Understanding the Frauchiger–Renner Argument

Foundations of Physics 51 (2):1-9 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In 2018, Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner published an article in Nature Communications entitled ‘Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself.’ The argument has been attacked as flawed from a variety of interpretational perspectives. I clarify the significance of the result as a sequence of actions and inferences by agents modeled as quantum systems evolving unitarily at all times. At no point does the argument appeal to a ‘collapse’ of the quantum state following a measurement.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Frauchiger-Renner argument: A new no-go result?Sebastian Fortin & Olimpia Lombardi - 2020 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 70:1-7.
Stable Facts, Relative Facts.Carlo Rovelli & Andrea Di Biagio - 2021 - Foundations of Physics 51 (1):1-13.
Von Neumann's argument for the projection postulate.Joseph D. Sneed - 1966 - Philosophy of Science 33 (1/2):22-39.
Insolubility Theorems and EPR Argument.Guido Bacciagaluppi - 2013 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (1):87-100.
Karl Renner’s theory of national autonomy.Xabier Arzoz - 2020 - Filozofija I Društvo 31 (3):301-318.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-03-06

Downloads
37 (#422,084)

6 months
19 (#130,686)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jeffrey Bub
University of Maryland, College Park

References found in this work

Remarks on the Mind-Body Question.E. Wigner - 2003 - In John Heil (ed.), Philosophy of Mind: A Guide and Anthology. Oxford University Press.

Add more references