Quick Navigation

Overview Topics Abstract Importance Paper Tools References Reactions Discussion Publication Related

Topics

Quantum Foundations

Duality and measurement: the Copenhagen reconciliation

arXiv

Authors: Vincenzo Chilla

Year

2026

Paper ID

4180

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Duality, not monism, constitutes the hermeneutic lens that characterizes the original Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Therefore, evoking the principles of correspondence and complementarity, in this work we re-assert a dual-aspect reading of quantum theory, structured through a multi-perspective schema encompassing its ontological, analytical, epistemological, causal, and information dimensions. We then show how this schema dissolves the so-called 'measurement problem', along with the associated 'knowledge-information' and 'macro-micro' dichotomies, issues historically raised within later monistic or universalist philosophical settings that ultimately depart from the traditional Copenhagen spirit.

Why This Paper Matters

This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
Duality, not monism, constitutes the hermeneutic lens that characterizes the original Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Become a member Sign in

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

[1] DOI https://doi.org/arXiv:2601.03310 [2] arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03310 [3] Publisher https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03310

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0

Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.