Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1412.2409 · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences

Von Neumann was not a Quantum Bayesian

Blake C. Stacey

Published Apr 19, 2016• 30 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Wikipedia has claimed for over 3 years now that John von Neumann was the 'first quantum Bayesian'. In context, this reads as stating that von Neumann inaugurated QBism, the approach to quantum theory promoted by Fuchs, Mermin and Schack. This essay explores how such a claim is, historically speaking, unsupported.
DOI
10.1098/rsta.2015.0235

Related papers

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:1505.06348•May 23, 2015•3 citations

Is Quantum Mechanics Self-Interpreting?

Andréa Oldofredi

Fuchs and Peres (2000) claimed that standard Quantum Mechanics needs no interpretation. In this essay, I show the flaws of the arguments presented in support to this thesis. Specifically, it will be claimed that the authors conflate QM with Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) - the most prominent subjective formulation of quantum theory; thus, they endorse a specific interpretation of the quantum formalism. Secondly, I will explain the main reasons for which QBism should not be considered a physical theory, being it concerned exclusively with agents' beliefs and silent about the physics of the quantum regime. Consequently, the solutions to the quantum puzzles provided by this approach cannot be satisfactory from a physical perspective. In the third place, I evaluate Fuchs and Peres arguments contra the non-standard interpretations of QM, showing again the fragility of their claims. Finally, it will be stressed the importance of the interpretational work in the context of quantum theory.

arXiv:1904.10988•Apr 24, 2019•0 citations

Is QBism the Future of Quantum Physics?

Kelvin J. McQueen

The purpose of this book is to explain Quantum Bayesianism ('QBism') to "people without easy access to mathematical formulas and equations" (4-5). Qbism is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that "doesn't meddle with the technical aspects of the theory [but instead] reinterprets the fundamental terms of the theory and gives them new meaning" (3). The most important motivation for QBism, enthusiastically stated on the book's cover, is that QBism provides "a way past quantum theory's paradoxes and puzzles" such that much of the weirdness associated with quantum theory "dissolves under the lens of QBism". Could a non-technical book that almost fits in your pocket really succeed in resolving the notorious paradoxes of quantum theory? I believe the answer is: not in this case. There are three primary reasons. Firstly, the argument that QBism solves quantum paradoxes is not convincing. Secondly, it proves difficult to pin down exactly what QBism says. Thirdly, as a scientific theory QBism seems explanatorily inert, which is maybe why the topic of scientific explanation is not broached. Sections 2-4 below discuss each of these problems in turn. However, there is still a wealth of insights that make this book a worthwhile read, and I shall begin with those.

arXiv:1707.02030•Jul 7, 2017•15 citations

Why QBism is not the Copenhagen interpretation, lecture, Vienna, June 2014

N. David Mermin

Our students learn quantum mechanics the way they learn to ride bicycles (both very valuable accomplishments) without really knowing what they are doing. – J. S. Bell, letter to R. E. Peierls, 20/8/1980 I think we invent concepts, like “particle” or “Professor Peierls,” to make the immediate sense of data more intelligible. – J. S. Bell, letter to R. E. Peierls, 24/2/1983 I have the impression as I write this, that a moment ago I heard the bell of the tea trolley. But I am not sure because I was concentrating on what I was writing…. The ideal instantaneous measurements of the textbooks are not precisely realized anywhere anytime, and more or less realized, more or less all the time, more or less everywhere. – J. S. Bell, letter to R. E. Peierls, 28/1/1981 [1] For the past decade and a half Christopher Fuchs and Rüdiger Schack (originally in collaboration with Carlton Caves) have been developing a new way to think about quantum mechanics. Fuchs and Schack have called it Qbism [2]. Their term originally stood for “quantum Bayesianism.” But QBism is a way of thinking about science quite generally, not just quantum physics [3], and it is pertinent even when probabilistic judgments, and therefore “Bayesianism,” play no role at all. I nevertheless retain the term QBism, both to acknowledge the history behind it, and because a secondary meaning remains apt in the broader context: QBism is as big a break with 20th-century ways of thinking about science as cubism was with 19th-century ways of thinking about art. QBism maintains that my understanding of the world rests entirely on the experiences that the world has induced in me throughout the course of my life. Nothing beyond my personal experience underlies the picture that I have formed of my own external world. This is a statement of empiricism. But it is empiricism taken more seriously than most scientists are willing to do. To state that my understanding of the world rests on my experience is not to say that my world exists only within my head, as recent popularizations of QBism have wrongly asserted [4]. Among the ingredients from which I construct my picture of my external world is the impact of that world on my experience, when it responds to the actions that I take on it.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 5, 2016•0 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 Monist•Jun 20, 2019•24 citations

