aiqbench analysis
This paper reframes the quantum measurement problem as an inherent statistical feature of nature rather than a solvable puzzle, arguing that no interpretation-independent ontology exists for quantum matter. By establishing this formulation based on empirical statistics alone, the authors aim to clarify the root incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity without relying on specific interpretive frameworks. This foundational analysis offers theoretical physicists new perspectives on the limits of current models and the path toward a unified theory of quantum gravity.
An interpretation-independent formulation of the measurement problem
arXiv:2609.03409v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In this paper, we do not try to solve the measurement problem, but rather to properly formulate it. One of the reasons why it still lacks a precise, agreed definition is that the problem may take very different aspects depending on the interpretation of quantum mechanics embraced. Inspired by the methodology of theory-independent results like Bell's theorem, we propose to identify the common root of the puzzle in an interpretation-independent way i.e. as a property of the empirical statistics only, before deriving its philosophical consequences. The key observation is that quantum matter can not be described by a Kolmogorovian probabilistic theory. Arguing that the Kolmogorov axioms of probability theory are the postulates of epistemic uncertainty leads us to reformulate the measurement problem as the impossibility to build an ontology independent of epistemology for quantum matter. Said differently, there exists no God's-eye view on quantum systems. Although it is meaningless to solve the measurement problem as defined in this way, insofar as it is a feature of the universe's statistics, such a formulation may on the other hand bring side benefits. In particular, we argue that it allows to: (i) shed a new light on the variety of interpretations; (ii) propose a fundamental reason why quantum mechanics and general relativity are so incompatible, not relying on purely mathematical or technical arguments; (iii) guide the quest for quantum gravity.
Abstract:In this paper, we do not try to solve the measurement problem, but rather to properly formulate it. One of the reasons why it still lacks a precise, agreed definition is that the problem may take very different aspects depending on the interpretation of quantum mechanics embraced. Inspired by the methodology of theory-independent results like Bell's theorem, we propose to identify the common root of the puzzle in an interpretation-independent way i.e. as a property of the empirical statistics only, before deriving its philosophical consequences. The key observation is that quantum matter can not be described by a Kolmogorovian probabilistic theory. Arguing that the Kolmogorov axioms of probability theory are the postulates of epistemic uncertainty leads us to reformulate the measurement problem as the impossibility to build an ontology independent of epistemology for quantum matter. Said differently, there exists no God's-eye view on quantum systems. Although it is meaningless to solve the measurement problem as defined in this way, insofar as it is a feature of the universe's statistics, such a formulation may on the other hand bring side benefits. In particular, we argue that it allows to: (i) shed a new light on the variety of interpretations; (ii) propose a fundamental reason why quantum mechanics and general relativity are so incompatible, not relying on purely mathematical or technical arguments; (iii) guide the quest for quantum gravity.
Quantum Physics (quant-ph); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph)
arXiv:2609.03409 [quant-ph]
(or arXiv:2609.03409v1 [quant-ph] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.03409 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 333 words
Related coverage

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026

What We're Up Against: An AI Safety Crash Course
LessWrong · Sep 24, 2026
The Next Swan: Frank Ramsey, Variable Hypotheticals, and the Bet on Induction
LessWrong · Jun 8, 2026