Paolo Faglia

Relational quantum mechanics (RQM) explains the world in terms of an ontology of systems and events, where an event consists of a variable of a system taking a value relative to another system. Two strands of RQM may be distinguished depending on whether events are taken to be absolute or relative. The arguments in this paper apply to both, although I assume that the relativity is not infinitely iterated. I argue that, to solve the problem of measurement, RQM needs to offer a specification of the circumstances in which events occur. Current formulations of RQM claim that events occur whenever interactions occur, without further defining what is meant by “interaction”. I develop plausible ways of understanding the notion of interaction, but I show that they fail to provide a satisfactory specification for the occurrence of events. RQM thus leaves the measurement problem unresolved and, in light of these failed constructive efforts, I conclude that developing a solution consistent with the aims of RQM is a formidable challenge.

Using a ‘reformulation of Bell’s theorem’, Waegell and McQueen (2020) argue that any empirically adequate theory that is local and does not involve retro-causation or fine-tuning must be a many-worlds theory. They go on to analyze several prominent many-worlds interpretations and conclude that non-separable many-worlds theories whose ontology is given by the wavefunction involve superluminal causation, while separable many-worlds theories (e.g. Waegell, 2021; Deutsch and Hayden 2000) do not. I put forward three claims. (A) I challenge their argument for relying on a non-trivial, unquestioned assumption about elements of reality which allows Healey’s approach (Healey, 2017b) to evade their claim. In an attempt to respond to (A), Waegell and McQueen may restrict their claim to theories which satisfy such an assumption, however, I also argue that (B) their argument fails to prove even the so weakened claim, as exemplified by theories that are both non-separable and local. Finally, (C) by arguing for the locality of the decoherence-based Everettian approach (Wallace, 2012) I refute Waegell and McQueen’s claim that wavefunction-based ontologies, and more generally non-separable ontologies, involve superluminal causation. I close with some doubtful remarks about separable Everettian interpretations as compared to non-separable ones.