QBists insist that theirs is a realist position while denying that the quantum formalism represents a mind-independent world. The insistence is hard to place. The realism debate is throughout a dispute about represented content, so a theory that denies standing in the representation relation appears not to take up a position within that debate at all. This paper examines the most developed attempt to make good on the QBist claim--David Glick's perspectival normative realism--and argues that it fails instructively. Glick seeks the ground of the Born rule's objectivity among states of affairs and construes an agent's perspective as a location within an already-constituted world; finding no state of affairs fit to bind every agent at once, he must book the ground as brute. Phenomenology supplies the third thing his picture lacks. A horizon is not a position within the world but the condition under which a world is given. Read as an agent's weighting--her curvature--of such a horizon, the quantum state is neither a defective description nor a brute posit, and the Born rule articulates the invariant lawfulness by which any sense confers a curvature at all.
Comments
This chapter will appear in a volume edited by Chris Fuchs and Jacques Pienaar
QBists insist that theirs is a realist position while denying that the quantum formalism represents a mind-independent world. The insistence is hard to place. The realism debate is throughout a dispute about represented content, so a theory that denies standing in the representation relation appears not to take up a position within that debate at all. This paper examines the most developed attempt to make good on the QBist claim--David Glick's perspectival normative realism--and argues that it fails instructively. Glick seeks the ground of the Born rule's objectivity among states of affairs and construes an agent's perspective as a location within an already-constituted world; finding no state of affairs fit to bind every agent at once, he must book the ground as brute. Phenomenology supplies the third thing his picture lacks. A horizon is not a position within the world but the condition under which a world is given. Read as an agent's weighting--her curvature--of such a horizon, the quantum state is neither a defective description nor a brute posit, and the Born rule articulates the invariant lawfulness by which any sense confers a curvature at all.
Abstract QBism is an agent-centered interpretation of quantum theory. It rejects the notion that quantum theory provides a God’s eye description of reality and claims instead that it imposes constraints on agents’ subjective degrees of belief. QBism’s emphasis on subjective belief has led critics to dismiss it as antirealism or instrumentalism, or even, idealism or solipsism. The aim of this paper is to consider the relation of QBism to scientific realism. I argue that while QBism is an unhappy fit with a standard way of thinking about scientific realism, an alternative conception I call “perspectival normative realism” may allow for a reconciliation.
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.
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.
Abstract The theories of pre-quantum physics are standardly seen as representing physical systems and their properties. Quantum mechanics in its standard form is a more problematic case: here, interpretational problems have led to doubts about the tenability of realist views. Thus, QBists and Quantum Pragmatists maintain that quantum mechanics should not be thought of as representing physical systems, but rather as an agent-centered tool for updating beliefs about such systems. It is part and parcel of such views that different agents may have different beliefs and may assign different quantum states. What results is a collection of agent-centered perspectives rather than a unique representation of the physical world. In this paper we argue that the problems identified by QBism and Quantum Pragmatism do not necessitate abandoning the ideal of representing the physical world. We can avail ourselves of the same puzzle-solving strategies as employed by QBists and pragmatists by adopting a perspectival quantum realism. According to this perspectivalism (close to the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics) objects may possess different, but equally objective properties with respect to different physically defined perspectives. We discuss two options for such a perspectivalism, a local and a nonlocal one, and apply them to Wigner’s friend and EPR scenarios. Finally, we connect quantum perspectivalism to the recently proposed philosophical position of fragmentalism.
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."
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 .