A Critical, But Hopefully Cordial, QBist Reply to Ballentine

Blake C. Stacey

2023-11-13

Abstract:L. E. Ballentine's remarks in Physics Today about the QBist interpretation of quantum mechanics are generally wide of the mark.

Quantum Physics,History and Philosophy of Physics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

QBism: A Critical Appraisal

Ulrich Mohrhoff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.3312

2014-09-11

Quantum Physics

Abstract:QBism is a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics. With its radical emphasis on the subject, QBism provides a welcome corrective to popular misrepresentations of the epistemological reflections of Niels Bohr, while Bohr, rightly understood, can take the edge off QBism's radical subjectivism. Together, they form a winning combination, the key to which is Schr\"odinger's concept of objectivation, which has its roots in Kant's theory of science. Objectivation contrasts with objectification, the demonstrably futile attempt to make measurements yield outcomes in interpretations that reify a calculational device. Apart from providing an in-depth discussion of QBism, Kant, and Bohr, the paper addresses the issue of nonlocality, the scenario of Wigner's friend, Bell's shifty split, and the problem of the now. It also outlines an ontological interpretation that incorporates the insights of QBism and Bohr.
Why QBism is not the Copenhagen interpretation and what John Bell might have thought of it

N. David Mermin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.2454

2014-09-09

Abstract:Christopher Fuchs and Rüdiger Schack have developed a way of understanding science, which, among other things, resolves many of the conceptual puzzles of quantum mechanics that have vexed people for the past nine decades. They call it QBism. I speculate on how John Bell might have reacted to QBism, and I explain the many ways in which QBism differs importantly from the orthodox ways of thinking about quantum mechanics associated with the term "Copenhagen interpretation."

Quantum Physics,History and Philosophy of Physics
Notwithstanding Bohr, the Reasons for QBism

Christopher A. Fuchs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1705.03483

2018-11-12

Abstract:Without Niels Bohr, QBism would be nothing. But QBism is not Bohr. This paper attempts to show that, despite a popular misconception, QBism is no minor tweak to Bohr's interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is something quite distinct. Along the way, we lay out three tenets of QBism in some detail: 1) The Born Rule---the foundation of what quantum theory means for QBism---is a normative statement. It is about the decision-making behavior any individual agent should strive for; it is not a descriptive "law of nature" in the usual sense. 2) All probabilities, including all quantum probabilities, are so subjective they never tell nature what to do. This includes probability-1 assignments. Quantum states thus have no "ontic hold" on the world. 3) Quantum measurement outcomes just are personal experiences for the agent gambling upon them. Particularly, quantum measurement outcomes are not, to paraphrase Bohr, instances of "irreversible amplification in devices whose design is communicable in common language suitably refined by the terminology of classical physics." Finally, an explicit comparison is given between QBism and Bohr with regard to three subjects: a) The issue of the "detached observer" as it arose in a debate between Pauli and Bohr, b) Bohr's reply to Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, and c) Bohr's mature notion of "quantum phenomena." At the end, we discuss how Bohr's notion of phenomena may have something to offer the philosophy of William James: A physics from which to further develop his vision of the world---call it an ontology if you will---in which "new being comes in local spots and patches."

Quantum Physics,History and Philosophy of Physics
QBism, Where Next?

Christopher A. Fuchs

2023-03-11

Abstract:This paper expresses what a breath of fresh air it has been since a few phenomenological philosophers have started to engage with QBism. In service of the newfound discussion, the aim of this exposition is to lay out the structure of QBism as clearly as possible for that audience. In the process, we arrive at eight tenets for QBism: 1) A quantum state is an agent's personal judgment. 2) A quantum measurement is an agent's action upon its external world. 3) Quantum measurement outcomes are personal to the agent performing the action. 4) The quantum formalism is normative rather than descriptive. 5) Unitary evolution too expresses an agent's degrees of belief. 6) Even probability-one assignments are judgments without ontic content. 7) Subjective certainty about what an outcome will be does not negate that unperformed measurements have no outcomes. And, 8) quantum theory is a single-user theory for each of us. We then analyze the Wigner's friend thought experiment in light of the eight tenets and indicate that a still more extended analysis is potentially QBism's surest path to uncovering an ontology to go with quantum theory's normative structure. We conclude with a small discussion of how the philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty may be relevant to this quest.

