talking about.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Relational Quantum Entanglement Beyond Non-Separable and Contextual Relativism

In this paper we address the relativist-perspectival nature of the orthodox definition of quantum entanglement in terms of preferred factorizations. We also consider this aspect aspect within the generalized definition of entanglement proposed by Barnum et al. [6, 7] in terms of preferred observables. More specifically, we will discuss the non-separable relativism implied by the orthodox definition of entanglement, the contextual relativism implied by its generalization as well as some other serious problems presently discussed within the specialized literature. In the second part of this work, we address a recently proposed objective-invariant definition of entanglement understood as the actual and potential coding of effective and intensive relations [32]. Through the derivation of two theorems we will show explicitly how this new objective definition of entanglement is able to escape both non-separable relativism and contextual relativism. According to these theorems, within this proposed relational definition, all possible subsets of observables as well as all possible factorizations can be globally considered as making reference to the same (potential) state of affairs. The conclusion is that, unlike with the orthodox definitions, this new objective-relational notion of entanglement is able to bypass relativism right from the start opening the door to a realist understanding of quantum correlations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The (Quantum) Measurement Problem in Classical Mechanics

In this work we analyze the deep link between the 20th Century positivist re-foundation of physics and the famous measurement problem of quantum mechanics. We attempt to show why this is not an "obvious" nor "self evident" problem for the theory of quanta, but rather a direct consequence of the empirical-positivist understanding of physical theories when applied to the orthodox quantum formalism. In contraposition, we discuss a representational realist account of both physical 'theories' and 'measurement' which goes back to the works of Einstein, Heisenberg and Pauli. After presenting a critical analysis of Bohr's definitions of 'measurement' we continue to discuss the way in which several contemporary approaches to QM --such as decoherence, modal interpretations and QBism-- remain committed to Bohr's general methodology. Finally, in order to expose the many inconsistencies present within the (empirical-positivist) presuppositions responsible for creating the quantum measurement problem, we show how through these same set of presuppositions it is easy to derive a completely analogous paradox for the case of classical mechanics.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The Dilemma of Quantum Individuality Beyond Particle Metaphysics

It is commonly claimed that quantum mechanics makes reference to a microscopic realm constituted by elementary particles. However, as first famously noticed by Erwin Schrödinger, it is not at all clear what these quantum particles really are. According to the specialized literature, it is not even clear if each of these microscopic entities possess their own identity. Recently, Jonas Arenhart proposed a distinction of quantum objects in terms of a dilemma which forces a choice between their characterization either as individuals or as non-individuals. In this work we attempt to address the (metaphysical) presuppositions involved within Arenhart's dilemma which ground the question of individuality in QM on a strong presupposition regarding the existence of quantum objects. After providing a reconsideration of the role played by metaphysics within physics we attempt to propose, not only a complete redefinition of the dilemma beyond particle metaphysics, but also a possible realist solution grounded on the provision of a new (non-classical) conceptual framework which seeks to develop an invariant-objective representation of the theory of quanta.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Understanding Quantum Mechanics (Beyond Metaphysical Dogmatism and Naive Empiricism)

Quantum Mechanics (QM) has faced deep controversies and debates since its origin when Werner Heisenberg proposed the first mathematical formalism capable to operationally account for what had been recently discovered as the new field of quantum phenomena. Today, even though we have reached a standardized version of QM which is taught in Universities all around the world, there is still no consensus regarding the conceptual reference of the theory and, if or if not, it can refer to something beyond measurement outcomes. In this work we will argue that the reason behind the impossibility to reach a meaningful answer to this question is strictly related to the 20th Century Bohrian-positivist re-foundation of physics which is responsible for having introduced within the theory of quanta a harmful combination of metaphysical dogmatism and naive empiricism. We will also argue that the possibility of understanding QM is at plain sight, given we return to the original framework of physics in which the meaning of understanding has always been clear.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Hilbert Space Quantum Mechanics is Contextual (Reply to R. B. Griffiths)

In a recent paper Griffiths [38] has argued, based on the consistent histories interpretation, that Hilbert space quantum mechanics (QM) is noncontextual. According to Griffiths the problem of contextuality disappears if the apparatus is "designed and operated by a competent experimentalist" and we accept the Single Framework Rule (SFR). We will argue from a representational realist stance that the conclusion is incorrect due to the misleading understanding provided by Griffiths to the meaning of quantum contextuality and its relation to physical reality and measurements. We will discuss how the quite general incomprehension of contextuality has its origin in the "objective-subjective omelette" created by Heisenberg and Bohr. We will argue that in order to unscramble the omelette we need to disentangle, firstly, representational realism from naive realism, secondly, ontology from epistemology, and thirdly, the different interpretational problems of QM. In this respect, we will analyze what should be considered as Meaningful Physical Statements (MPS) within a theory and will argue that Counterfactual Reasoning (CR) -considered by Griffiths as "tricky"- must be accepted as a necessary condition for any representational realist interpretation of QM. Finally we discuss what should be considered as a problem (and what not) in QM from a representational realist perspective.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Probabilistic Knowledge as Objective Knowledge in Quantum Mechanics: Potential Powers Instead of Actual Properties

