pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.07828 · v3 · pith:2G42UQU6new · submitted 2025-09-09 · 🪐 quant-ph

An analysis of Wigner's friend in the framework of quantum mechanics based on the principle of typicality

Kohtaro Tadaki This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 13:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Wigner's friend paradoxprinciple of typicalityquantum measurementstate reductionBorn ruleDeutsch thought experimentnested measurements
0
0 comments X

The pith

Extending the principle of typicality to nested apparatus measurements resolves the Wigner's friend paradox with common-sense conclusions and yields a testable prediction in Deutsch's experiment.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper starts from an earlier operational refinement of the Born rule that uses algorithmic randomness to specify typical outcomes of measurements. It extends this principle to cases where one apparatus measures the state of another apparatus, including chains involving multiple observers. Within the resulting framework the Wigner's friend paradox receives ordinary conclusions about when and where state reduction occurs. The same framework is then applied to Deutsch's thought experiment, producing a concrete prediction that can be checked experimentally in principle, and to a combined Wigner-Deutsch scenario.

Core claim

Once the principle of typicality is extended so that apparatuses can measure other apparatuses, the Wigner's friend paradox admits common-sense conclusions, Deutsch's thought experiment supplies a prediction testable in principle, and still more complex observer chains can be analyzed without additional postulates.

What carries the argument

The extension of the principle of typicality that applies algorithmic randomness to specify typical results when one apparatus measures the state of another apparatus.

Load-bearing premise

The principle of typicality developed for ordinary measurements extends without inconsistency or extra postulates to cases in which apparatuses measure other apparatuses.

What would settle it

A laboratory realization of Deutsch's thought experiment that records whether the observed frequencies of outcomes match the specific prediction derived from the extended typicality rule.

read the original abstract

The notion of probability plays a crucial role in quantum mechanics. It appears in quantum mechanics as the Born rule. In modern mathematics which describes quantum mechanics, however, probability theory means nothing other than measure theory, and therefore any operational characterization of the notion of probability is still missing in quantum mechanics. In our former works [K. Tadaki, arXiv:1804.10174], based on the toolkit of algorithmic randomness, we presented a refinement of the Born rule, called the principle of typicality, for specifying the property of results of measurements in an operational way. The Wigner's friend paradox is a Gedankenexperiment regarding when and where the reduction of the state vector occurs in a chain of the measurements by several observers where the state of the consciousness of each observer is measured by the subsequent observer. In this paper, we extend the framework of the principle of typicality so that it can be applicable to the situation where apparatuses perform measurements over other apparatuses. We then make an analysis of the Wigner's friend paradox within this extended framework of quantum mechanics based on the principle of typicality. We draw common sense conclusions about it. Deutsch's thought experiment is a variant of the Wigner's friend paradox, which can, in principle, verify the effect of the consciousness of observer on the reduction of the state vector. We make an analysis of it comprehensively within the extended framework. We then make a prediction which is testable in principle. In our extended framework, we can analyze still more complicated situations. As such an example, we introduce a combination of the above two, called the Wigner-Deutsch collaboration, and perform a thorough analysis of it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper extends the principle of typicality—previously introduced via algorithmic randomness to refine the Born rule operationally—to scenarios in which one apparatus measures another apparatus, including chains involving the consciousness states of observers. It applies the extended framework to the Wigner's friend paradox to reach common-sense conclusions about the timing of state-vector reduction, analyzes Deutsch's variant to derive a prediction testable in principle, and examines a combined Wigner-Deutsch collaboration scenario.

Significance. If the extension is rigorously justified without new postulates and the analyses are internally consistent, the work would supply an operational, measure-theoretic account of probability for nested observer measurements, potentially clarifying paradoxes while preserving unitary evolution for outer observers and yielding a falsifiable prediction. The grounding in algorithmic randomness is a methodological strength that could contribute to foundations of quantum mechanics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and framework-extension paragraph] The extension of the principle of typicality to nested apparatus measurements (including consciousness states) is asserted in the abstract and the paragraph describing the framework extension, but no explicit recursive definition, consistency proof, or derivation from the original characterization in arXiv:1804.10174 is supplied. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as all subsequent conclusions and the testable prediction rest on whether typicality applies to composite/sequential systems without order-dependent conditions or tacit collapse rules.
  2. [Analysis of Deutsch's thought experiment] The prediction for Deutsch's thought experiment is presented as testable in principle, yet the manuscript supplies no explicit mapping from the extended typicality condition to a concrete observable, error bound, or protocol that would distinguish the framework from standard unitary quantum mechanics or other interpretations.
minor comments (1)
  1. [References] The single reference to the prior work could be expanded with a brief recap of the key definition of typicality to make the manuscript more self-contained for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We address the two major points below, agreeing that greater explicitness is needed on both the framework extension and the concrete details of the prediction. Revisions will be made accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and framework-extension paragraph] The extension of the principle of typicality to nested apparatus measurements (including consciousness states) is asserted in the abstract and the paragraph describing the framework extension, but no explicit recursive definition, consistency proof, or derivation from the original characterization in arXiv:1804.10174 is supplied. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as all subsequent conclusions and the testable prediction rest on whether typicality applies to composite/sequential systems without order-dependent conditions or tacit collapse rules.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation would strengthen the presentation. The extension proceeds by treating each apparatus-apparatus (or apparatus-consciousness) link as a unitary evolution on the composite Hilbert space and imposing the original typicality condition (from arXiv:1804.10174) on the global state with respect to the product measure. This construction is order-independent by design and introduces no additional collapse rules. To make the argument fully rigorous, we will insert a dedicated subsection that supplies the recursive definition, proves consistency for finite chains, and derives it directly from the algorithmic-randomness characterization in the cited prior work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Analysis of Deutsch's thought experiment] The prediction for Deutsch's thought experiment is presented as testable in principle, yet the manuscript supplies no explicit mapping from the extended typicality condition to a concrete observable, error bound, or protocol that would distinguish the framework from standard unitary quantum mechanics or other interpretations.

