A brief history of vitalism is followed by a description of the scientific paradigm and the relationship of information to quantum theory. Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) is introduced as an alternative subjective interpretation of quantum theory, and a better descriptor of the therapeutic process (TP) than previous objective conventional quantum theoretical (CQT) interpretations. The vital force (Vf) is considered a system defined solely by observations of a patient’s (Px’s) secondary symptoms (S2) during case-taking, and changes to them (DS2) after treatment. This is combined with a previous gyroscopic metaphor of the Vf. According to QBism, wave functions generated by this metaphor depend on subjective degrees of belief in observations of S2 and DS2. As such, assessing a Px’s S2 and DS2 not only changes over time but may well differ from another’s assessment of the same Px. Conclusion: Treating the Vf as an analogue of the quantum state of a macroscopic system, i.e., Px, represents all that can possibly be known about a Px’s symptoms by observation, not the Vf’s presumed reality, separate from an observer. The Vf is simply a representation of knowledge about Px, suggesting how a subjective generally valid quantum metaphor for the TP might develop in future.
A brief history of vitalism is followed by a description of the scientific paradigm and the relationship of information to quantum theory. Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) is introduced as an alternative subjective interpretation of quantum theory, and a better descriptor of the therapeutic process (TP) than previous objective conventional quantum theoretical (CQT) interpretations. The vital force (Vf) is considered a system defined solely by observations of a patient’s (Px’s) secondary symptoms (S2) during case-taking, and changes to them (DS2) after treatment. This is combined with a previous gyroscopic metaphor of the Vf. According to QBism, wave functions generated by this metaphor depend on subjective degrees of belief in observations of S2 and DS2. As such, assessing a Px’s S2 and DS2 not only changes over time but may well differ from another’s assessment of the same Px. Conclusion: Treating the Vf as an analogue of the quantum state of a macroscopic system, i.e., Px, represents all that can possibly be known about a Px’s symptoms by observation, not the Vf’s presumed reality, separate from an observer. The Vf is simply a representation of knowledge about Px, suggesting how a subjective generally valid quantum metaphor for the TP might develop in future.
BACKGROUND: In the previous paper, a relatively new interpretation of quantum theory called quantum Bayesianism or QBism was introduced as an alternative quantum metaphor for the therapeutic process (TP). This is because previous metaphors have been based on conventional quantum theory (CQT) and its notion that quantum states belong to a strongly objective shared reality. QBism says no: quantum states are subjective degrees of belief made by the individual agents assigning those states. This suggests QBism's explicit subjectivity is more in line with practitioners' (Pr) and patient's (Px) implicitly subjective TP experience. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate the impact on this suggestion of a gyroscopic model of the vital force, Vf. METHOD: Based on an original starting wavefunction for the Vf, a sequence of equations and transformations between them are generated and then interpreted as the Vf interacting with and moving into and out of disease (Dx) states, in essence, a physics of health. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: These equations and their transformations manage to predict (a) homeopathic aggravation from the curative remedy (Rx), and (b) the logic behind Hahnemann's development of the LM potencies. Further, displaying these equations and their interactions pictorially and geometrically (as a stellated octahedron) suggests that the recently developed gyroscopic model for the Vf supports a metaphor for the TP (based on the subjectivity explicit in QBism) that is indeed viable and potentially superior to previous metaphors based on the strong objectivity of CQT.
Background Entelechy (e.g., Hahnemann’s Vital Force, Vf), bears striking similarities to certain properties of quantum systems. Thus, the Vf is only indirectly observable via (centrifugally) expressed symptoms: a quantum property is only indirectly observable via its experimental effects. Consequently, a quantised Vf ‘gyroscopic’ metaphor is proposed where ‘axial’ rotation (represented by a wavefunction) undergoes dis-ease-induced retardation leading to Vf ‘precession’, i.e., symptom expression. Remedy-induced acceleration of axial rotation results in cure, via centrifugal removal of dis-ease, so precession/symptom expression ceases. The Vf ‘gyroscope’ is considered quantised partly because patients are observed during ‘discreet’ appointments, not continuously. Objective To develop this metaphor further by generating wavefunctions to represent the Vf in various states of dis-ease and health. Method Three wavefunctions are generated from secondary symptoms exhibited by the patient’s Vf, as observed by the practitioner. Three more wave functions are generated from analogous (unobserved) hypothetical states, representing the Vf evolving from health into a precursor dis-eased state. Results and discussion The evolution of therapeutic/dis-ease processes are imagined as transformations between these Vf wavefunctions, visualised as patient states on six of the nine points of an enneagram. The remaining three points represent practitioner states, ‘entangled’ with these processes. The Vf states may be divided into two groups - one indirectly observable via expressed symptoms, the other hypothetical - separated by a notional therapeutic ‘event horizon’. The practitioner, Janus-like, manages the therapeutic process by ‘negotiating’ between these two groups. Conclusion An interpretation of quantum theory called QBism (i.e., Quantum Bayesianism, in which a wavefunction represents only the total subjective information available to an assigning agent, not a shared separate objective reality), suggests these various Vf wavefunctions could represent Chalmers-like non-reductive information states, proposed as starting points for considering the influence of consciousness on the therapeutic process.
