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

Autonomy All the Way Down: Systems and Dynamics in Quantum Bayesianism

Chris Fields

Published Mar 29, 2012• 4 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Quantum Bayesianism (``QBism'') has been put forward as an approach to quantum theory that avoids foundational problems by altogether disavowing the objective existence of quantum states. It is shown that QBism suffers its own versions of the familiar foundational problems, and that these QBist versions are illuminating not just for QBism, but for more traditional foundational approaches as well.

DOI
10.17877/de290r-3376

Related papers

Autonomy all the way down: Systems and dynamics in quantum Bayesianism

Chris Fields

Quantum Bayesianism ("QBism") has been put forward as an approach to quantum theory that avoids foundational problems by altogether disavowing the objective existence of quantum states. It is shown that QBism suffers its own versions of the familiar foundational problems, and that these QBist versions are illuminating not just for QBism, but for more traditional foundational approaches as well.

arXiv:1108.2024•Aug 9, 2011•1 citation

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:1912.11636•Dec 25, 2019•2 citations

Why I am not a QBist

‎Louis Marchildon

Quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, is a recent development of the epistemic view of quantum states, according to which the state vector represents knowledge about a quantum system, rather than the true state of the system. QBism explicitly adopts the subjective view of probability, wherein probability assignments express an agent’s personal degrees of belief about an event. QBists claim that most if not all conceptual problems of quantum mechanics vanish if we simply take a proper epistemic and probabilistic perspective. Although this judgement is largely subjective and logically consistent, I explain why I do not share it.

arXiv:1403.1146•Foundations of Physics•Feb 17, 2015•12 citations

QBism, Quantum Nonlocality, and the Objective Paradox

Gerold Gründler

The Quantum-Bayesian interpretation of quantum theory claims to eliminate the question of quantum nonlocality. This claim is not justified, because the question of non-locality does not arise due to any interpretation of quantum theory, but due to objective experimental facts. We define the notion "objective paradox" and explain, comparing QBism and the Copenhagen interpretation, how avoidance of any paradox results into poor explanatory power of an interpretation, if there actually exists an objective paradox.

arXiv:1606.06286•Jun 20, 2016•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

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
Quantum Bayesianism (``QBism'') has been put forward as an approach to quantum theory that avoids foundational problems by altogether disavowing the objective existence of quantum states. It is shown that QBism suffers its own versions of the familiar foundational problems, and that these QBist versions are illuminating not just for QBism, but for more traditional foundational approaches as well.
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.
Quantum Bayesianism, or QBism, is a recent development of the epistemic view of quantum states, according to which the state vector represents knowledge about a quantum system, rather than the true state of the system. QBism explicitly adopts the subjective view of probability, wherein probability assignments express an agent’s personal degrees of belief about an event. QBists claim that most if not all conceptual problems of quantum mechanics vanish if we simply take a proper epistemic and probabilistic perspective. Although this judgement is largely subjective and logically consistent, I explain why I do not share it.
The Quantum-Bayesian interpretation of quantum theory claims to eliminate the question of quantum nonlocality. This claim is not justified, because the question of non-locality does not arise due to any interpretation of quantum theory, but due to objective experimental facts. We define the notion "objective paradox" and explain, comparing QBism and the Copenhagen interpretation, how avoidance of any paradox results into poor explanatory power of an interpretation, if there actually exists an objective paradox.
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 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.