Shan Gao

The Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph (PBR) theorem establishes $\psi$-onticity for individual quantum systems, but its standard formulation relies on the Preparation Independence Postulate (PIP). This has led to a prevalent view that rejecting PIP leaves open the possibility of $\psi$-epistemic models for individual systems. In this work, we show that this understanding is incomplete: once the PBR theorem establishes $\psi$-onticity for composite systems prepared in product states, the $\psi$-onticity of the individual subsystems follows directly from the tensor-product structure of quantum mechanics, without invoking PIP or any further auxiliary assumptions. This result removes a key auxiliary assumption from the PBR theorem, closes a persistent loophole for preserving $\psi$-epistemic models, and strengthens the conceptual foundations of $\psi$-ontology.

The Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph (PBR) theorem establishes $$\psi$$-onticity for individual quantum systems, but its standard formulation relies on the Preparation Independence Postulate (PIP). This has led to a prevalent view that rejecting PIP leaves open the possibility of $$\psi$$-epistemic models for individual systems. In this work, we show that this understanding is incomplete: once the PBR theorem establishes $$\psi$$-onticity for composite systems prepared in product states, the $$\psi$$-onticity of the individual subsystems follows directly from the tensor-product structure of quantum mechanics, without invoking PIP or any further auxiliary assumptions. This result removes a key auxiliary assumption from the PBR theorem, closes a persistent loophole for preserving $$\psi$$-epistemic models, and strengthens the conceptual foundations of $$\psi$$-ontology.

The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph (PBR) theorem proves that the joint wave function ψ1 ⊗ψ2 of a composite quantum system is ψ-ontic, representing the system’s physical reality. We present a minimalist proof showing that this result, combined with the tensor product structure assigning ψ1 to subsystem 1 and ψ2 to subsystem 2, directly implies that ψ1 and ψ2 are ψ-ontic for their respective subsystems. This establishes ψ-ontology for single quantum systems without requiring preparation independence or other assumptions. Our proof challenges the widely held view that joint ψ-onticity permits subsystem ψ-epistemicity via correlations, providing a simpler, more direct understanding of the wave function’s ontological status in quantum mechanics.

Hargrove’s ontological argument for Aesthetic Foundation of Wilderness Preservation was the extension of the thinking paradigm from human beings to moral consideration and aesthetic appreciation of wilderness. The thinking paradigm was based on the framework of traditional Western philosophy, which includes metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. In this article, I will examine Hargrove’s ontological argument by making a little comparison with the perspective of a Chinese philosophical framework. This paper will be divided into three parts. In the part I, I will summarize Hargrove’s ontological argument for natural beauty and environmental preservation. In part II, I will examine the metaphysical framework in Hargrove’s ontological argument. I argue it is the extension of Plato’s metaphysics of the ultimate reality to wilderness. In Part III, I will examine the ethical and aesthetic framework in his ontological argument. I point out Hargrove’s ethical framework comes from ethical rationalism and his aesthetic framework is the legacy of Plato’s aesthetics. By comparison, Chinese metaphysics stresses the process and Chinese ethics stresses care. The two different directions promote the aesthetic appreciation of agricultural land rather than wilderness.

In a recent paper (Found Phys 54:14, 2024), Carcassi, Oldofredi and Aidala concluded that the \(\psi\) -ontic models defined by Harrigan and Spekkens cannot be consistent with quantum mechanics, since the information entropy of a mixture of non-orthogonal states are different in these two theories according to their information theoretic analysis. In this paper, I argue that this no-go theorem for \(\psi\) -ontic models is false by explaining the physical origin of the von Neumann entropy in quantum mechanics.

