of the measurement process the value of the pointer observable is determinate. Consequently, the three assumptions, taken together, are incompatible and at least one of them has to be dropped. A necessary condition for an interpretation of quantum theory to count as a candidate *solution* to the measurement problem is that it declares either 1.A or 1.B or 1.C to be wrong (or that it finds a loophole in the reasoning leading to their claimed incompatibility, which seems very difficult). Solutions to the measurement problem contrast with *dissolutions*. Dissolutions also reject at least one of the assumptions 1.A, 1.B or 1.C—but for being senseless rather than for being wrong or, to put it more diplomatically, for being based on mistaken conceptual presuppositions rather than for being mistaken.

Accounts that are based on the epistemic conception of states dissolve the measurement problem in precisely that sense. They do not acknowledge the notion of a quantum state a quantum system “is in” and reject the view that it is part of the linguistic role of quantum states to specify “physical properties of a system” (Maudlin’s assumption 1.A) in the first place. Whereas solutions to the measurement problem which reject assumption 1.A as 