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:1904.10988

Is Quantum Mechanics Self-Interpreting?

Andréa Oldofredi

Published Apr 24, 2019• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1904.10988

Related papers

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

QBism: Subjective Probabilistic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This chapter is devoted to quantum Bayesianism (QBism), the subjective probability interpretation of QM. Creation of such an interpretation is an important step towards unification of applications of the mathematical formalism of QM to physical and to cognitive and sociopolitical systems. QBism can serve to couple the general theory of decision making based on subjective probability with quantum formalism. On the other hand, our quantum-like modeling of sociopolitical processes does not depend on interpretations of QM. Therefore, the reader need not read this chapter, which has a merely foundational value.

•Jul 30, 2020•0 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:1505.06348•May 23, 2015•3 citations

On Quantum Bayesianism

Moses Fayngold

The lately developed part of Quantum Bayesianism named QBism has been proclaimed by its authors a powerful interpretation of Quantum Physics. This article presents analysis of some aspects of QBism. The considered examples show inconsistencies in some basic statements of the discussed interpretation. In particular, the main quantum mechanical conundrum of measurement and the observer is, contrary to the claims, not resolved within the framework of QBism. The conclusion is made that the basic tenets of QBism as applied in Physics are unsubstantiated.

arXiv:2003.11022•Mar 24, 2020•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

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:1412.4211•Physica Scripta•Dec 31, 2014•123 citations
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.
This chapter is devoted to quantum Bayesianism (QBism), the subjective probability interpretation of QM. Creation of such an interpretation is an important step towards unification of applications of the mathematical formalism of QM to physical and to cognitive and sociopolitical systems. QBism can serve to couple the general theory of decision making based on subjective probability with quantum formalism. On the other hand, our quantum-like modeling of sociopolitical processes does not depend on interpretations of QM. Therefore, the reader need not read this chapter, which has a merely foundational value.
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.
The lately developed part of Quantum Bayesianism named QBism has been proclaimed by its authors a powerful interpretation of Quantum Physics. This article presents analysis of some aspects of QBism. The considered examples show inconsistencies in some basic statements of the discussed interpretation. In particular, the main quantum mechanical conundrum of measurement and the observer is, contrary to the claims, not resolved within the framework of QBism. The conclusion is made that the basic tenets of QBism as applied in Physics are unsubstantiated.
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.
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".