The meaning of the wave function is an important unresolved issue in Bohmian mechanics. On the one hand, according to the nomological view, the wave function of the universe or the universal wave function is nomological, like a law of nature. On the other hand, the PBR theorem proves that the wave function in quantum mechanics or the effective wave function in Bohmian mechanics is ontic, representing the ontic state of a physical system in the universe. It is usually thought that the nomological view of the universal wave function is compatible with the ontic view of the effective wave function, and thus the PBR theorem has no implications for the nomological view. In this paper, I argue that this is not the case, and these two views are in fact incompatible. This means that if the effective wave function is ontic as the PBR theorem proves, then the universal wave function cannot be nomological, and the ontology of Bohmian mechanics cannot consist only in particles. This incompatibility result holds true not only for Humeanism and dispositionalism but also for primitivism about laws of nature, which attributes a fundamental ontic role to the universal wave function. Moreover, I argue that although the nomological view can be held by rejecting one key assumption of the PBR theorem, the rejection will lead to serious problems, such as that the results of measurements and their probabilities cannot be explained in ontology in Bohmian mechanics. Finally, I briefly discuss three $$\psi$$ -ontologies, namely a physical field in a fundamental high-dimensional space, a multi-field in three-dimensional space, and RDMP (Random Discontinuous Motion of Particles) in three-dimensional space, and argue that the RDMP ontology can answer the objections to the $$\psi$$ -ontology raised by the proponents of the nomological view.

The existing psi-ontology theorems are based on a simplified assumption of the ontological models framework, according to which when a measurement is performed the behaviour of the measuring device is determined by the ontic state of the measured system immediately before the measurement. In this paper, I give an argument for the reality of the wave function in terms of protective measurements under a more reasonable assumption, according to which the behaviour of the measuring device during a measurement is determined by the total evolution of the ontic state of the measured system during the measurement. In addition, I present a new analysis of how a protective measurement obtains the expectation value of the measured observable in the measured wave function. The analysis strengthens my argument by further clarifying the role the protection procedure plays in a protective measurement.

In QBism the wave function does not represent an element of physical reality external to the agent, but represent an agent’s personal probability assignments, reflecting his subjective degrees of belief about the future content of his experience. In this paper, I argue that this view of the wave function is not consistent with protective measurements. The argument does not rely on the realist assumption of the ψ-ontology theorems, namely the existence of the underlying ontic state of a quantum system.

Consciousness and quantum mechanics are two great mysteries of our time--and recently scholars have postulated a deeper connection between them. Exploring this possible connection can be fruitful: an analysis of the conscious mind and psychophysical connection can be indispensable in understanding quantum mechanics and solving the notorious measurement problem, and there is also likely some kind of intimate connection between quantum mechanics--the most fundamental theory of the physical world--and our efforts to explain, naturalistically, the phenomenon of consciousness. The sixteen newly written chapters in this volume are divided into three sections: Consciousness and the Wave Function Collapse, Consciousness in Quantum Theories, and Quantum Approaches to Consciousness. This is the first volume to provide a comprehensive review and thorough analysis of intriguing conjectures about the connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics. Written by leading experts in physics, philosophy, and cognitive science, Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics will be of value to students and researchers working on the foundations of quantum mechanics and the philosophy of mind.

Transcendentalism and Confucianism involve different understandinsgs of the concepts of nature, wilderness, and supreme goodness in terms of the metaphysical understanding of nature and how it influences the understanding of human nature. The goodness of Tao is not transcendental as understood by transcendentalism. Rather the goodness of Tao as the important moral values is shaped by human beings’ experience of the natural world. It is this deeper philosophical reason why transcendentalism encourages the aesthetic appreciation of wilderness while Confucianism encourages the aesthetic appreciation of humanized nature.

It has been widely thought that the wave function describes a real, physical field in a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this paper, I present a new analysis of the field ontology for the wave function. First, I argue that the non-existence of self-interactions for a quantum system such as an electron poses a puzzle for the field ontologists. If the wave function represents a physical field, then it seems odd that there are (electromagnetic and gravitational) interactions between the fields of two electrons but no interactions between two parts of the field of an electron. Next, I argue that the three solutions a field ontologist may provide are not fully satisfactory. Finally, I propose a solution of this puzzle that leads to a particle ontological interpretation of the wave function.

It has been widely thought that the ontology of quantum mechanics is real, physical fields. In this paper, I will present a new argument against the field ontology of quantum mechanics by analyzing one-body systems such as an electron. First, I argue that if the physical entity described by the wave function of an electron is a field, then this field is massive and charged. Next, I argue that if a field is massive and charged, then any two parts of the field in space will have gravitational and electromagnetic interactions, while the existence of such self-interactions for an electron contradicts quantum mechanics and experimental observations. This poses a serious difficulty for the field ontology of quantum mechanics. Third, I argue that a particle ontological interpretation of the wave function may avoid the difficulty by providing a plausible explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions. According to this explanation, the wave function of an electron is a description of the state of the random motion of the electron as a particle, and in particular, the modulus squared of the wave function gives the probability density that the electron appears in every possible position in space. Finally, I answer a major objection to the explanation of the non-existence of self-interactions in terms of particle ontology.

