[QM Interpretation]QBism puts the scientist back into scienc

  • #1
324
43
Hi,

Here an article of N. David Mermin in Nature journal : http://www.nature.com/news/physics-qbism-puts-the-scientist-back-into-science-1.14912

We can read : Both problems are symptoms of the exclusion from physical science of the perceiving subject, and are solved by restoring what the ancient Greeks removed.

Should we read it as a new axis of research for Theoretical Physics?

Patrick
PS
N. David Mermin is emeritus professor in the Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. He started to take QBism seriously while at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study, South Africa.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Doug Huffman
Gold Member
804
111
Woohoo! Thanks for the citation to QBism! Search on arXiv!

There is a growing literature that may have been inspired by Karl Popper's Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics (Rowman 1956), Chapter 1 'Understanding Quantum Theory and Its Interpretations, Section 4 'The Objectivity of Statistical Mechanics', and Section 5 The Subjectivist interpretation of Statistical Mechanics'.
 
  • #3
324
43
Woohoo! Thanks for the citation to QBism! Search on arXiv!
Some physicist just beginning to ask the question about the influence of our mind on the representations they give to the physical world (What should have been , from the outset, be one of their rationality concerns). This question seems to me most fruitful than the metaphysical questions about the ontology of physical concepts such as the wave function (or the assert that ontic interprétation would be more real than epistemic interpretation) that can be read on arxiv among other.

Patrick
 
  • #4
Doug Huffman
Gold Member
804
111
The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time: A Proposal in Natural Philosophy by Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin (Cambridge 2014) addresses the question of interpretation from consideration of fundamental and emergent time and space, and argues for a return to the common sense of natural philosophy. They regard the multiplying complexities of metaphysics and cosmology as an attempt to hide unfalsifiable failure in the fractal complexity of reality - and ignoring the Black Swan of bald induction.

Listening to Leonardo Susskind lecture last night, I caught a cool person in his armor, announced, in the CPT violations in baryogenesis.
 
  • #5
9,596
2,676
Both problems are symptoms of the exclusion from physical science of the perceiving subject, and are solved by restoring what the ancient Greeks removed.
QM does not and never has required a perceiving subject. Its simply an extension of standard probability theory that allows continuous transformations between pure states. Standard probability theory does not require it - nor does QM.

Should we read it as a new axis of research for Theoretical Physics?
No. Indeed its re-introduction is a very backward step - there is a reason it was abandoned eg it leads to obvious absurdities when observations are recorded to computer memory.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #6
9,596
2,676
Some physicist just beginning to ask the question about the influence of our mind on the representations they give to the physical world
Read Von-Neumann - Mathematical Foundations Of Quantum Mechanics published in 1932 where the idea was first presented, and the reason why. Its been around for yonks.

At the time a few people were influenced by it but even then it was very backwater.

Since then much more work has been done on QM and the reason it was introduced is now known to be false and is now even more backwater. People like Wigner that supported it quickly abandoned it once this became known.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #7
324
43
QM does not and never has required a perceiving subject.
You make a mistake and miss the point. It is not about the mathematical formalism of QM in itself, but about an interpretation which can
potentially lead to a methodology base on bayesian inference ( which is a calculation method not an interpretation ), much like the work of the physicist http://www.admiroutes.asso.fr/larevue/2014/149/mms.pdf .

Following is your personal opinion derived from this mistake.

Patrick
 
  • #8
9,596
2,676
You make a mistake and miss the point. It is not about the mathematical formalism of QM in itself, but about an interpretation which can potentially lead to a methodology base on bayesian inference ( which is a calculation method not an interpretation ), much like the work of the physicist http://www.admiroutes.asso.fr/larevue/2014/149/mms.pdf .
I am making no mistake.

QM does NOT require a perceiving subject - end of story.

There is zero way to tell the difference between a Bayesian view of any probabilistic theory and a Kolmogorovian view. If you could do it you would win a Nobel Prize and Fields Medal immediately.

BTW this forums language is English - not French.

No problem however because you should be able to explain, in English, carefully, exactly what your point is.

Both problems are symptoms of the exclusion from physical science of the perceiving subject, and are solved by restoring what the ancient Greeks removed.
In particular, in your own words, please, carefully explain both problems and exactly how it resolves it.

The following from the original article is hand-wavey waffle:
'The first problem is the notorious disagreement, confusion and murkiness that for almost a century has plagued the foundations of quantum mechanics, in spite of the theory's extraordinary usefulness and power. The second, less famous, problem has been with us at least as long: there seems to be nothing in physics that singles out 'the present moment'. Albert Einstein called this the problem of 'the Now'. Both problems are symptoms of the exclusion from physical science of the perceiving subject, and are solved by restoring what the ancient Greeks removed.'

There was very little murkiness or confusion since Von-Neumann gave it its correct mathematical formulation (and they have since been sorted out) and the problem of now - that's about as vacuous a statement as you can get. Disagreement - yes - but of such a nature it was (usually) not experimentally testable.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #10
324
43
I am making no mistake.

QM does NOT require a perceiving subject - end of story.
Again you persit on your mistake. End of story.

There is zero way to tell the difference between a Bayesian view of any probabilistic theory and a Kolmogorovian view. If you could do it you would win a Nobel Prize and Fields Medal immediately.
Again i speak about inference not about interpretation; an other confusion.

BTW this forums language is English - not French.
The English astract is sufficiently to the subject of my talk.

Do you have any article like N. David Mermin reviewed by its peer on this subject ? If not i am not interesting by your personal opinion.

End of story.

Patrick
 
  • #11
9,596
2,676
I asked:
In particular, in your own words, please, carefully explain both problems and exactly how it resolves it.
Why evade it?

Do you have any article like N. David Mermin reviewed by its peer on this subject ? If not i am not interesting by your personal opinion.
Have a look at its references:

Schrödinger, E. Nature and the Greeks and Science and Humanism (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
Schrödinger, E. Eine Entdeckung von ganz ausserordentlicher Tragweite (ed. von Meyenn, K.) 490 (Springer, 2011).
Bohr, N. Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature 18 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1934).
Caves, C. M., Fuchs, C. A. & Schack, R. Phys. Rev. A 65, 022305 (2002).
Fuchs, C. A. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.5209 (2010).
Fuchs, C. A. & Schack, R. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1693–1715 (2013).
Fuchs, C. A., Mermin, N. D. & Schack, R. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.5253 (2013).
Carnap, R. The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (ed. Schilpp, P. A.) 37–38 (Open Court Publishing, 1963).
Price, H. Science 341, 960–961 (2013).
Freud, S. The Future of an Illusion, in Mass Psychology and Other Writings (Penguin, 2004).

Its philosophy - not science.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #12
324
43
Its philosophy - not science.
Again my title begin by [QM Interpretation]

it's not me you insulted in public, but the work of the people you are referencing.

What is your publication ?

Patrick
 
  • #13
Nugatory
Mentor
13,227
6,082
This interpretational question can be endlessly debated, but it won't be resolved that way.
Thread closed.
 

Related Threads on [QM Interpretation]QBism puts the scientist back into scienc

Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
101
Views
13K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
1K
Top