Recent discussions of QBism have turned increasingly toward the question of its ontology. I argue that key insights into QBism's ontology of agency can be identified by reconstructing its response to Wigner's friend paradox. I clarify the relation between two formulations of that response: one grounded in the claim that quantum states are agents' personal probability assignments, and another grounded in the injunction to treat all users of quantum theory as agents on equal footing. Once disambiguated, these formulations reveal an implicit commitment to a mutually recognitive conception of agency, according to which the agential status of a user of quantum theory depends constitutively on the acknowledgement of other agents. This analysis clarifies what is at stake in recent QBist engagements with phenomenology - namely, the search for a more philosophically robust account of this conception of agency. I show how Merleau-Ponty's account of intersubjectivity underpins the recognitive structure implicated in QBism before tracing these themes to Hegel's account of mutual recognition. By locating QBism within a longstanding tradition of mutual recognition, I claim that we not only illuminate its theoretical structure but also open up novel conceptual resources for the rigorous articulation and justification of its ontology.
Recent discussions of QBism have turned increasingly toward the question of its ontology. I argue that key insights into QBism's ontology of agency can be identified by reconstructing its response to Wigner's friend paradox. I clarify the relation between two formulations of that response: one grounded in the claim that quantum states are agents' personal probability assignments, and another grounded in the injunction to treat all users of quantum theory as agents on equal footing. Once disambiguated, these formulations reveal an implicit commitment to a mutually recognitive conception of agency, according to which the agential status of a user of quantum theory depends constitutively on the acknowledgement of other agents. This analysis clarifies what is at stake in recent QBist engagements with phenomenology - namely, the search for a more philosophically robust account of this conception of agency. I show how Merleau-Ponty's account of intersubjectivity underpins the recognitive structure implicated in QBism before tracing these themes to Hegel's account of mutual recognition. By locating QBism within a longstanding tradition of mutual recognition, I claim that we not only illuminate its theoretical structure but also open up novel conceptual resources for the rigorous articulation and justification of its ontology.
This chapter expresses what a breath of fresh air it has been since a few phenomenological philosophers have started to engage with QBism. In service of the newfound discussion, the aim of this exposition is to lay out the structure of QBism as clearly as possible for that audience. In the process, we arrive at eight tenets for QBism: (1) A quantum state is an agent's personal judgment. (2) A quantum measurement is an agent's action upon its external world. (3) Quantum measurement outcomes are personal to the agent performing the action. (4) The quantum formalism is normative rather than descriptive. (5) Unitary evolution too expresses an agent's degrees of belief. (6) Even probability-one assignments are judgments without ontic content. (7) Subjective certainty about what an outcome will be does not negate that unperformed measurements have no outcomes. And, (8) quantum theory is a single-user theory for each of us. We then analyze the Wigner's friend thought experiment in light of the eight tenets and indicate that a still more extended analysis is potentially QBism's surest path to uncovering an ontology to go with quantum theory's normative structure. We conclude with a small discussion of how the philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty may be relevant to this quest.
The interpretation of quantum theory known as QBism argues that many elements of the formalism have a subjective interpretation. At the same time, QBism claims to be a broadly realist programme. This implies that reality in QBism must be somehow founded upon an agent's subjective experiences (measurement outcomes). To make this idea more precise, we propose to interpret QBism's “experiences” as synonymous with the concept of “perceived phenomena” in phenomenology. This suggests an approach to ontology in which objects can only be physically real if they are in principle observable. But what does “observable” mean? Are atoms, electromagnetic fields, quantum states, or probabilities observable? Here we discuss the different answers to this question given by QBists and phenomenologists, and attempt to reconcile them.
This is the first volume that focuses specifically on phenomenological approaches to quantum mechanics. It is also the first volume focusing on the philosophical implications of QBism. This coincidence is not accidental. Phenomenology's rich potential for our understanding of quantum mechanics has long been overlooked by analytic philosophers and phenomenologists alike. The experience-first approach of phenomenology, its descriptive methodology, and Husserl's critique of mathematization do not sit well with “mainstream” analytic philosophy of physics. But as this volume will demonstrate, it sits nicely with the basic tenets of QBism. Conversely, QBism constitutes the most consistent and best-developed interpretation of quantum mechanics that fully embraces the Bohrian idea that a proper understanding of science must be based on the concept of experience. However, since its inception in the early 2000s, QBism has struggled to connect with the philosophical community. Not only are the underlying intuitions shaping and dominating contemporary philosophy of quantum mechanics—namely, that a scientific theory must be purged of all subjective and operational notions such as “experience” or “measurement” and that, consequently, a successful approach to quantum mechanics must be formulated as a “quantum theory without observers”—at odds with QBism. It seems that sometimes the incommensurability already starts at the level of the basic conceptual framework which, in the case of mainstream analytic philosophy, is not very well suited to express some of QBism's main tenets. Considering this situation, the main hypothesis of this volume is that phenomenology and QBism are natural bedfellows, and that both can profit from mutual exchange. In order to make this exchange as profitable as possible, the aim of this introductory chapter is to identify, clarify, and motivate some of the cornerstones of phenomenological approaches to quantum mechanics, to shed light on the main ideas and virtues of QBism, and to discuss points of contact and points of possible conflict between these two projects.
The role of the observer remains a central conceptual challenge in the foundationsof quantum mechanics. This work examines the observer as an agent whoseparticipation is structurally indispensable for the emergence of physical facts. RelationalQuantum Mechanics and QBism—two influential agent-centered interpretations—recast quantum states, measurement outcomes, and objectivity as relationalor personalist rather than observer-independent. By analyzing their conceptualcommitments, we clarify how these frameworks illuminate the problem of subjectivityand the limits of classical realism.The discussion extends beyond physics to the broader question of whether agencyand subjectivity can be eliminated from scientific and technological practices. Drawingon insights from Pauli, Stapp, and d’Espagnat, we argue that attempts tofully operationalize the observer obscure essential features of experience and understanding.Contemporary artificial intelligence systems exemplify this tension: theydemonstrate high functional performance while lacking subjectivity, intentionality,and responsibility.We suggest that the displacement of the subject—from quantum interpretationto algorithmic decision-making—reflects a deeper structural shift in modern knowledge.Treating the observer as an agent is not merely an interpretive option but aconceptual requirement for coherent accounts of measurement, understanding, andresponsible action in an age increasingly shaped by operational intelligence withoutsubjects.
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.
Abstract Quantum mechanics is our most successful and versatile account of the basic constituents of matter, of their interaction and of their compounds. We introduce the theory via a sketch of its history and lay out its mathematical structure in some detail. Before this background we address the important and controversial question of how to interpret that structure. We contextualise our own position, which is linked to our account of ontological emergence as detailed in Chap. 2 , and which is mathematically best expressed in the Heisenberg picture of quantum dynamics. Indeterminism and irreversible processes are fundamental for our approach. We discuss the dialectics of the deterministic challenge to our position and argue that indeterminism in the form of quantum randomness has turned from a philosophical riddle to a technological resource. This claim is supported by a discussion of quantum information science, including some of its basic protocols. Towards the end of the chapter we argue that agency and quantum mechanics come as a package deal. For one, quantum mechanics describes the world as offering open possibilities for the future at a fundamental physical level, which is needed for real higher-order organisation, including agency. Of course, this does not in any way show that the actual existence of agents in our world is guaranteed. But it does show that general agency scepticism has no basis in physics. Second, we show that quantum mechanics is best understood as a theory that describes our agential interactions with nature, and not as a theory that represents nature from the point of view of an inert, detached observer.