In classical physics, probabilistic or statistical knowledge has been always related to ignorance or inaccurate subjective knowledge about an actual state of affairs. This idea has been extended to quantum mechanics through a completely incoherent interpretation of the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein statistics in terms of "strange" quantum particles. This interpretation, naturalized through a widespread "way of speaking" in the physics community, contradicts Born's physical account of Ψ as a "probability wave" which provides statistical information about outcomes that, in fact, cannot be interpreted in terms of 'ignorance about an actual state of affairs'. In the present paper we discuss how the metaphysics of actuality has played an essential role in limiting the possibilities of understating things differently. We propose instead a metaphysical scheme in terms of powers with definite potentia which allows us to consider quantum probability in a new light, namely, as providing objective knowledge about a potential state of affairs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

QBism, FAPP and the Quantum Omelette. (Or, Unscrambling Ontological Problems from Epistemological Solutions in QM)

In this paper we discuss the so called "quantum omelette" created by Bohr and Heisenberg through the mix of (ontic) objective accounts and (epistemic) subjective ones within the analysis of Quantum Mechanics (QM). We will begin by addressing the difficult relation between ontology and epistemology within the history of both physics and philosophy. We will then argue that the present "quantum omelette" is being presently cooked in two opposite directions: the first scrambling ontological problems with epistemological solutions and the second scrambling epistemic approaches with ontological questions. A good example of the former is a new type of argumentation strategy attempting to justify the use of decoherence, namely, the "For All Practical Purposes" (shortly known as FAPP) type of justification. We will argue that 'FAPP-type solutions' remain, at best, epistemological answers which not only escape the ontological questions at stake -regarding the quantum to classical limit- but also turn the original problem completely meaningless. The latter omelette can be witnessed in relation to some criticisms raised against the epistemic Bayesian approach to QM (shortly known as QBism). We will argue that QBists have produced a consistent scheme that might allow us to begin to unscramble -at least part of- the "quantum omelette". In this respect, we will show why the epistemic QBist approach is safe from several (ontological) criticisms it has recently received (see [42, 47, 48]). We end our paper with a discussion about the importance of ontological approaches within foundations of QM.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Revisiting the Applicability of Metaphysical Identity in Quantum Mechanics

We discuss the hypothesis that the debate about the interpretation of the orthodox formalism of quantum mechanics (QM) might have been misguided right from the start by a biased metaphysical interpretation of the formalism and its inner mathematical relations. In particular, we focus on the orthodox interpretation of the congruence relation, '=', which relates equivalent classes of different mathematical representations of a vector in Hilbert space, in terms of metaphysical identity. We will argue that this seemingly "common sense" interpretation, at the semantic level, has severe difficulties when considering the syntactic level of the theory.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

The Paraconsistent Approach to Quantum Superpositions Reloaded: Formalizing Contradictory Powers in the Potential Realm

In [7] the authors of this paper argued in favor of the possibility to consider a Paraconsistent Approach to Quantum Superpositions (PAQS). We claimed that, even though most interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM) attempt to escape contradictions, there are many hints -coming from present technical and experimental developments in QM- that indicate it could be worth while to engage in a research of this kind. Recently, Arenhart and Krause have raised several arguments against the PAQS [1, 2, 3]. In [11, 12] it was argued that their reasoning presupposes a metaphysical stance according to which the physical representation of reality must be exclusively considered in terms of the equation: Actuality = Reality. However, from a different metaphysical standpoint their problems disappear. It was also argued that, if we accept the idea that quantum superpositions exist in a (contradictory) potential realm, it makes perfect sense to develop QM in terms of a paraconsistent approach and claim that quantum superpositions are contradictory, contextual existents. Following these ideas, and taking as a standpoint an interpretation in terms of the physical notions of power and potentia put forward in [10, 12, 15], we present a paraconsistent formalization of quantum superpositions that attempts to capture the main features of QM.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Epistemological and Ontological Paraconsistency in Quantum Mechanics: For and Against Bohrian Philosophy

