3 ms·
To be honest, I still can't understand how it's not solipsistic. If you use QBism from two different perspectives, like Alice and Bob in a Bell test experiment,
by akvadrako 9y ago
To be honest, I still can't understand how it's not solipsistic. If you use QBism from two different perspectives, like Alice and Bob in a Bell test experiment, then you'll still either need many worlds or get incompatible results.
- n4r9 9y agoPerhaps it would help to note that in QBism, reality is not denied. Rather, the objective reality of the quantum state is denied. Not sure what you mean by incompatible results. Certainly QBism is incompatible with Many Worlds! The latter states that the quantum state is real and objective, the former states the opposite. The QBist horsemen have devoted some attention to the question of compatible quantum state assignments. See: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206110 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206110 However, Chris Fuchs does not see any problem in someone assigning a probability-1 belief to a measurement outcome and being proven wrong. See section 2.2 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.03483.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.03483.pdf This last point in particular should bring home the point that Fuchs does think there is an ontological theory underlying physics, but that we are fooling ourselves about how much of it is objective/observer-independent.