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

N. David Mermin

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."

arXiv:1409.2454•Sep 8, 2014•1 citation
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.
Fuchs and Peres (2000) claimed that standard Quantum Mechanics needs no interpretation. In this essay, I show the flaws of the arguments presented in support to this thesis. Specifically, it will be claimed that the authors conflate QM with Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) - the most prominent subjective formulation of quantum theory; thus, they endorse a specific interpretation of the quantum formalism. Secondly, I will explain the main reasons for which QBism should not be considered a physical theory, being it concerned exclusively with agents' beliefs and silent about the physics of the quantum regime. Consequently, the solutions to the quantum puzzles provided by this approach cannot be satisfactory from a physical perspective. In the third place, I evaluate Fuchs and Peres arguments contra the non-standard interpretations of QM, showing again the fragility of their claims. Finally, it will be stressed the importance of the interpretational work in the context of quantum theory.
The purpose of this book is to explain Quantum Bayesianism ('QBism') to "people without easy access to mathematical formulas and equations" (4-5). Qbism is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that "doesn't meddle with the technical aspects of the theory [but instead] reinterprets the fundamental terms of the theory and gives them new meaning" (3). The most important motivation for QBism, enthusiastically stated on the book's cover, is that QBism provides "a way past quantum theory's paradoxes and puzzles" such that much of the weirdness associated with quantum theory "dissolves under the lens of QBism". Could a non-technical book that almost fits in your pocket really succeed in resolving the notorious paradoxes of quantum theory? I believe the answer is: not in this case. There are three primary reasons. Firstly, the argument that QBism solves quantum paradoxes is not convincing. Secondly, it proves difficult to pin down exactly what QBism says. Thirdly, as a scientific theory QBism seems explanatorily inert, which is maybe why the topic of scientific explanation is not broached. Sections 2-4 below discuss each of these problems in turn. However, there is still a wealth of insights that make this book a worthwhile read, and I shall begin with those.
Our students learn quantum mechanics the way they learn to ride bicycles (both very valuable accomplishments) without really knowing what they are doing. – J. S. Bell, letter to R. E. Peierls, 20/8/1980 I think we invent concepts, like “particle” or “Professor Peierls,” to make the immediate sense of data more intelligible. – J. S. Bell, letter to R. E. Peierls, 24/2/1983 I have the impression as I write this, that a moment ago I heard the bell of the tea trolley. But I am not sure because I was concentrating on what I was writing…. The ideal instantaneous measurements of the textbooks are not precisely realized anywhere anytime, and more or less realized, more or less all the time, more or less everywhere. – J. S. Bell, letter to R. E. Peierls, 28/1/1981 [1] For the past decade and a half Christopher Fuchs and Rüdiger Schack (originally in collaboration with Carlton Caves) have been developing a new way to think about quantum mechanics. Fuchs and Schack have called it Qbism [2]. Their term originally stood for “quantum Bayesianism.” But QBism is a way of thinking about science quite generally, not just quantum physics [3], and it is pertinent even when probabilistic judgments, and therefore “Bayesianism,” play no role at all. I nevertheless retain the term QBism, both to acknowledge the history behind it, and because a secondary meaning remains apt in the broader context: QBism is as big a break with 20th-century ways of thinking about science as cubism was with 19th-century ways of thinking about art. QBism maintains that my understanding of the world rests entirely on the experiences that the world has induced in me throughout the course of my life. Nothing beyond my personal experience underlies the picture that I have formed of my own external world. This is a statement of empiricism. But it is empiricism taken more seriously than most scientists are willing to do. To state that my understanding of the world rests on my experience is not to say that my world exists only within my head, as recent popularizations of QBism have wrongly asserted [4]. Among the ingredients from which I construct my picture of my external world is the impact of that world on my experience, when it responds to the actions that I take on it.
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.