How can it be like that?

TL;DR

This paper reviews three books on the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics, discusses interpretative issues, and explores a neo-Bohrian perspective on the nature of the quantum world.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of different interpretative approaches and offers insights into the meaning of Bohr's statement about the non-existence of a quantum world.

Findings

Different interpretative camps have faced hostility and professional consequences.

The neo-Bohrian view suggests there is no separate quantum reality.

Understanding quantum mechanics involves complex philosophical debates.

Abstract

Richard Feynman famously said that nobody understands quantum mechanics and cautioned against asking: "But how can it be like that?" Something about the conceptual foundations of the theory is profoundly puzzling, but just what is so disturbing is not easy to pin down. Three books by Olival Freire (The Quantum Dissidents), Adam Becker (What is Real?), and Philip Ball (Beyond Weird) are about rival attempts to say how it can be like that and, in the case of the Freire and Becker books, about the hostility between opposing camps, which sometimes had devastating consequences for the professional careers of the protagonists. I review the issues raised in the three books, and I discuss what Bohr could have meant by the statement (attributed to Bohr by Aage Petersen) that "there is no quantum world," along the lines of a neo-Bohrian, non-representational interpretation of quantum mechanics. (Originally published, with minor changes, as a review article "Interpreting the quantum world: old questions and new answers.")