arXiv:1403.1146 · Foundations of Physics

Why I am not a QBist

‎Louis Marchildon

Published Feb 17, 2015• 12 citations

Abstract

Quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, is a recent development of the epistemic view of quantum states, according to which the state vector represents knowledge about a quantum system, rather than the true state of the system. QBism explicitly adopts the subjective view of probability, wherein probability assignments express an agent’s personal degrees of belief about an event. QBists claim that most if not all conceptual problems of quantum mechanics vanish if we simply take a proper epistemic and probabilistic perspective. Although this judgement is largely subjective and logically consistent, I explain why I do not share it.

DOI: 10.1007/s10701-015-9875-8

Related papers

Quantum Probabilities Are Objective Degrees of Epistemic Justification

Philipp Berghofer

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.

arXiv:2410.19175Oct 24, 20241 citation

Is QBism a Possible Solution to the Conceptual Problems of Quantum Mechanics?

Hervé Zwirn C

QBism is a recently developed version of Quantum Bayesianism. QBists think that the primitive concept of experience is the central subject of science. QBism refuses the idea that the quantum state of a system is an objective description of this system. It is a tool for assigning a subjective probability to the agent's future experience. So quantum mechanics does not directly say something about the "external world". A measurement (in the usual sense) is just a special case of what QBism calls experience and this is any action done by any agent on her external world. The result of the measurement is the experience that the agent gets from her action on her personal world. For Qbists, this way of seeing the measurement helps rejecting any non-local influences. We will examine if these claims are robust and will show that a certain number of issues needs to be clarified in order to get a coherent picture. Depending on the way these necessary clarifications are made, the global image given by Qbism can vary from pure instrumentalism to interpretations making the observer play a radical role.

arXiv:1912.11636Dec 25, 20192 citations

QBism and the Greeks: why a quantum state does not represent an element of physical reality

Christopher A. Fuchs, Rüdiger Schack

In QBism (or Quantum Bayesianism) a quantum state does not represent an element of physical reality but an agent's personal probability assignments, reflecting his subjective degrees of belief about the future content of his experience. In this paper, we contrast QBism with hidden-variable accounts of quantum mechanics and show the sense in which QBism explains quantum correlations. QBism's agent-centered worldview can be seen as a development of ideas expressed in Schrödinger's essay "Nature and the Greeks".

arXiv:1412.4211Physica ScriptaDec 31, 2014123 citations

Quantum Bayesianism Assessed

John Earman

Abstract The idea that the quantum probabilities are best construed as the personal/subjective degrees of belief of Bayesian agents is an old one. In recent years the idea has been vigorously pursued by a group of physicists who fly the banner of quantum Bayesianism (QBism). The present paper aims to identify the prospects and problems of implementing QBism, and it critically assesses the claim that QBism provides a resolution (or dissolution) of some of the long-standing foundations issues in quantum mechanics, including the measurement problem and puzzles of nonlocality.

The MonistJun 20, 201924 citations

Greeks were right : critical comments on Qbism

Marian Kupczyński

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.

arXiv:1505.06348May 23, 20153 citations

How Bayesian Probability Might Help Provide a Realist Interpretation of the Quantum Formalism

John Hemp

We offer a realist interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics in which dynamical properties are properly possessed by the system in question, and are supposed to have definite values at any time. Like the QBists, we employ Bayesian probability, but we adopt something closer to the Bayesian statistics of E. T. Jaynes than to the subjective Bayesian statistics of B. de Fenetti employed by the QBists. Accordingly, we view calculated Bayesian probabilities as rational degrees of expectation of dynamical property values rather than as personal degrees of expectation of future (measurement) experiences. Probabilities are, for us, based on knowledge of the value of some dynamical property of the system, not on knowledge of previous experiences unassociated with system dynamical properties. As some Bayesians might, we take a probability equal to 1 not generally to indicate certainty but only (full) expectation; and we disallow probabilities of conjunctions of propositions claiming incompatible properties. Then, by reinterpreting and adding a little to the quantum formalism, we argue that we can maintain the advantages of the QBist interpretation. So, for us (as for the QBists), there is no unexplained collapse of the wave function, no need for ‘spooky action at a distance’, and no problem raised by the double slit experiment, the Kochen-Specker paradox or Bell type theorems. By holding on to a realist perspective, modelling (of ideal measurements, of system preparation processes etc.) is possible, and we can claim certain dynamical laws of quantum mechanics without leading to contradiction.

Aug 1, 20190 citations