Dear Joseph, Jerry, Pedro, and all:
"1. QBism seems not to consider the option of using non-standard,
non-Kolmogorivian probabilities to describe quantum and non-quantum nature,
that is, with values >0 but <1."
It is difficult enough to get physicists to consider the standard
interpretation of probability offered by Bayesianism, without straying off
into the unknown territory in which probabilities 0 and 1 are excluded!
However, it is true that those two cases do present special difficulties,
and it might be interesting to see what happens when they are forbidden.
The paper by Fuchs et al. strains to establish the case of probability 1,
which is called a "fact", as nothing more than a very,very strong belief.
(I enjoy astonishing my students by proving that even though most of them
believe that 0.999...<1 it actually equals 1.) If a non-standard formalism
is used, I would guess that a special category of probabilities very close
to 0 and 1 would still have to be singled out, because we have been so
thoroughly brainwashed that we parse the world around us in terms of
absolute certainties, i.e. of probabilities 0 and1.
"2. It excludes the case, impossible by classical logic, but basic to
physics and LIR, of a dynamic interaction between the subject and the
object which allows both views ("belief" and "facts") to be partly true or
better operative at the same time or at different times."
I don't know enough about LIR to understand what is meant by the word
"fact" in that context. The interaction between subject and object is a
central concept in QBism. It takes the place of the "measurement" of the
older literature, which has the connotation of revealing something
objective, real, and pre-existing. An interaction, on the other hand,
changes both the external world, and the agent's belief. It creates
brand-new "facts" that did not pre-exist the interaction. Thus we humans
participate in tiny ways in the ongoing creation of the world.
"3. Since the QBism interpretation does not deal with points 1. and 2.
above (also in the Fuchs, Mermin, Shack paper), it leaves the door open to
an anti-realist interpretation not only of quantum mechanical reality, but
of reality /tout court/ which must be based on and reflect the
quantum 'situation'. "
Right! QBism seeks to establish a new worldview in which the entire
material universe is quantum mechanical and described in terms of Bayesian
probability -- even those things we think of as real, objective, and
factual.
Pedro wrote:
"What I most like of this new quantum approach is the radicalism regarding
meaning, experience, knowledge, science... This is good news for the people
who sees information science as an occasion to contemplate anew the
relationship of the individual with the increasing stock of knowledge
accumulated by our civilization, where the ratio of our individual
experience to the total is acceleratedly approaching zero!, and where the
blind spots of collective intelligence are shining in too many areas of
global life... It is healthy that the explicit limitation of the individual
is also a message contained in QBism, at least in my understanding."
I agree wholeheartedly. The way I see the interaction between the QBists
and FIS evolving is this: The physicists are busy trying to rewrite all of
quantum mechanics (not just its interpretation) along QBism-inspired lines.
This means principally re-casting the entire formalism in terms of
probabilities rather than wavefunctions. If they succeed (and the jury is
still out on that) they will have created an entirely new theory that is
mathematically equivalent to the Schroedinger-Heisenberg theory, but looks
completely different. Meanwhile others, including members of FIS, can
study the implications of QBism for a new worldview. By the success of
quantum theory, nature seems to be urging us into a more personalist,
anti-realist view of the world, a view that focuses on individual
experience. As Pedro implies, communication with other persons --
information exchange -- is a key component of this experience. I see that
tree out there myself, and I can even feel its bark, but the overwhelming
majority of what I think and do is triggered by my experience of reading
and listening and learning about the experiences of others. In this way
information and communication continue to be crucial concepts.
Another concept Pedro touches on is human limitation. I find it very
liberating to feel that there is no such thing as a grand "Theory of
Everything" -- only little patches of understanding of relationships
encoded in rules of thumb with names like Relativity, The Standard Model,
Quantum Field Theory, Evolution... With the help of the experiences of
generations of scientists I can incorporate these rules in my own personal
ordering and surveying of the world around me. So I don't worry, as the
Greeks did, about what the world really, really is.
It's good to talk to you all, as wee say in Virginia.
Hans
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