BACKGROUND: Signs and symptoms of dis-ease are considered observable manifestations of an immaterial Vital Force. Likewise, experimental results on quantum systems are thought to indicate the presence of something that does not show up. Consequently, the discourse of conventional quantum theory (CQT) - with non-locality and entanglement being objective (i.e., ontic) facets of reality - has been considered a useful metaphor for the therapeutic process (TP) in homeopathy/CAMs. Thus, Patient-Practitioner-Remedy (PPR) entanglement postulated an ontic non-local interaction between patient (Px), practitioner (Pr), and potentised medicine/curative procedure (Rx), resulting in the patient's "journey to cure." QBism is a new epistemic interpretation of quantum theory. Rooted in the subjectivity of Bayesianism, QBism refutes the notion that the quantum state of a system is a separate ontic property of reality. In QBism, non-locality and entanglement are considered an agent's "subjective degrees of belief," i.e., they are personally epistemic. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether previous CQT-based entanglement metaphors for the therapeutic process need re-evaluation in the light of QBism. METHOD: Px and Rx quantum states/wavefunctions - ΨPx, and ΨRx - are reinterpreted in QBist terms. Unlike CQT, this means each quantum state/wavefunction is postulated to represent only the local subjective "degrees of belief" of an agent who in this case, is the Pr. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Compared to earlier CQT quantum entanglement metaphors, QBism's interpretation of the probabilities inherent in the Px and Rx quantum state/wavefunctions are Bayesian and subjective. Their resulting highly personal epistemology makes them more aligned with (and therefore potentially more useful to) how practitioners might experience the evolution of the TP. Also, because QBism predicts non-locality and entanglement can only be subjective properties of a practitioner's own beliefs, the overall significance of previous ontic non-local CQT-based entanglement metaphors for the TP is questioned.
QBism is currently one of the most widely discussed 'subjective' interpretations of quantum mechanics. Its key move is to say that quantum probabilities are personalist Bayesian probabilities and that the quantum state represents subjective degrees of belief. Even probability-one predictions are considered subjective assignments expressing the agent's highest possible degree of certainty about what they will experience next. For most philosophers and physicists this means that QBism is simply too subjective. Even those who agree with QBism that the wave function should not be reified and that we should look for alternatives to standard Psi-ontic interpretations often argue that QBism must be abandoned because it detaches science from objectivity. The problem is that from the QBist perspective it is hard to see how objectivity could enter science. In this paper, I introduce and motivate an interpretation of quantum mechanics that takes QBism as a starting point, is consistent with all its virtues, but allows objectivity to enter from the get-go. This is the view that quantum probabilities should be understood as objective degrees of epistemic justification.
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.
QBism explicitly takes the subjective view: probabilities of events are defined solely by past experiences, i.e. the record of observations. As shown by the authors (Fuchs et al, 2013), this: “... removes the paradoxes, conundra, and pseudo-problems that have plagued quantum foundations for the past nine decades”. It is criticised for its lack of ontology and anthropocentric nature. However, if Everett's (1957) formulation is taken at face value, exactly the features of QBism are the result, and the ontology is inherent. The anthropocentric nature of the solution is simply an indication that the quantum state is relative, as is central to Everett. Problems of measurement and locality do not arise. As described by Tegmark (1997), Everett defines the relationship between two fundamentally different views of the world, different types of frame of reference. The outside view is defined by the unitary wave function, the inside view by the record of observations. As Lockwood (1989) states, the preferred basis problem is fully resolved if the latter is taken as the basis. Taken literally, only that defined by the record of observations is determinate in the physical world of this inside view. The reality of QBism is the result. The same can be derived from first principles in the no-collapse universe. Taking the outside view to define all possible decoherent quasi-classical worlds, the physical world of the inside view is the superposition of all such worlds in which it is instantiated. In this quantum mechanical frame of reference only that observed is determinate. The quantum state as ontology is questioned because it defines only the linear dynamics and cannot account for collapse. No deeper reality is required, however: the inside view, and the collapse dynamics that operates in this type of frame of reference, are emergent properties of the system, and operate at a different level of logical type. The world operates as described by QBism, but is nonetheless defined by the quantum state.