Since environmental ethics research started in China in the 1980s, it has been deeply influenced by environmental ethics theory in the United States. Some Chinese environmental philosophers have adopted the key concept of intrinsic value to construct Chinese environmental ethics. However, in recent decades, the concept of intrinsic value has been criticized by scholars in both the United States and China. Many Chinese have found that environmental ethics in the United States that is founded on the concept of intrinsic value is incompatible with Chinese philosophy and culture. They have begun a new effort that is aimed at developing a localized environmental ethics based on traditional Chinese philosophy. However, the Chinese scholars’ theoretical effort neglects the important concept of wilderness that is emerging from preservation and conservation practices in China. In this context, the emotion of wonder and its interrelationship with intrinsic value is the new paradigm for constructing a Chinese environmental ethics.

Psychophysical supervenience requires that the mental properties of a system cannot change without the change of its physical properties. In this paper, I argue that the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics or Everett's theory seems to violate the principle of psychophysical supervenience. In order to be consistent with our experience, the theory assumes psychophysical supervenience in each world, including our world. However, this permits the possibility that under certain unitary time evolution which does not lead to world branching, the wave function of each world changes and correspondingly the mental states of the observers in the world also change, while the wave function of the total worlds does not change, which violates the principle of psychophysical supervenience for all worlds. It seems that one must go beyond Everett's theory such as denying multiplicity in order to avoid the failure of psychophysical supervenience.

Psychophysical supervenience requires that the mental properties of a system cannot change without the change of its physical properties. In this paper, I argue that the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics or Everett's theory seems to violate the principle of psychophysical supervenience. In order to be consistent with our experience, the theory assumes psychophysical supervenience in each world, including our world. However, this permits the possibility that under certain unitary time evolution which does not lead to world branching, the wave function of each world changes and correspondingly the mental states of the observers in the world also change, while the wave function of the total worlds does not change, which violates the principle of psychophysical supervenience for all worlds. It seems that one must go beyond Everett's theory such as denying multiplicity in order to avoid the failure of psychophysical supervenience.

Recently the first protective measurement has been realized in experiment [Nature Phys. 13, 1191 ], which can measure the expectation value of an observable from a single quantum system. This raises an important and pressing issue of whether protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function. If the answer is yes, this will improve the influential PBR theorem [Nature Phys. 8, 475 ] by removing auxiliary assumptions, and help settle the issue about the nature of the wave function. In this paper, we demonstrate that this is indeed the case. It is shown that a psi-epistemic model and quantum mechanics have different predictions about the variance of the result of a Zeno-type protective measurement with finite N.

The role of the light postulate in special relativity is reexamined. The existing theory of relativity without light shows that one can deduce Lorentz-like transformations with an undetermined invariant speed based on homogeneity of space and time, isotropy of space and the principle of relativity. However, since the transformations can be Lorentzian or Galilean, depending on the finiteness of the invariant speed, a further postulate is needed to determine the speed in order to establish a real connection between the theory and special relativity. In this paper, I argue that a certain discreteness of space-time, whose existence is strongly suggested by the combination of quantum theory and general relativity, may result in the existence of a maximum and invariant speed when combing with the principle of relativity, and thus it can determine the finiteness of the speed in the theory of relativity without light. According to this analysis, the speed constant c in special relativity is not the actual speed of light, but the ratio between the minimum length and the shortest time of discrete space-time. This suggests a more complete theory of relativity, the theory of relativity in discrete space-time, which is based on the principle of relativity and the constancy of the minimum size of discrete space-time.

It has been debated whether protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function. In this article, I present a new analysis of the relationship between protective measurements and the reality of the wave function. First, I briefly introduce protective measurements and the ontological models framework for them. Second, I give a simple proof of Hardy’s theorem in terms of protective measurements. Third, I analyse two suggested ψ -epistemic models of a protective measurement. It is shown that although these models can explain the appearance of expectation values of observables in a single measurement, their predictions about the variance of the result of a non-ideal protective measurement are different from those of quantum mechanics. Finally, I argue that under an auxiliary finiteness assumption about the dynamics of the ontic state, protective measurement implies the reality of the wave function in the ontological models framework.