#qbism

[protect-namine]

huh... is the concept of probability a mental construct? or is it an objective property of reality? well I don't know, but now I want to know

[rayssyscourse]

subjective reality anon - I'd love to see those articles :)

absolutely!!!! there was one other person in the reblogs who asked for them too, if I can find them again I'll tag them lol

Quantum superposition - https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/quantum-superposition

Qbism - https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/

Perception based on prior assumptions - https://www.quantamagazine.org/brains-speed-up-perception-by-guessing-whats-next-20190502/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-be-energy-efficient-brains-predict-their-perceptions-20211115/

Double-slit experiment (famous experiment proving quantum superposition and the decoherence of it) -

https://plus.maths.org/content/physics-minute-double-slit-experiment-0

Observer interference - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326795653_The_Observer_Effect

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/measuring-reality-affect-observe/#:~:text=That%20pattern%20persists%20even%20if,really%20does%20affect%20the%20outcome.

you'll notice this in the links, but one site I really like is called Quanta Magazine--they report on other branches of science too, but their quantum physics stuff is particularly good, and I find it to be really digestible considering how complex the topics are, lol. Enjoy!!

also--a couple things I don't have on hand but might be useful to look up are the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum entanglement :)

[qbism]

#qbismparis #timesless #grandemesure #handcrafted #madeinfrance #newprojects we introduce a new project : QBISM TIMELESS, I dedicate this Overshirt to #Haroldmanning #uniquepiece #madewithlove❤️ #guncheck #cottonlining @Haroldmanning

[newfruits]

give me just one more double spaced page worth of bullshit comparing QBism to other interpretations of quantum mechanics, or give me death. or just apathy i guess

[msamba]

'QBism': quantum mechanics is not a description of objective reality – it reveals a world of genuine free will | The Conversation

In a In a cubist painting, reality is more than a single perspective can capture. wikipedia, CC BY-SA According to a school of thought known as QBism, quantum mechanics is a guide to action. What does quantum mechanics, the most successful theory ever proposed by physics, teach us about reality? The starting point for most philosophers of physics is that quantum mechanics must somehow provide a…

[2sundowner69]

'QBism': quantum mechanics is not a description of objective reality – it reveals a world of genuine free will

[4gravitons]

It’s in between. Andrei is definitely confused, and definitely at least crank-adjacent, but not quite on that simple a level.

Basically, yes, it’s true that there is a notion of locality used in Quantum Field Theory, derived from the notion in Special Relativity, in which QFT is local. And there’s a distinct notion of locality by which QM, and thus QFT, is nonlocal.

As far as I can tell from what he’s said in the past, Andrei would agree with this. But he’d argue that the latter notion is also, in a sense, implied by special relativity. That is, special relativity implies there is no preferred order of spacelike separated events, and (he would argue), QM implies that there is such a preferred order, because when a wavefunction collapses in one place it collapses everywhere.

How people respond to this varies on their interpretation of QM. The most popular interpretations among physicists who actively have an interpretation (both “shut up and calculate”-ish stuff like QBism and many-worlds) would say that wavefunction collapse isn’t a real physical process, so this doesn’t make sense. Andrei argues that this isn’t a viable position, as do his fellow superdeterminists, and Bohmians. I think Andrei tends to be a bit on the crankier side of that bunch, regardless, but that’s the direction he’s coming from here, not just naive “this is the word locality in both places”.

What Might Lie Beyond, and Why

What Might Lie Beyond, and Why

As the new year approaches, people think about the future. Me, I’m thinking about the future of fundamental physics, about what might lie beyond the Standard Model. Physicists search for many different things, with many different motivations. Some are clear missing pieces, places where the Standard Model fails and we know we’ll need to modify it. Others are based on experience, with no guarantees…

[mysteriousquantumphysics]

An unorthodox way of "realist" thinking

The conflict arising from the violation of Bell's inequalities is often reduced to a binary one: Either we have to give up "realism" or we are forced to give up "locality". Though I asked the same binary question in an older entry, this way of stating the problem ignores important subtleties of possible interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the following I will present you an approach of interpreting quantum theory that relies on the notion participatory realism (you can find a more general entry about realism here). We will study the approach called QBism, developed primarily by Chistopher Fuchs, Rüdiger Schack and David Mermin.

What is QBism?

The term Qbism is an abbreviation for Quantum Bayesianism - therefore denoting the bayesian understanding of probability as the fundament of this interpretation. To be more precise: The underlying interpretation of probability is the one of Bruno de Finetti. A view in which probabilities are merely personal degrees of belief and have nothing to do with the representation of physical objects. De Finetti claims radically: PROBABILITY DOES NOT EXIST. In the same manner, QBists state: QUANTUM STATES DO NOT EXIST. [1]

Quantum states are therefore no elements of the observer independent physical reality. Quantum mechanics itself is regarded to be rather an extension of probability theory than a theory about elements of reality. According to the binary categorization above, they give up "realism". Instead they regard quantum mechanics to be a strictly "local" theory, since "no agent can move faster than light". [4]

Solipsism? Instrumentalism? No - It's participatory realism!

