Contradictions or Curiosities? On Kent's Critique of the Masanes--Galley--M\"uller Derivation of the Quantum Measurement Postulates

TL;DR

This paper analyzes Adrian Kent's critique of the Masanes--Galley--Müller derivation of quantum measurement postulates, arguing that Kent's contradictions are not valid without additional premises.

Contribution

It clarifies the logical structure of Kent's critique and defends the consistency of the MGM derivation against those criticisms.

Findings

Kent's contradictions are not valid without extra premises

The MGM derivation remains consistent under scrutiny

The paper clarifies the logical assumptions involved

Abstract

Adrian Kent has recently criticized Masanes, Galley and M\"uller's work on postulates for quantum mechanics. MGM claim to find two contradictions in Kent's criticism. I argue that neither is a true contradiction unless some other premise is added.