Quantum Physics
QBism and the limits of scientific realism

David Glick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00366-5

2021-05-24

European Journal for Philosophy of Science

Abstract:Abstract QBism is an agent-centered interpretation of quantum theory. It rejects the notion that quantum theory provides a God’s eye description of reality and claims instead that it imposes constraints on agents’ subjective degrees of belief. QBism’s emphasis on subjective belief has led critics to dismiss it as antirealism or instrumentalism, or even, idealism or solipsism. The aim of this paper is to consider the relation of QBism to scientific realism. I argue that while QBism is an unhappy fit with a standard way of thinking about scientific realism, an alternative conception I call “perspectival normative realism” may allow for a reconciliation.

history & philosophy of science
Reply to the Comment "Past of a quantum particle and weak measurement"

Lev Vaidman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1310.1319

2013-10-04

Abstract:Misinterpretation in the preceding Comment of my recent analysis of the past of a photon is corrected. There is nothing in this analysis which is "contrary to the usual quantum expectations" but, nevertheless, it does provide "further understanding and interpretation of the system considered". In particular, it teaches us that the naive common sense argument frequently used in the literature including the Comment has to be abandoned.

Quantum Physics
"B" is for Bohr

Ulrich Mohrhoff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1905.07118

2019-05-17

Quantum Physics

Abstract:It is suggested that the "B" in QBism rightfully stands for Bohr. The paper begins by explaining why Bohr seems obscure to most physicists. Having identified the contextuality of physical quantities as Bohr's essential contribution to Kant's theory of science, it outlines the latter, its proper contextuality (human experience), and its decontextualization. In order to preserve the decontextualization achieved by Kant's theory, Bohr seized on quantum phenomena as the principal referents of atomic physics, all the while keeping the universal context of human experience at the center of his philosophy. QBism, through its emphasis on the individual experiencing subject, brings home the intersubjective constitution of objectivity more forcefully than Bohr ever did. If measurements are irreversible and outcomes definite, it is because the experiences of each subject are irreversible and definite. Bohr's insights, on the other hand, are exceedingly useful in clarifying the QBist position, attenuating its excesses, and enhancing its internal consistency.
A QBist reads Merleau-Ponty

Rüdiger Schack

2023-12-13

Abstract:Following earlier work by Michel Bitbol and Laura de La Tremblaye which examines QBism from the perspective of phenomenology, this short paper explores points of contact between QBism and Maurice Merleau-Ponty's essay The intertwining--the chiasm.

Quantum Physics,History and Philosophy of Physics
Quantum Probabilities Are Objective Degrees of Epistemic Justification

Philipp Berghofer

2024-10-25

Abstract:QBism is currently one of the most widely discussed 'subjective' interpretations of quantum mechanics. Its key move is to say that quantum probabilities are personalist Bayesian probabilities and that the quantum state represents subjective degrees of belief. Even probability-one predictions are considered subjective assignments expressing the agent's highest possible degree of certainty about what they will experience next. For most philosophers and physicists this means that QBism is simply too subjective. Even those who agree with QBism that the wave function should not be reified and that we should look for alternatives to standard Psi-ontic interpretations often argue that QBism must be abandoned because it detaches science from objectivity. The problem is that from the QBist perspective it is hard to see how objectivity could enter science. In this paper, I introduce and motivate an interpretation of quantum mechanics that takes QBism as a starting point, is consistent with all its virtues, but allows objectivity to enter from the get-go. This is the view that quantum probabilities should be understood as objective degrees of epistemic justification.

History and Philosophy of Physics,Quantum Physics
Comment on "Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality"

Richard D. Gill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3060868

2022-05-27

Abstract:I point out critical errors in the paper "Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality" by Joy~Christian, published in IEEE Access. Christian's model does not generate the singlet correlations but in fact simply reproduces the Bertlmann effect. John Bell's friend and colleague Reinhold Bertlmann of CERN, in his younger days, always wore one pink and one blue sock, at random. The moment you saw his left foot, you knew what colour sock would be on his right foot. Action at a distance? As John Bell liked to explain, quantum entanglement cannot be explained away in such an easy way. Yet Christian's model assigns the two particles of the EPR-B experiment an equal and opposite spin at the source, the choice being determined by a fair coin toss. However they are measured, these spins are recovered. Christian's computer simulation works by not actually simulating his model at all but by almost directly tracing the negative cosine built into his computer algebra package. Bell's theorem has not been disproved. Debate as to what it means for the foundations of physics as well as for quantum information engineering (quantum communication, computation) is more lively today than ever before. Christian's paper, alas, does not contribute to the debate, but distracts from it. A possible role for Geometric Algebra is still wide open and deserves further investigation, informed by a proper understanding of the mathematical content of Bell's theorem.