We interpret the philosophy of Niels Bohr as related to the so called "linguistic turn" and consider paraconsistency in the light of the Bohrian notion of complementarity. Following [16], Jean-Yves Beziau has discussed the seemingly contradictory perspectives found in the quantum mechanical double slit experiment in terms of paraconsistent view-points [7, 8]. This interpretation goes in line with the well known Bohrian Neo-Kantian epistemological account of quantum mechanics. In the present paper, we put forward the idea that one can also consider, within quantum mechanics and departing from the philosophy of the danish physicist, a more radical paraconsistency found within one of the main formal elements of the theory, namely, quantum superpositions. We will argue that, rather than epistemological, the contradictions found within quantum superpositions could be interpreted as ontological contradictions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Interpreting the modal Kochen-Specker theorem: possibility and many worlds in quantum mechanics

In this paper we attempt to physically interpret the Modal Kochen- Specker (MKS) theorem. In order to do so, we analyze the features of the possible properties of quantum systems arising from the elements in an orthomodular lattice and distinguish the use of "possibility" in the classical and quantum formalisms. Taking into account the modal and many worlds non-collapse interpretation of the projection postulate, we discuss how the MKS theorem rules the constraints to actualization, and thus, the relation between actual and possible realms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Quantum mechanics and the interpretation of the orthomodular square of opposition

In this paper we analyze and discuss the historical and philosophical development of the notion of logical possibility focusing on its specific meaning in classical and quantum mechanics. Taking into account the logical structure of quantum theory we continue our discussion regarding the Aristotelian Square of Opposition in orthomodular structures enriched with a monadic quantifier. Finally, we provide an interpretation of the Orthomodular Square of Opposition exposing the fact that classical possibility and quantum possibility behave formally in radically different manners.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

The square of opposition in orthomodular logic

In Aristotelian logic, categorical propositions are divided in Universal Affirmative, Universal Negative, Particular Affirmative and Particular Negative. Possible relations between two of the mentioned type of propositions are encoded in the square of opposition. The square expresses the essential properties of monadic first order quantification which, in an algebraic approach, may be represented taking into account monadic Boolean algebras. More precisely, quantifiers are considered as modal operators acting on a Boolean algebra and the square of opposition is represented by relations between certain terms of the language in which the algebraic structure is formulated. This representation is sometimes called the modal square of opposition. Several generalizations of the monadic first order logic can be obtained by changing the underlying Boolean structure by another one giving rise to new possible interpretations of the square.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Representing Quantum Superpositions: Powers, Potentia and Potential Effectuations

In this paper we attempt to provide a physical representation of quantum superpositions. For this purpose we discuss the constraints of the quantum formalism to the notion of possibility and the necessity to consider a potential realm independent of actuality. Taking these insights into account and from the basic principles of quantum mechanics itself we advance towards the definition of the notions of power and potentia. Assuming these notions as a standpoint we analyze the meaning of 'observation' and 'interaction'. As a conclusion we provide a set of axioms which comprise our interpretation of quantum mechanics and argue in favor of a redefinition of the orthodox problems discussed in the literature.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

The Paraconsistent Logic of Quantum Superpositions

Physical superpositions exist both in classical and in quantum physics. However, what is exactly meant by 'superposition' in each case is extremely different. In this paper we discuss some of the multiple interpretations which exist in the literature regarding superpositions in quantum mechanics. We argue that all these interpretations have something in common: they all attempt to avoid 'contradiction'. We argue in this paper, in favor of the importance of developing a new interpretation of superpositions which takes into account contradiction, as a key element of the formal structure of the theory, "right from the start". In order to show the feasibility of our interpretational project we present an outline of a paraconsistent approach to quantum superpositions which attempts to account for the contradictory properties present in general within quantum superpositions. This approach must not be understood as a closed formal and conceptual scheme but rather as a first step towards a different type of understanding regarding quantum superpositions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2012arXiv

Entities, Identity and the Formal Structure of Quantum Mechanics

The concept of individuality in quantum mechanics shows radical differences from the one used in classical physics. In particular, it is not possible to consider the fundamental particles described by quantum theory as individual distinguishable objects. In this paper we present arguments in favor of quantum non-individuality, which -in addition to those based on quantum statistics- relate to the Kochen-Specker theorem and the principle of superposition. Then, we analyze the possibility of referring to 'possible individuals' instead of 'actual individuals', and show that the Modal-Kochen-Specker theorem precludes this interpretational move.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2005arXiv

Compatibility and Separability for Classical and Quantum Entanglement

We study the concepts of compatibility and separability and their implications for quantum and classical systems. These concepts are illustrated on a macroscopic model for the singlet state of a quantum system of two entangled spin 1/2 with a parameter reflecting indeterminism in the measurement procedure. By varying this parameter we describe situations from quantum, intermediate to classical and study which tests are compatible or separated. We prove that for classical deterministic systems the concepts of separability and compatibility coincide, but for quantum systems and intermediate systems these concepts are generally different.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access