Following the simplified binary categorization, QBists seem to give up "realism" (because they deny the quantum state to be an object of the observer inependent physical reality). As a result QBists are often accused to be instrumentalist or even solipsist - since their radically subjective view of quantum mechanics as a "single user theory" might suggest so. But the opposite is the case; QBists regard their interpretation neither as instrumentalist nor as solipsist. Why? Though denying the reality of the quantum state, they do not deny the existence of a world "out there": In Qbist thinking the Born rule is a statement about the world, it is empirical [3]. In addition the subjective character of the theory is not supposed to be a defect, it rather abolishs the strict division between reality and observer - consequently the observer becomes part of reality as well. As Fuchs put it: "That’s not less reality, that’s more." [2]

Randomness and participation in Qbist thinking

In a quantum measurement the "irreducible randomness" or "genuine autonomy"[2] of the world manifests itself. There are no hidden variables or whatsoever that predict with any certainty the measurement outcomes - measurements are rather "moments of creation" [1] in which the agent's participation plays a crucial role. This perspective definitely does not deny realism: "in such a quantum measurement we touch the reality of the world in the most essential of ways" [2].

Then, what are the laws of the world "out there"?

We already encountered the terms "irreducible randomness" and "genuine autonomy" [2] Their meaning can be subsumed in a very strong statement QBists do about the nature of physical reality - they go along with John Wheeler's declaration: "The only law of nature is that there is no law". [2]

The main point I want to convey with this entry is, one needs to be aware that we should not ask oversimplified questions, because doing so dangerously narrows our horizon of possible answers. Bell's theorem does not simply give us the possibility to decide between "realism" and "locality". There are much more possible facettes to explore.

---

References

[1] Fuchs: QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism

[2] Fuchs: On participatory Realism

[3] Fuchs, Schack: QBism and the Greeks: why a quantum state does not represent an element of physical reality

[4] Fuchs, Mermin, Schack: An introduction to QBism with an Application to the Locality of Quantum Mechanics

[ontological-network]

Several articles related to #qbism

[superpte]

QBism Dismissed; Wigner's Friend Elucidated?

QBism Dismissed; Wigner’s Friend Elucidated?

QBism is amusing, much ado about nothing. People making different Quantum experiments see different results. They can call these results “reality”. But that’s abusing language. In truth, what they found were different REALITIES. Nothing surprising there. **** According to the QBism point of view, many, but not all, aspects of the quantum formalism are subjective in nature. For example, QBism says���

[a-circle-is-round]

[tigersharks]

quantum measurement probability lecture hurt my brain

[qbism]

#qbismparis #timesless #grandemesure #handcrafted #madeinfrance #newprojects we introduce a new project : QBISM TIMELESS, I dedicate this Overshirt to #Haroldmanning #uniquepiece #madewithlove❤️ #guncheck #cottonlining @Haroldmanning

[sterwood]

Hey @alyesque, I know you’re super busy right now (you and me both, lmao), but I’m just tagging you in a link to some stuff on a theory of wave-particle duality and other quantum phenomena and stuff that I’ve found interesting before but that I haven’t explored in depth. I see the standford encyclopedia page aligns QBism (the name of the theory) with pragmatism, so there may be something there. But....here’s some stuff:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-bayesian/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604

https://www.nature.com/news/physics-qbism-puts-the-scientist-back-into-science-1.14912

[mitchipedia]

Tim Ferris interviews Professor Donald Hoffman, a PhD in computational psychology from MIT and is a Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, who argues that we do not perceive reality as it is, but rather we are evolved to perceive a simplified view of reality to maximize our chance of living long enough to reproduce.

The reality we perceive is like the icons on a computer desktop, which do not reflect the reality of how the computer works. Rather, the computer desktop provides a simplified view.

Even space and time or not fundamental. They are merely a data structure that evolution provides.

Hoffmann is looking to define consciousness the way the biochemist defines life—not as some mystical magical force, but rather as a natural property of the universe.

Hoffman's theory suggests that physical objects only exist when they are perceived. Even our bodies and brains, and every living thing and physical object, is just a manifestation of consciousness exploring the universe. Hoffman's theory also suggests the possibility of faster-than-light travel to other stars—if space and time are not fundamental, then they can be circumvented—and also suggests the possibility of consciousness surviving beyond death.