arXiv:2411.04230

Enaction for QBists

Amanda Gefter

Published Nov 5, 2024• 1 citation

Abstract

This paper began as a set of notes introducing quantum physicists of the QBist persuasion to enactive theory. Unlike mainstream cognitive science, which views cognition as computations on internal representations of the external world (and thus the mind as in the head), the enactive approach sees cognition as adaptive, embodied action. Enaction can ground concepts of experience, agency, knowledge, and normativity - which play key roles in QBist quantum mechanics - in terms consistent with QBism's participatory approach. That's because QBism and enaction both reject an absolute, pregiven subject-object split: for QBism, quantum measurement is the enactment of the subject-object divide; for enaction, cognition is the enactment of that divide. Indeed, each appears to be half of the same story. QBism is a theory of how the world is created and recreated through interactions with an agent, while enaction is a theory of how agents are created and recreated through interactions with the world. Through conversations with QBists and enactivists, these notes evolved into a larger project aimed at unifying QBist physics with enactive cognitive science. Taken together, they offer the possibility of a unified metaphysics - one that brings subject and object, mind and world, back together again.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2411.04230

Related papers

QBism: Integrating Agency and Quantum Mechanics

Hans J. Briegel, Thomas Müller

Abstract The approach to quantum mechanics that we present in this book aligns fairly well with the QBist position in quantum foundations, which takes quantum mechanics as describing the interaction of an agent with the world: A theory mainly offers a way for the agent to manage her expectations about the outcomes of her interactions, not a picture of what nature is really like. We introduce QBism briefly and situate the framework within a range of options for integrating agency and quantum mechanics. We agree with QBism on many fundamental issues, but we do not subscribe to QBism wholesale. We agree with QBism’s pragmatic outlook that takes scientific theories to be tools for agents to use, and with the QBist goal of developing a participatory realism. But we are critical of the particular idealisations that QBism in its present form subscribes to. Most importantly, we are critical of the structural choice not to resolve the agent nor the world in any detail. In our view, scientific agents learn by modelling. Models are tools that agents can use and develop in dealing with the world. Guided by concrete examples, we describe a scientific modelling framework that allows for loops of three different degrees of difficulty and complexity. These range from quantum state updating, which neatly fits the QBist approach of working within a fixed probability space, via a broader class of updates including so-called Hamiltonian learning, up to the most difficult cases in which true scientific creativity is at play. All three levels of difficulty need to be acknowledged for a full picture of real scientific agency. At the end of the chapter, we describe the project of modelling scientific agency itself, which leads to the topics of Chaps. 5 and 6 .

Synthese Library/Synthese libraryJan 1, 20250 citations

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

Michel Bitbol, Laura de la Tremblaye

A discrepancy between the instrumentalist and realist inclinations of QBism, or between its experiential and interactional concepts of measurement, has been repeatedly noticed. Here, we show that this discrepancy can be resolved by adopting a phenomenological approach throughout. In other terms, the difficulty can be overcome by unambiguously choosing the first-person standpoint as a radical origin of knowledge, and by ascending from the situated lived experience of a knowing and acting subject, to the structure and use of the quantum formalism. To reconstruct some crucial features of the objectivity promised by science, and to accommodate the soundest aspect of the realist intuitions of QBist authors, a phenomenological reinterpretation of what is commonly called “the world” is proposed. This reinterpretation is based on Bruce Bégout's “Eco-Phenomenology”, that replaces the concept of a somehow extrinsic relation between subject and world, with the immersive experience of a subject partaking of the world.

Routledge eBooksNov 20, 20235 citations

Epistemological Limits and Quantum Realities: A Kantian Analysis of QBism and Relationalism

Savelli, Arianna L.

This article explores the relationship between Kantian epistemology and QBism, a modern interpretation of quantum mechanics. QBism reconceives scientific objects not as independent entities but as phenomena synthesized through the observer's active role. It emphasizes the interdependence of knowledge and observation, rejecting the notion of a pre-existent, absolute reality. Much like Immanuel Kant's assertion that the thing-in-itself lies outside human cognition, QBism denies ontological status to the unobservable or unexperienced, grounding objectivity in intersubjectivity: the shared cognitive structures of human agents. Within this Critical framework, I address an objection raised by Carlo Rovelli, who critiques QBism for anchoring reality to the observer, claiming it risks falling into idealism by positioning the subject outside nature. Rovelli defends a relational view, situating the observer within the world as describable by the same physical laws that apply to all objects. In response, I argue that the QBist observer represents a universal human subject, not a single determinate agent and that intersubjective agreement ensures objectivity without collapsing into solipsism.

Jan 1, 20250 citations

Back to Kant! QBism, Phenomenology, and Reality from Invariants

Florian J. Boge

As it stands, QBism faces two problems, an epistemic and a semantic one: That it is unclear how, on QBism, an agent can coherently abduce the existence of others and an external, mind-independent world, and that it is unclear how talk of that world even becomes meaningful within the QBist framework. I will here go into elements of phenomenology that could potentially help in solving these problems, but also into what I see as their limitations within ‘phenomenology proper’. I will then go back to Kant, in whose writings some of these phenomenological ideas are rooted, and make a big leap forward, in suggesting a broadly ‘neo-Kantian’ constructivism that I believe evades both problems.

Routledge eBooksNov 20, 20231 citation

Bohr, QBism, and Beyond

Ulrich Mohrhoff

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 Schrödinger 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).

arXiv:1907.11405Jul 26, 20191 citation