General Physics,Quantum Physics
Reply to "Comment on 'Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality'"

Joy Christian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3076449

2021-05-24

Abstract:In this paper, I respond to a critique of one of my papers previously published in this journal, entitled `Dr. Bertlmann's socks in a quaternionic world of ambidextral reality.' The geometrical framework presented in my paper is based on a quaternionic 3-sphere, or S^3, taken as a model of the physical space in which we are inescapably confined to perform all our experiments. The framework intrinsically circumvents Bell's theorem by reproducing the singlet correlations local-realistically, without resorting to backward causation, superdeterminism, or any other conspiracy loophole. In this response, I demonstrate point by point that, contrary to its claims, the critique has not found any mistakes in my paper, either in the analytical model of the singlet correlations or in its event-by-event numerical simulation based on Geometric Algebra.

General Physics
Greeks were right : critical comments on Qbism

Marian Kupczynski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1505.06348

2015-05-29

Abstract:In this short essay we reject the interpretation of quantum theory called quantum Bayesianism (Qbism) which has been promoted recently by David Mermin in his essay published in Nature. According to Qbism quantum states are personal judgements of human agents. Physicists are not verifying their personal beliefs about their observations but search for the mathematical abstract description allowing to explain and to predict in a quantitative way the regularities observed (and those to be discovered) in physical phenomena which exist independently of the presence of any agent. We reject also the claim that Qbism explains properly the quantum nonlocality. The distant long range correlations can be correctly explained using a contextual statistical interpretation of quantum theory. We conclude that the Greeks were right to remove a perceiving subject out of Science.

Quantum Physics,History and Philosophy of Physics
Autonomy all the way down: Systems and dynamics in quantum Bayesianism

Chris Fields

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1108.2024

2012-04-08

Abstract:Quantum Bayesianism ("QBism") has been put forward as an approach to quantum theory that avoids foundational problems by altogether disavowing the objective existence of quantum states. It is shown that QBism suffers its own versions of the familiar foundational problems, and that these QBist versions are illuminating not just for QBism, but for more traditional foundational approaches as well.

Quantum Physics
On probabilities in quantum mechanics

Inge S. Helland

2024-06-29

Abstract:This is an attempt to clarify certain concepts related to a debate on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, a debate between Andrei Khrennikov on the one side and Blake Stacey and Rüdiger Schack on the other side. Central to this debate is the notion of quantum probabilities. I first take up the probability concept in the QBist school, and then give my own arguments for the Born formula for calculating quantum probabilities. In that connection I also sketch some consequences of my approach towards the foundation and interpretation of quantum theory. I discuss my general views on QBism as a possible alternative interpretation before I give some final remarks.

Quantum Physics
An Underappreciated Exchange in the Bohr--Einstein Debate

Blake C. Stacey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.14385

2020-03-31

Quantum Physics

Abstract:The Bohr--Einstein debate is one of the more remarkable protracted intellectual exchanges in the history of physics. Its influence has been lasting: One of the few clear patterns in a 2013 survey about quantum foundations was that the physicists who believed Bohr to be correct were apt to say that Einstein had been wrong. The exchanges began when Bohr and Einstein first met in 1920, continued at the Solvay conferences of the following decade, reached a dramatic crescendo with the EPR paradox in 1935, and continued thereafter. Not every episode in this long story has been investigated equally. In particular, one late statement attributed to Bohr has received much more intense examination than Einstein's equally pithy reply.
Comments on Struyve and Baere's paper on experiments to distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics

Partha Ghose

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0208192

2002-08-30

Abstract:It is shown in detail why the arguments put forward by Struyve and Baere (<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="quant-ph/0108038" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0108038">quant-ph/0108038</a>) against my conclusions are incorrect.

