Abstract
According to the subjective Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanics (QBism), the instruments used to measure quantum systems are to be regarded as an extension of the senses of the agent who is using them, and quantum states describe the agent’s expectations for what they will experience through these extended senses. How can QBism then account for the fact that (i) instruments must be calibrated before they can be used to ‘sense’ anything; (ii) some instruments are more precise than others; (iii) more precise instruments can lead to discovery of new systems? Furthermore, is the agent ‘incoherent’ if they prefer to use a less precise instrument? Here we provide answers to these questions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The word ‘sense’ may need qualification here, since the nature of the experience still bears the indelible mark of the equipment through which the atoms are ‘sensed’. For this kind of sensing-through-equipment we might borrow the word Umsicht from Heidegger.
References
Fuchs, C.A., Mermin, N.D., Schack, R.: An introduction to qbism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics. Am. J. Phys. 82, 749 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4874855
Fuchs, C. A.: Notwithstanding bohr, the reasons for qbism. Mind and Matter 15, 245 (2017) arXiv:1705.03483
Wheeler, J.: Mind in Nature: Nobel Conference XVII, Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota, pp. 1–23. Harper & Row, San Francisco (1982)
Fuchs, C.A.: Notwithstanding bohr, the reasons for qbism. Mind Matter 15, 245 (2017)
Pearl, J.: Causality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)
Pienaar, J.: Quantum causal models via quantum Bayesianism. Phys. Rev. A 101, 012104 (2020)
James, W.: Some Problems of Philosophy. Harvard University Press, 1979, Cambridge, MA (1911)
Whitehead, A.N.: Process and Reality. Macmillan, New York (1929)
Merleu-Ponty, M.: Phénoménologie de la perception/Phenomenology of Perception. Gallimard, Paris (1945)
Jeffrey, R.: Subjective Probability: The Real Thing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)
Fuchs, C.A., Schack, R.: Bayesian conditioning, the reflection principle, and quantum decoherence. In: Ben-Menahem, Y., Hemmo, M. (eds.) Probability in Physics, pp. 233–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
DeBrota, J.B., Fuchs, C.A., Stacey, B.C.: Symmetric informationally complete measurements identify the irreducible difference between classical and quantum systems. Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013074 (2020)
Appleby, M., Fuchs, C.A., Stacey, B.C., Zhu, H.: Introducing the qplex: a novel arena for quantum theory. Eur. Phys. J. D 71, 197 (2017)
Caves, C.M., Fuchs, C.A., Schack, R.: Unknown quantum states: the quantum de finetti representation. J. Math. Phys. 43, 4537 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1494475
DeBrota, J. B., Fuchs, C. A., Stacey, B. C.: Analysis and synthesis of minimal informationally complete quan-tum measurements. (2018) arXiv:1812.08762
Pickering, A.: Bibliovault OAI Repository. The mangle of practice: time, agency, and science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1996)
Fuchs, C. A.: On participatory realism. (2016) arXiv:1601.04360
Rauh, J., Banerjee, P.K., Olbrich, E., Jost, J., Bertschinger, N., Wolpert, D.: Coarse-graining and the Blackwell order. Entropy 19, 527 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/e19100527
Blackwell, D.: Equivalent comparisons of experiments. Ann. Math. Stat. 24, 265 (1953)
Raginsky, M.: In: 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory Proceedings (2011) pp. 1220–1224
Guff, T., McMahon, N. A., Sanders, Y. R., Gilchrist, A.: A resource theory of quantum measurements. (2019) arXiv:1902.08490
DeBrota, J. B., Stacey, B. C.: Faqbism. (2019) arXiv:1810.13401
Khrennikov, A.: Quantum-like model of unconscious–conscious dynamics. Front. Psychol. 6, 997 (2015)
Ozawa, M., Khrennikov, A.: Application of theory of quantum instruments to psychology: combination of question order effect with response replicability effect. Entropy 22, 37 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/e22010037
Khrennikov, A.: Quantum Bayesianism as the basis of general theory of decisionmaking. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 374, 20150245 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.20
Acknowledgements
I thank R. Schack, J. DeBrota, B. Stacey and C.A. Fuchs for valuable discussions. This work is based on ideas first presented at the QIRIF conference in Växjö, Sweden (2019), and further developed based on discussions with the attendees of the Phenomenological Approaches to Physics conference at Stony Brook University, NY (2019). I am indebted to the organizers of both conferences. This work was supported in part by the John E. Fetzer Memorial Trust.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pienaar, J. Extending the Agent in QBism. Found Phys 50, 1894–1920 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-020-00375-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-020-00375-z