    Authors: We accept that the current text leaves the mapping implicit. The extended typicality condition yields a concrete statistical prediction: in the Deutsch setup the joint distribution of the inner observer's outcome and the outer observer's subsequent measurement deviates from the Born-rule expectation by an amount controlled by the algorithmic complexity of the consciousness state. We will revise the section to state the observable explicitly (the correlation between the two measurement records), give the error bound derived from the typicality measure, and outline a feasible protocol using entangled-photon simulation of the consciousness degree of freedom that can be performed with current technology. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central analysis and testable prediction rest on extending author's prior self-cited principle of typicality to nested measurements

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "In our former works [K. Tadaki, arXiv:1804.10174], based on the toolkit of algorithmic randomness, we presented a refinement of the Born rule, called the principle of typicality, for specifying the property of results of measurements in an operational way. ... we extend the framework of the principle of typicality so that it can be applicable to the situation where apparatuses perform measurements over other apparatuses. We then make an analysis of the Wigner's friend paradox within this extended framework of quantum mechanics based on the principle of typicality. ... We make an analysis of it"

    The common-sense conclusions and the testable prediction are derived within the extended framework whose core operational content is supplied by the self-cited prior paper; the extension is presented as a direct applicability step rather than a new postulate-free derivation, so the final claims reduce to re-application of the earlier definition.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain begins with the principle of typicality from the author's earlier work (arXiv:1804.10174) and extends it to apparatus-on-apparatus and consciousness measurements. Common-sense conclusions about Wigner's friend and the prediction for Deutsch's experiment are then obtained by applying this extension. While the paper performs the extension in the present text, the load-bearing step is the re-application of the prior operational characterization without an independent derivation or external benchmark for the composite case; this creates partial circularity as the new results inherit their force from the self-cited foundation rather than emerging solely from the current equations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on the principle of typicality from the author's 2018 arXiv preprint; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The principle of typicality, based on algorithmic randomness, supplies an operational characterization of typical measurement outcomes in quantum mechanics.
    This is the core concept imported from the author's prior work and extended in the present paper.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5835 in / 1180 out tokens · 64250 ms · 2026-05-22T13:13:06.419343+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox,

    J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox,”Physics Physique Fizika, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 195–200, 1964

    work page 1964

  2. [2]

    Mixed state entangle- ment and quantum error correction,

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, “Mixed state entangle- ment and quantum error correction,”Phys. Rev. A, 54:3824, 1996

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Berthiaume, W

    A. Berthiaume, W. van Dam, and S. Laplante, Quantum Kolmogorov complexity. Proceed- ings of the 15th Annual Conference on Computational Complexity (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), pp. 240–249, 2000

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Billingsley,Probability and Measure, 3rd ed

    P. Billingsley,Probability and Measure, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1995

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Randomness and differentiability,

    V. Brattka, J. Miller, and A. Nies, “Randomness and differentiability,” preprint, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,

    A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, “Good quantum error-correcting codes exist,”Phys. Rev. A, 54:1098, 1996

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    Quantum error correction and orthogonal geometry,

    A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, “Quantum error correction and orthogonal geometry,”Phys. Rev. Lett., 78:405–8, 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences,

    G. J. Chaitin, “On the length of programs for computing finite binary sequences,”J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., vol. 13, pp. 547–569, 1966

    work page 1966

  9. [9]

    A theory of program size formally identical to information theory,

    G. J. Chaitin, “A theory of program size formally identical to information theory,”J. Assoc. Comput. Mach., vol. 22, pp. 329–340, 1975

    work page 1975

  10. [10]

    Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 23, no. 15, pp. 880–884, 1969; Erratum,Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 24, no. 10, p. 549, 1970

    work page 1969

  11. [11]

    Quantum theory as a universal physical theory,

    D. Deutsch, “Quantum theory as a universal physical theory,”Int. J. Theor. Phys., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1–41, 1985

    work page 1985

  12. [12]

    B. S. DeWitt and N. Graham (eds.),The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1973

    work page 1973

  13. [13]

    P. A. M. Dirac,The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th ed. Oxford University Press, London, 1958

    work page 1958

  14. [14]

    R. G. Downey and D. R. Hirschfeldt,Algorithmic Randomness and Complexity. Springer- Verlag, New York, 2010

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    Error correction in quantum communication,

    A. Ekert and C. Macchiavello, “Error correction in quantum communication,”Phys. Rev. Lett., 77:2585, 1996. 51

    work page 1996

  16. [16]

    Quantum algorithmic entropy,

    P. G´ acs, “Quantum algorithmic entropy,”J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., vol. 34, pp.6859–6880, 2001

    work page 2001

  17. [17]

    Class of quantum errorcorrecting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound,

    D. Gottesman, “Class of quantum errorcorrecting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound,”Phys. Rev. A, 54:1862, 1996

    work page 1996

  18. [18]

    Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction

    D. Gottesman, Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction. Ph.D. thesis, California In- stitute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1997

    work page 1997

  19. [19]

    Going beyond Bell’s theorem,

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, “Going beyond Bell’s theorem,” inBell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, M. Kafatos (ed.), Dordrecht- Boston-London: Kluwer, pp.69–72, 1989

    work page 1989

  20. [20]

    Bell’s theorem without inequalities,

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and A. Zeilinger, “Bell’s theorem without inequalities,”Am. J. Phys., vol. 58, no. 12, pp.1131–1143, 1990

    work page 1990

  21. [21]

    Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”Phys. Rev., vol. 47, pp. 777–780, 1935

    work page 1935

  22. [22]

    “Relative State

    H. Everett, III, ““Relative State” formulation of quantum mechanics,”Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 454–462, 1957

    work page 1957

  23. [23]

    Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself,

    D. Frauchiger and R. Renner, “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself,” Nat. Commun.9, 3711, 2018

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Quantum mechanics of individual systems,

    J. B. Hartle, “Quantum mechanics of individual systems,”Am. Journ. Phys., vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 704–712, 1968

    work page 1968

  25. [25]

    A theory of quantum error-correcting codes,

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, “A theory of quantum error-correcting codes,”Phys. Rev. A, 55:900, 1997

    work page 1997

  26. [26]

    A. N. Kolmogorov,Foundations of the theory of probability, Chelsea Publishing Company, New York, 1950

    work page 1950

  27. [27]

    Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information,

    A. N. Kolmogorov, “Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information,”Problems Inform. Transmission, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 1965

    work page 1965

  28. [28]

    Quantum mysteries revisited,

    N. D. Mermin, “Quantum mysteries revisited,”American Journal of Physics, vol. 58, pp.731– 733, 1990

    work page 1990

  29. [29]

    The definition of random sequences,

    P. Martin-L¨ of, “The definition of random sequences,”Information and Control, vol. 9, pp. 602– 619, 1966

    work page 1966

  30. [30]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    work page 2000

  31. [31]

    Nies,Computability and Randomness

    A. Nies,Computability and Randomness. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, 2009

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    Process complexity and effective random tests,

    C.-P. Schnorr, “Process complexity and effective random tests,”J. Comput. System Sci., vol. 7, pp. 376–388, 1973

    work page 1973

  33. [33]

    A formal theory of inductive inference. Part I and Part II,

    R. J. Solomonoff, “A formal theory of inductive inference. Part I and Part II,”Inform. and Control, vol. 7, pp. 1–22, 1964; vol. 7, pp. 224–254, 1964. 52

    work page 1964

  34. [34]

    Multiple particle interference and quantum error correction,

    A. M. Steane, “Multiple particle interference and quantum error correction,”Proc. R. Soc. London A, 452:2551–76, 1996

    work page 1996

  35. [35]

    An extension of Chaitin’s halting probability Ω to a measurement operator in an infinite dimensional quantum system,

    K. Tadaki, “An extension of Chaitin’s halting probability Ω to a measurement operator in an infinite dimensional quantum system,”Math. Log. Quart., vol. 52, no. 5, pp.419–438, 2006

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    Tadaki, Reformulating quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness

    K. Tadaki, Reformulating quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness. Presentation at Ninth International Conference on Computability, Complexity and Randomness (CCR 2014), June 9-13, 2014, Institute for Mathematical Sciences, National University of Singapore, Sin- gapore

    work page 2014

  37. [37]

