Quantum Bayesianism or QBism is a new approach to quantum interpretation which offers a radically subjectivist and pan-experientialist account of the functioning of quantum ‘reality’ and the emergence of the ‘classical’ world. In a recent collection of essays Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews there is a debate between one of the supporters of the QBism paradigm, C. A. Fuchs, and the instigator of ‘quantum Darwinism’, W. Zurek, as to the viability of such a radically subjectivist position. Zurek suggests that the ‘many worlds’ interpretation and the QBism perspectives are extreme views and his perspective steers a ‘middle way’ between the two. In this article I show that an almost identical metaphysical debate occurred in fourteenth and fifteenth Tibetan Buddhism concerning the nature of ultimate reality. The two debates are examined, contrasted and the conclusion that it may be the case that quantum reality may be describable in differing complementary and interrelated ways is drawn.
Quantum Bayesianism or QBism is a new approach to quantum interpretation which offers a radically subjectivist and pan-experientialist account of the functioning of quantum ‘reality’ and the emergence of the ‘classical’ world. In a recent collection of essays Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews there is a debate between one of the supporters of the QBism paradigm, C. A. Fuchs, and the instigator of ‘quantum Darwinism’, W. Zurek, as to the viability of such a radically subjectivist position. Zurek suggests that the ‘many worlds’ interpretation and the QBism perspectives are extreme views and his perspective steers a ‘middle way’ between the two. In this article I show that an almost identical metaphysical debate occurred in fourteenth and fifteenth Tibetan Buddhism concerning the nature of ultimate reality. The two debates are examined, contrasted and the conclusion that it may be the case that quantum reality may be describable in differing complementary and interrelated ways is drawn.
Quantum Bayesianism or QBism is a new approach to quantum interpretation which offers a radically subjectivist and pan-experientialist account of the functioning of quantum ‘reality’ and the emergence of the ‘classical’ world. In a recent collection of essays Elegance and Enigma: The Quantum Interviews there is a debate between one of the supporters of the QBism paradigm, C. A. Fuchs, and the instigator of ‘quantum Darwinism’, W. Zurek, as to the viability of such a radically subjectivist position. Zurek suggests that the ‘many worlds’ interpretation and the QBism perspectives are extreme views and his perspective steers a ‘middle way’ between the two. In this article I show that an almost identical metaphysical debate occurred in fourteenth and fifteenth Tibetan Buddhism concerning the nature of ultimate reality. The two debates are examined, contrasted and the conclusion that it may be the case that quantum reality may be describable in differing complementary and interrelated ways is drawn.
A critique of phenomenological interpretation of quantum Bayesianism (QBism) is offered, in particular, the position of M. Bitbol and L. de La Tremblay, which removes remnants of scientific realism from QBism and adopts a radically phenomenological first person point of view. It is shown that phenomenological view of quantum mechanics cannot explain cognition of quantum reality and behavior of real quantum systems, because the ultimate reality for phenomenology is autonomous phenomena, which, in fact, do not exist. Our proposed contextual quantum realism (CQR) does not invert, as the mentioned authors do, but rejects, the traditional relation between experience and reality. By reinterpreting QBism, our CQR removes remnants of phenomenology from it, but in such a way as not to fall into the other extreme – metaphysical realism.
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.
Fuchs and Peres (2000) claimed that standard Quantum Mechanics needs no interpretation. In this essay, I show the flaws of the arguments presented in support to this thesis. Specifically, it will be claimed that the authors conflate QM with Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) - the most prominent subjective formulation of quantum theory; thus, they endorse a specific interpretation of the quantum formalism. Secondly, I will explain the main reasons for which QBism should not be considered a physical theory, being it concerned exclusively with agents' beliefs and silent about the physics of the quantum regime. Consequently, the solutions to the quantum puzzles provided by this approach cannot be satisfactory from a physical perspective. In the third place, I evaluate Fuchs and Peres arguments contra the non-standard interpretations of QM, showing again the fragility of their claims. Finally, it will be stressed the importance of the interpretational work in the context of quantum theory.
The measurement problem has been a central puzzle of quantum theory since its inception, and understanding how the classical world emerges from our fundamentally quantum universe is key to its resolution. While the 'Copenhagen' and 'Many Worlds' interpretations have dominated discussion of this philosophically charged question, Zurek builds on the physics of decoherence and introduces the theory of 'Quantum Darwinism' to provide a novel account of the emergence of classical reality. Opening with a modern view of quantum theory, the book reconsiders the customary textbook account of quantum foundations, showing how the controversial axioms (including Born's rule) follow from the consistent core postulates. Part II discusses decoherence and explores its role in the quantum-to-classical transition. Part III introduces Quantum Darwinism, explaining how an information-theoretic perspective complements, elucidates, and reconciles the 'Copenhagen' and 'Many Worlds' interpretations. This insightful book is essential reading for any student or researcher interested in quantum physics.
The seemingly solid entities that sentient beings experience as the ‗truth‘ or mode of apprehension of the everyday world can, seemingly, be broken down into increasingly small particles. The ‗ultimate‘ truth, or ‗ultimate‘ level of reality, would, perhaps, be found when there is a ‗particle‘ which can no longer be divided, if such things ‗exist‘ ultimately. If they do not … well then we arrive at the quantum level, or what Buddhist metaphysics calls ‗emptiness‘. In this paper I will use the Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti‘s imaginative deconstruction of reality, in the context of quantum theory, to try to answer the question which seems to be posed by quantum theory: Is ‗Reality‘ really real? In our search for the ultimate nature of reality we have to leave behind the ‗seeming‘ appearances of the everyday world, however persuasive the appearance may be, and break through to a more ‗ultimate truth‘ concerning the nature of reality. We shall discover that Dharmakirti‘s philosophical analysis, alongside other Buddhist insights, which lead to the ‗ultimate‘ realm of ‗empty‘ Mindnature, prefigures modern quantum discoveries, particularly the notion of an ‗Epiontic Universe‘ which derives from the ‗quantum Darwinism‘ perspective suggested by Wojciech H. Zurek.