In the last five years of his life Itamar Pitowsky developed the idea that the formal structure of quantum theory should be thought of as a Bayesian probability theory adapted to the empirical situation that Nature's events just so happen to conform to a non-Boolean algebra. QBism too takes a Bayesian stance on the probabilities of quantum theory, but its probabilities are the personal degrees of belief a sufficiently-schooled agent holds for the consequences of her actions on the external world. Thus QBism has two levels of the personal where the Pitowskyan view has one. The differences go further. Most important for the technical side of both views is the quantum mechanical Born Rule, but in the Pitowskyan development it is a theorem, not a postulate, arising in the way of Gleason from the primary empirical assumption of a non-Boolean algebra. QBism on the other hand strives to develop a way to think of the Born Rule in a pre-algebraic setting, so that it itself may be taken as the primary empirical statement of the theory. In other words, the hope in QBism is that, suitably understood, the Born Rule is quantum theory's most fundamental postulate, with the Hilbert space formalism (along with its perceived connection to a non-Boolean event structure) arising only secondarily. This paper will avail of Pitowsky's program, along with its extensions in the work of Jeffrey Bub and William Demopoulos, to better explicate QBism's aims and goals.
In the last five years of his life Itamar Pitowsky developed the idea that the formal structure of quantum theory should be thought of as a Bayesian probability theory adapted to the empirical situation that Nature's events just so happen to conform to a non-Boolean algebra. QBism too takes a Bayesian stance on the probabilities of quantum theory, but its probabilities are the personal degrees of belief a sufficiently-schooled agent holds for the consequences of her actions on the external world. Thus QBism has two levels of the personal where the Pitowskyan view has one. The differences go further. Most important for the technical side of both views is the quantum mechanical Born Rule, but in the Pitowskyan development it is a theorem, not a postulate, arising in the way of Gleason from the primary empirical assumption of a non-Boolean algebra. QBism on the other hand strives to develop a way to think of the Born Rule in a pre-algebraic setting, so that it itself may be taken as the primary empirical statement of the theory. In other words, the hope in QBism is that, suitably understood, the Born Rule is quantum theory's most fundamental postulate, with the Hilbert space formalism (along with its perceived connection to a non-Boolean event structure) arising only secondarily. This paper will avail of Pitowsky's program, along with its extensions in the work of Jeffrey Bub and William Demopoulos, to better explicate QBism's aims and goals.
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."
In the quantum-Bayesian interpretation of quantum theory (or QBism), the Born rule cannot be interpreted as a rule for setting measurement-outcome probabilities from an objective quantum state. But if not, what is the role of the rule? In this paper, the argument is given that it should be seen as an empirical addition to Bayesian reasoning itself. Particularly, it is shown how to view the Born rule as a normative rule in addition to usual Dutch-book coherence. It is a rule that takes into account how one should assign probabilities to the consequences of various intended measurements on a physical system, but explicitly in terms of prior probabilities for and conditional probabilities consequent upon the imagined outcomes of a special counterfactual reference measurement. This interpretation is exemplified by representing quantum states in terms of probabilities for the outcomes of a fixed, fiducial symmetric informationally complete measurement. The extent to which the general form of the new normative rule implies the full state-space structure of quantum mechanics is explored.
Quantum mechanics says that when you measure a system, the probability of an outcome is the squared modulus of that outcome's amplitude — not absolute value, not cubed, not some other power. The exponent has been two since Born wrote it down in 1926, and for a century it has been a postulate. Copenhagen accepts it as a brute fact; Many-Worlds tries to derive it from decision theory; QBism reframes it as Bayesian credence; Zurek derives it from environmental symmetries; Hardy derives it from operational axioms. Each program leaves at least part of the question unanswered: why squared, and not some other exponent? Gleason's 1957 theorem went part of the way: given a few structural conditions on quantum probability assignments, the squared form is mathematically forced. But Gleason leans on one substantive assumption — non-contextuality — that standard QM postulates rather than derives. This walkthrough shows how the Event Density framework derives the Born rule, including the squared exponent *and* the non-contextuality assumption underneath it, from a smaller set of structural commitments about what reality is made of at the substrate level. The chain has three load-bearing steps: (i) the participation measure is forced to the form √b · e^{iπ} via the Cauchy functional equation on bandwidth additivity plus Frobenius's theorem on real division algebras; (ii) the sesquilinear inner product on the participation-measure space is forced, delivering the Hilbert-space structure Gleason operates on; (iii) non-contextuality is forced by the channel-as-primitive ontology. With non-contextuality derived rather than postulated, Gleason–Busch applies directly. The squared exponent is a consequence of the framework, not a separate postulate.
QBism pursues the real by first eliminating the elements of quantum theory too fragile to be ontologies on their own. Thereafter, it seeks an "ontological lesson" from whatever remains. Here, we explore this program by highlighting three tenets of QBism. First, the Born Rule is a normative statement. It is about the decision-making behavior any individual agent should strive for, not a descriptive "law of nature." Second, 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, which implies a more radical kind of indeterminism in quantum theory than other interpretations understand. Third, quantum measurement outcomes just are personal experiences for the agent gambling upon them. Thus all quantum measurement outcomes are local in the sense of the agent enacting them. Through these tenets, we explain four points better than previously: 1) how QBism contrasts with Bohr's concern over unambiguous language, 2) how QBism contrasts with the Everett interpretation, 3) how QBism understands the meaning of Bell inequality violations, and 4) how QBism responds to Wigner's "suspended animation" argument. Finally, we consider the ontological lesson of the tenets and ask what it might mean for the next one hundred years of quantum theory and humankind more generally.
This article summarizes the Quantum Bayesian point of view of quantum mechanics, with special emphasis on the view's outer edges---dubbed QBism. QBism has its roots in personalist Bayesian probability theory, is crucially dependent upon the tools of quantum information theory, and most recently, has set out to investigate whether the physical world might be of a type sketched by some false-started philosophies of 100 years ago (pragmatism, pluralism, nonreductionism, and meliorism). Beyond conceptual issues, work at Perimeter Institute is focused on the hard technical problem of finding a good representation of quantum mechanics purely in terms of probabilities, without amplitudes or Hilbert-space operators. The best candidate representation involves a mysterious entity called a symmetric informationally complete quantum measurement. Contemplation of it gives a way of thinking of the Born Rule as an addition to the rules of probability theory, applicable when an agent considers gambling on the consequences of his interactions with a newly recognized universal capacity: dimension (formerly Hilbert-space dimension). (The word "capacity" should conjure up an image of something like gravitational mass---a body's mass measures its capacity to attract other bodies. With hindsight one can say that the founders of quantum mechanics discovered another universal capacity, "dimension.") The article ends by showing that the egocentric elements in QBism represent no impediment to pursuing quantum cosmology and outlining some directions for future work.
Abstract Some physicists but many philosophers believe that standard Hilbert space quantum mechanics faces a serious measurement problem, whose solution requires a new theory or at least a novel interpretation of standard quantum mechanics. Itamar Pitowsky did not. Instead, he argued in a major essay (Pitowsky 2006) that quantum mechanics offers a new theory of probability. In these and other respects, his views paralleled those of QBists (quantum Bayesians): but their views on the objectivity of measurement outcomes diverged radically. Indeed, Itamar’s view of quantum probability depended on his subtle treatment of the objectivity of outcomes as events whose collective structure underlay this new theory of probability. His thesis is puzzling—that quantum mechanics requires a new theory of probability, as distinct from new ways of calculating probabilities that play the same role as other probabilities in physics and daily life. This essay articulates sources of puzzlement.