I Making Sense of QBism: Non-Mathematical Reality & Reforming the Theory

[RoelofV]

QBIsm does not, I repeat, does not deny objective reality. What it denies is our ability to fully describe it. The very act of thinking (let alone speaking) about reality implies that we model some aspect of reality. That is we apply some kind of filter or abstraction. Reality exists. There is "stuff" out there but any description of that "stuff" will be incomplete or more accurately will be some kind of abstraction and will - of necessity - leave out details. QBists are by no means solipsists and fully deny solipsism. They fully believe that "stuff" is out there independent of our existence.

QBists accept objective reality and at the same time deny non-locality and believe that this does not lead to a contradiction. This has to do with a fundamentally different interpretation of probability which is Bayesian based rather than frequency based. Put another way QBists associate probability with the observer (as a quantifier of uncertainty/ignorance) about the phenomenon and not inherent to the object itself. This allows different probabilities to be validly associated with the same quantum state for example as different observers can have different degrees of certainty. The Bell theorem assumes a unique probability for a quantum state. This is why QBists state that the Bell theorem is not valid in a QBism interpretation.

QBists agree that objective reality but that it cannot be _fully_ described mathematically. It is certainly possible to describe models (abstractions) of reality mathematically. QBists do not believe that models of reality are misleading or irrelevant nor the mathematics needed to form those models/abstractions.

QBists indeed believe that the map is not the territory.

 

[gentzen]

QBIsm does not, I repeat, does not deny objective reality. What it denies is our ability to fully describe it.

This is an old thread, and this is your first post. Why do you want to "reopen" it? What is your affiliation with QBism? (Because this is your first post, we have no idea "where you are coming from".) Or was this thread simply "so bad" that you just had to correct its misconceptions?