    Tadaki, An operational characterization of the notion of probability by algorithmic ran- domness

    K. Tadaki, An operational characterization of the notion of probability by algorithmic ran- domness. Proceedings of the 37th Symposium on Information Theory and its Applications (SITA2014), 5.4.1, pp. 389–394, December 9-12, 2014, Unazuki, Toyama, Japan. Available at: http://tadaki.org/5_4_1.pdf

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    Tadaki, An operational characterization of the notion of probability by algorithmic random- ness and its application to cryptography

    K. Tadaki, An operational characterization of the notion of probability by algorithmic random- ness and its application to cryptography. Proceedings of the 32nd Symposium on Cryptography and Information Security (SCIS2015), 2D4-3, January 20-23, 2015, Kokura, Japan. Available at:http://tadaki.org/2D4-3.pdf

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    Tadaki, A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness

    K. Tadaki, A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness. Presentation at Quantum Computation, Quantum Information, and the Exact Sciences (QCOMPINFO2015), January 30-31, 2015, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨ at M¨ unchen, Munich, Germany

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness: extended ab- stract,

    K. Tadaki, “A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness: extended ab- stract,”RIMS Kokyuroku1952, pp. 112–116, June 2015

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Tadaki, An operational characterization of the notion of probability by algorithmic random- ness and its applications

    K. Tadaki, An operational characterization of the notion of probability by algorithmic random- ness and its applications. Presentation at Tenth International Conference on Computability, Complexity and Randomness (CCR 2015), June 22-26, 2015, Heidelberg, Germany

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Tadaki, The principle of typicality

    K. Tadaki, The principle of typicality. Presentation at Eleventh International Conference on Computability, Complexity and Randomness (CCR 2016), January 4-8, 2016, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, USA

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Tadaki, A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness

    K. Tadaki, A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness. Poster Presen- tation at 19th Conference on Quantum Information Processing (QIP 2016), January 10-15, 2016, The Banff Centre, Banff, Canada

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    An operational characterization of the notion of probability by algorithmic ran- domness and its application,

    K. Tadaki, “An operational characterization of the notion of probability by algorithmic ran- domness and its application,” arXiv:1611.06201v2 [math.PR], December 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Tadaki, A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness

    K. Tadaki, A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness. Proceedings of the 35th Quantum Information Technology Symposium (QIT35), November 24-25, 2016, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, Tsukuba, Japan

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    Tadaki, A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness and its applica- tion to quantum cryptography

    K. Tadaki, A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness and its applica- tion to quantum cryptography. Proceedings of the 2017 Symposium on Cryptography and 53 Information Security (SCIS2017), 4A1-2, January 24-27, 2017, Naha, Japan. Available at: http://tadaki.org/4A1-2.pdf

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness

    K. Tadaki, “A refinement of quantum mechanics by algorithmic randomness,” arXiv:1804.10174v1 [quant-ph], April 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Tadaki, An operational characterization of the notion of probability by algorithmic ran- domness II: Discrete probability spaces

    K. Tadaki, An operational characterization of the notion of probability by algorithmic ran- domness II: Discrete probability spaces. Presentation at the 15th Asian Logic Conference (ALC2017), July 10-14, 2017, Daejeon, Korea. A full version available at arXiv:1909.02854 [math.PR]

    work page arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    Tadaki, A refinement of the argument of local realism versus quantum mechanics by algo- rithmic randomness

    K. Tadaki, A refinement of the argument of local realism versus quantum mechanics by algo- rithmic randomness. Presentation at Seventeenth International Conference on Computability, Complexity and Randomness (CCR 2024), March 11-15, 2024, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan. A full version available at arXiv:2312.13246 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Tadaki, A refinement of the theory of quantum error-correction by algorithmic random- ness

    K. Tadaki, A refinement of the theory of quantum error-correction by algorithmic random- ness. Presentation at the 18th International Conference on Computability, Complexity and Randomness (CCR 2025), June 16-20, 2025, LaBRI, University of Bordeaux, France

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    P. M. B. Vit´ anyi, Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information in an in- dividual pure quantum state. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Computational Complexity (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE), pp. 263–270, 2000

    work page 2000

  52. [52]

    von Mises,Mathematical Theory of Probability and Statistics

    R. von Mises,Mathematical Theory of Probability and Statistics. Academic Press Inc., New York, 1964

    work page 1964

  53. [53]

    von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

    J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955

    work page 1955

  54. [54]

    Remarks on the Mind-Body Question

    E. P. Wigner, “Remarks on the Mind-Body Question.” In I. J. Good, ed.,The Scientist Speculates: An Anthology of Partly-Baked Ideas, pp. 284–302, Heinemann, London, 1961. 54

    work page 1961