发表机构
Centre Borelli (ENS Paris Saclay, France); IHPST (CNRS, Université Paris 1)（博雷利中心（巴黎萨克雷高等师范学院）; 科学史与哲学系研究所（法国国家科学研究中心，巴黎第一大学））
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文分析了欢乐唯我论的常见误解，指出其核心要求观测事实需索引到视角，而非经典的全局事实域，同时阐明视角逻辑与经典逻辑的关系。
AI 中文摘要
欢乐唯我论（Convivial Solipsism）极易被误解：它否认观测事件的绝对性，同时保留量子力学的普适性，因此常遭以经典非视角性语言表述的反对意见。这类反对意见看似有力，实则是将欢乐唯我论所拒绝的假设偷偷带回讨论中。本文重构了欢乐唯我论讨论中出现的一系列误解，尤其涉及维格纳的朋友（Wigner's friend）及扩展维格纳的朋友场景。目的并非仅为辩护：这些反对意见很有用，因为它们明确了任何认真对待非绝对事实的诠释所需的概念规范。核心主张是观测事实必须索引到视角，例如“朋友观测到结果A”这类陈述在欢乐唯我论中并非完整事实陈述，必须重新表述为“从朋友的视角，朋友观测到结果A”或“从维格纳的视角，朋友报告了结果B”。错误在于移除这些索引，再将所得表达式当作属于单一全局事实域处理，这会导致明显矛盾及关于意识、交流、他心与主体间性的虚假两难。考虑到这一点，欢乐唯我论并非退化为心理唯我论，而是一种视角性话语的规范，且视角逻辑之于经典逻辑，正如量子概率演算之于柯尔莫哥洛夫概率理论。
英文摘要
Convivial Solipsism is easily misunderstood. Because it denies the absoluteness of observed events while preserving the universality of quantum mechanics, it invites objections that are often formulated in a classical, non-perspectival language. Such objections appear powerful only because they smuggle back into the discussion the very assumptions that Convivial Solipsism rejects. This article reconstructs a family of misunderstandings that arise in discussions of Convivial Solipsism, especially in connection with Wigner's friend and extended Wigner's friend scenarios. The aim is not merely defensive. The objections are useful because they identify the conceptual discipline required by any interpretation that takes non-absolute facts seriously. The central claim is that observational facts must be indexed to perspectives. A statement such as "the friend saw outcome A" is not a complete factual statement within Convivial Solipsism. It must be reformulated as "from the friend's perspective, the friend saw outcome A" or "from Wigner's perspective, the friend reported outcome B." The mistake consists in removing these indices and then treating the resulting expressions as if they belonged to a single global factual domain. This leads to apparent contradictions and to false dilemmas concerning consciousness, communication, other minds, and intersubjectivity. When that is taken into account, it appears that Convivial Solipsism is not a retreat into psychological solipsism, but a discipline of perspectival discourse. It is also shown that perspectival logic stands to classical logic as the quantum calculus of probability stands to Kolmogorovian probability theory.
