The Measurement Problem

Alright, let's talk about the measurement problem! This is defined by different thinkers in different ways, so it isn't always clear how we should talk about it.

This is how I have chosen to state the measurement problem, and it is admittedly arbitrary. Every interpretation chooses a different gripe to have about the measurement problem, and will likely formulate the problem in a way that makes their gripe, and subsequent solution, most obvious.

I don't aim to avoid bias in my formulation, I just want to define the problem in the biggest possible strokes that make sense to me. That is to say, I want a formulation of the measurement problem that most clearly frames the issues being debated and allows interpretations to be categorized and their relationships understood quickly.

The Measurement Problem

Some variables:
Let's call the observing mind of the scientist "O",
the macroscopic-sized measuring apparatus "A",
and the quantum state of the system being studied "Q".

The measurement problem could then be stated as three propositions which cannot all be true. One of these must be false.

1. Under the right conditions, A can be in the same quantum state Q as a microscopic-sized system; the size of the apparatus does not matter. Q can be a superposition state.
2. O directly perceives the world. This means that if it perceives the state of A, it perceives its state as exactly what it is.
3. A superposition state represents multiple realities, or a reality that is indeterminate between multiple realities. Minds cannot exist in multiple realities, so O cannot perceive or otherwise interact with A if it is in state Q.

This particular way of formulating the measurement problem has the strength of relative generality, but has the flaw of being fairly abstract and difficult to grasp without some explanation. So, let's look at each part more closely.

'A can be in state Q'

This is the least controversial of the three. Basically, it says that the laws of quantum mechanics are true in the scientific sense. It is the one claim that is a posteriori, meaning it can be verified empirically. Specifically, this means two things: 

a) Large macroscopic sized objects can follow quantum laws under the right conditions.

This is a point that could be brought under debate. Could it be that a relatively large-sized object like a cat actually cannot be brought to a quantum state so that it would behave as quantum mechanics would predict? Or is there some sort of physical effect that prevents that from happening? Some interpretations argue that there is an effect like this.

b) Quantum states can be superpositions.

This is a fundamental part of quantum mechanics. It would be difficult for an interpretation to deny this. Since superposition states are so effective at explaining quantum phenomena, denying this would mean completely denying that quantum mechanics is true in even an approximate sense and that we need to start from scratch.

Accepting this statement does not mean that one believes quantum superposition states must be real things that exist in the world, which is a much more controversial statement. Nor does it mean that a quantum state must be interpreted as a literal physical state. Many interpretations would argue that quantum states should not be considered real physical states because there is some better notion of state out there that we have not yet discovered. These interpretations would still have to admit that the notion of quantum states and the notion that those quantum states can be in a superposition state, however those two things are to be understood, are essential in empirically successful quantum mechanics.

Like I said, this statement is the least controversial.

'O directly perceives the world'

This is a metaphysical statement. Essentially, this statement boils down to whether or not we perceive reality as it really is, or if reality is there is an aspect of reality we fundamentally cannot perceive.

The famous philosopher Immanual Kant introduced the notion of transcendent that is used in modern philosophy. It refers to something that is essentially beyond human experience. Does an interpretation allow for a transcendent reality? If so, that interpretation would deny this statement.

This is important to include because it establishes whether or not it would allow for there to be some kind of "hidden reality" of the metaphysical kind. For example, the multi-universe interpretation allows for possible worlds that are beyond our perception because we are trapped in our own possible universe.

I would think that many would find no problem in denying this proposition. Some interpretations accept this statement, and some don't, and it is a good proposition to use to divide and begin to categorize interpretations.

'Superpositions represent multiple realities'

This is where the problem comes into full form. Superpositions are the linear combination of two other quantum states. That is to say, add two quantum states and you get a superposition. Since superpositions are just this kind of mathematical combination of two other states, it seems natural to assume that they should be interpreted as representing both states in some way. 

Perhaps it is an indeterminate state that ceases to become one reality until collapsed. Perhaps it is a dual existence, one that represents both realities existing at the same time until it is required to be one or the other. Whatever the case, this statement says that it cannot represent just one determinate state.

And because of this dual existence, this is a problem for how we should understand what perception of a superposition should look like. Excluding weird and unhelpful ideas, we don't typically think of our minds as existing in multiple realities. Since this is the case, these extra realities have to be shed somewhere between the physical superposition and our mind's perception of it.

Many would lump the notion of superpositions representing multiple realities in with the baggage associated with quantum mechanics. I don't do this because it is useful to separate this a priori claim from the a posteriori claims of the first statement. It's a statement about how to understand the significance of the superposed quantum state, not a matter of the predictions made using it, though the latter can inform the former.

-------------------------------------------

So that is how I like to phrase the measurement problem. It is simple enough to grasp, while still showcasing many of the concerns interpretations try to address.