Epistemic Boundaries and Quantum Uncertainty: What Local Observers Can (Not) Predict

Abstract

One of quantum theory's salient features is its apparent indeterminism, i.e. measurement outcomes are typically probabilistic. We formally define and address whether this uncertainty is unavoidable or whether post-quantum theories can offer a predictive advantage while conforming to the Born rule on average. We present a no-go claim combining three aspects: predictive advantage, no-signalling, and reliable intersubjectivity between quantum observers. The results of the analysis lead to the conclusion that there exists a fundamental limitation on genuine predictive advantage. However, we uncover a fascinating possibility: When the assumption of reliable intersubjectivity between different observers is violated, subjective predictive advantage can, in principle, exist. This, in turn, entails an epistemic boundary between different observers of the same theory. The findings reconcile us to quantum uncertainty as an aspect of limits on Nature's predictability.

Published version, 17 pages, 1 figure, significant changes including title, updated funding information

References in corpus (7)

• Is the quantum state real? An extended review of $\psi$-ontology theorems
• No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power
• What Bell Did
• A no-go theorem for the persistent reality of Wigner's friend's perception
• Onthological models predictively inequivalent to quantum theory
• An impossibility theorem for Parameter Independent hidden variable theories
• Completely real? A critical note on the claims by Colbeck and Renner

Cited by in corpus (1)

• Algorithmic idealism: what should you believe to experience next?