Which theories have a measurement problem?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is shown that any theory that has certain properties has a measurement problem, in the sense that it makes predictions that are incompatible with measurement outcomes being absolute (that is, unique and non-relational). These properties are Bell Nonlocality , Information Preservation , and Local Dynamics . The result is extended by deriving Local Dynamics from No Superluminal Influences , Separable Dynamics , and Consistent Embeddings . These results are achieved using a framework of perspectival theories that generalizes the notion of a Heisenberg cut beyond quantum theory. As well as explaining why the existing Wigner’s-friend-inspired no-go theorems hold for quantum theory, the results also shed light on whether a future theory of physics might overcome the measurement problem. In particular, they suggest the possibility of a theory in which absoluteness is maintained, but without rejecting relativity theory (as in Bohm theory) or embracing objective collapses (as in GRW theory).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".