"Knowledge" in Psi-Epistemic Interpretation Fundamental or Emergent?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of "knowledge" in the context of quantum mechanics and the different interpretations that exist. The main focus is on Psi-epistemic interpretations, which argue that the wave-function represents knowledge rather than a real object. However, this raises questions about the nature of this knowledge and its relationship to reductionism. The PBR theorem also rules out certain interpretations that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism.
  • #1
lucas_
413
23
Is "Knowledge" in quantum Psi-Epistemic interpretation fundamental or emergent? And what does it mean? What do you think?

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-problem-with-quantum-measurements.html
"One way to deal with the measurement problem is to argue that the wave-function does not describe a real object, but only encodes knowledge, and that probabilities should not be interpreted as frequencies of occurrence, but instead as statements of our confidence. This is what’s known as a “Psi-epistemic” interpretation of quantum mechanics, as opposed to the “Psi-ontic” ones in which the wave-function is a real thing.

The trouble with Psi-epistemic interpretations is that the moment you refer to something like “knowledge” you have to tell me what you mean by “knowledge”, who or what has this “knowledge,” and how they obtain “knowledge.” Personally, I would also really like to know what this knowledge is supposedly about, but if you insist I’ll keep my mouth shut. Even so, for all we presently know, “knowledge” is not fundamental, but emergent. Referring to knowledge in the postulates of your theory, therefore, is incompatible with reductionism. This means if you like Psi-epistemic interpretations, you will have to tell me just why and when reductionism breaks down or, alternatively, tell me how to derive Psi from a more fundamental law."
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Psi-epistemic interpretations are usually developed with a motivation to make quantum mechanics complete, i.e. to remove any need for "additional variables" or "realism". In such interpretations knowledge cannot be emergent, because if it was emergent one would need to answer the question "Emergent from what?", which would bring some kind of "additional variables" back.

In the past some physicists (notably Einstein) have been attempting to develop psi-epistemic interpretations in which quantum mechanics is not complete, but now such interpretations are ruled out by the PBR theorem.
 
  • Like
Likes lucas_
  • #3
Psi-Epistemic views divide into those where the wave-function represents ignorance of underlying variables ##\lambda## and those where it merely carries information about future macroscopic impressions that result from experiments on the microscopic world. In the second case whatever the world fundamentally consists of cannot be described with mathematical variables.

The names for these aren't really standardised yet. Being called either:
  1. Psi-Epistemic Type I, Psi-Epistemic Type II
  2. Psi-Statistical, Psi-Doxastic
  3. Psi-Epistemic, Psi-Doxastic
depending on the author.

The PBR theorem shows that without giving up conventional notions of causality (i.e. some sort of 3+1D dynamical account of events) the first type are not going to work.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and lucas_
  • #4
Demystifier said:
Psi-epistemic interpretations are usually developed with a motivation to make quantum mechanics complete, i.e. to remove any need for "additional variables" or "realism". In such interpretations knowledge cannot be emergent, because if it was emergent one would need to answer the question "Emergent from what?", which would bring some kind of "additional variables" back.

In the past some physicists (notably Einstein) have been attempting to develop psi-epistemic interpretations in which quantum mechanics is not complete, but now such interpretations are ruled out by the PBR theorem.
Can I translate this to the statement: "Knowledge is just an illusion"? Well, that may well be true :-(((.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
109
Views
7K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
76
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
608
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
13
Views
498
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
370
Views
9K
Back
Top