Quantum Physics
Qin Et Al. Reply

Nan Qin,Emmanuelle Le Chatelier,Jing Guo,Edi Prifti,Lanjuan Li,S. Dusko Ehrlich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14852

IF: 64.8

2015-01-01

Nature

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by J. H. Chen and H. Y. Fan.Received 22 May 2013DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.269502© 2013 American Physical Society
Comment on the Comment on Deformation of Quantum-Mechanics

YQ LI,ZM SHENG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0253-6102/24/3/384

1995-01-01

Communications in Theoretical Physics

Abstract:This is a reply to the comment by Chung and Chung [J. Phys. A27 (1994) 5037]. We point out that the discussion there is imperfect.
Bohr, QBism, and Beyond

Ulrich J. Mohrhoff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.11405

2019-07-26

Quantum Physics

Abstract:QBism may be the most significant contribution to the search for meaning in quantum mechanics since Bohr, even as Bohr's philosophy remains the most significant revision of Kant's theory of science. There are two ironies here. Bohr failed to realize the full extent of the affinity of his way of thinking with Kant's, and QBists fail to realize the full extent of their agreement with Bohr. While Bohr's discovery of contextuality updates Kant's transcendental philosophy in a way that leaves the central elements of the latter intact, Kant's insight into the roles that our cognitive faculties play in constructing physical theories can considerably alleviate the difficulties that Bohr's writings present to his readers. And while throwing a QBist searchlight on Bohr's writings can further alleviate these difficulties (as well as reveal the presence in them of the salient elements of QBist thought), Bohr's writings can in turn provide answers to important questions that QBism leaves unanswered (and also allay some of QBism's excesses). In the final sections I confront the two most impenetrable mysteries yet unearthed: making sense of quantum mechanics, and the dual mystery of making sense of (i) the existence of consciousness in a seemingly material world and (ii) the existence in consciousness of a seemingly material world. Here the relevant arguments are framed in the context of the philosophy of the Upanishads, according to which we (as Schr\"odinger put it) "are all really only various aspects of the One." There is no world that exists out of relation to consciousness, but there are different poises of consciousness. In particular, there is a poise of consciousness peculiar to the human species at this point in time, and there are poises of consciousness that are yet to evolve (and that may be essential to averting the calamities towards which humanity appears to be heading).
Quantum Dynamics Happens Only on Paper: QBism's Account of Decoherence

John B. DeBrota,Christopher A. Fuchs,Ruediger Schack

2024-09-21

Abstract:QBism has long recognized quantum states, POVM elements, Kraus operators, and even unitary operations to be cut from the same cloth: They express aspects of an agent's belief system concerning the consequences (for her) of actions she might take upon her external world. Such action-consequence pairs have conventionally been called "quantum measurements." The calculus of quantum theory is then viewed as an empirically motivated addition to Bayesian decision theory when brought to this notion of measurement. This radical approach has allowed QBism to eliminate conceptual problems that plague other interpretations of quantum mechanics. However, one issue has remained elusive: If a QBist does not believe in the existence of an ontic (agent-independent) dynamical variable evolving over time, why would there be any constraints on her quantum-state assignment in the absence of performing a measurement? Why would she introduce unitary or open-system quantum dynamics at all? Here, we present a representation theorem based on van Fraassen's reflection principle to answer these questions. Simply put, an agent's assignment of quantum dynamics represents her belief that a measurement action she is contemplating would not change her current odds for future gambles. A corollary to this approach is that one can make sense of "open-system dynamics" without the need to introduce an "environment with a measurement record," as is common in decoherence accounts of quantum measurement. QBism's understanding instead rests more fundamentally on an agent's beliefs about the system of interest (not system plus environment) and her judgments about measurements she might perform on that system. More broadly, this result establishes QBism's contention that measurement itself is the central concept of quantum theory and thus the framework upon which any future QBist ontology must hang.

Quantum Physics

A Critical, But Hopefully Cordial, QBist Reply to Ballentine

QBism: A Critical Appraisal

Why QBism is not the Copenhagen interpretation and what John Bell might have thought of it

Notwithstanding Bohr, the Reasons for QBism

QBism, Where Next?

QBism and the limits of scientific realism

Reply to the Comment "Past of a quantum particle and weak measurement"

"B" is for Bohr

A QBist reads Merleau-Ponty

Quantum Probabilities Are Objective Degrees of Epistemic Justification

Comment on "Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality"

Reply to "Comment on 'Dr. Bertlmann's Socks in a Quaternionic World of Ambidextral Reality'"

Greeks were right : critical comments on Qbism

Autonomy all the way down: Systems and dynamics in quantum Bayesianism

On probabilities in quantum mechanics

An Underappreciated Exchange in the Bohr--Einstein Debate

Comments on Struyve and Baere's paper on experiments to distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics

Qin Et Al. Reply

Comment on the Comment on Deformation of Quantum-Mechanics

Bohr, QBism, and Beyond

Quantum Dynamics Happens Only on Paper: QBism's Account of Decoherence