Comment by dbsmith83 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbsmith83 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm no physicist, but the QBism interpretation of quantum mechanics smells a lot like "The Secret" type of pseudoscience.

Core positions of QBism:

1. All probabilities, including those equal to zero or one, are valuations that an agent ascribes to his or her degrees of belief in possible outcomes. As they define and update probabilities, quantum states (density operators), channels (completely positive trace-preserving maps), and measurements (positive operator-valued measures) are also the personal judgements of an agent.

2. The Born rule is normative, not descriptive. It is a relation to which an agent should strive to adhere in his or her probability and quantum state assignments.

3. Quantum measurement outcomes are personal experiences for the agent gambling on them. Different agents may confer and agree upon the consequences of a measurement, but the outcome is the experience each of them individually has.

4. A measurement apparatus is conceptually an extension of the agent. It should be considered analogous to a sense organ or prosthetic limb—simultaneously a tool and a part of the individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism#Core_posit...

I'd recommend reading the wiki page since this article seems to say a lot of words yet not say much.

I think lots of physicists have a tendency to outrightly reject interpretations which seemingly put humans and other "conscious"(whatever that means) entities on a higher pedestal . It is most probably due to their general dislike of advocation of humans being a superior being than other "animals" by religious organisations, which does inculcate some unhealthy arrogance in people.

But i think physicists need to open up a little more. If QBism or other interpretations where reality is subjective were really true, it would probably lead to some "we got it right initially" by some religious organisations, but honestly, that shouldn't stop physicists from pursuing such theories. I think it can be a win-win scenario in the end.

> physicists need

Except they don't - the science of quantum mechanics with its practical probabilistic "interpretation" has worked pretty well so far. As far as science is concerned, that is.

Typical that a non physicist is calling the work of actual physicists pseudoscience just because it “smells” funny to them. What exactly is so absurd about two physical entities interacting with each other to produce an outcome?

Hi. My phd is in biophysics. This is scientific garbage (the proposals are absolutely not supported by any experimental data).

Which proposals are you referring to exactly?

All of its interpretations of QBist "Core Position" on the wikipedia page.

Most importantly, nothing I can see in the QBist pages has anything to do with actual experimental work. It's a framework for viewing what the mathematics of human theories of QM "mean" and how to interpret that. However, nothing of what they propose is required to explain what we observe, experimentally.

More generally, no "interpretation" of QM is required to apply the theory in generalizable, predictive ways, so all this work isn't really helping us move science or engineering forward.

>>> This is scientific garbage (the proposals are absolutely not supported by any experimental data)

>> Which proposals are you referring to exactly?

> All of its interpretations of QBist "Core Position" on the wikipedia page.

You're making very broad claims here. Whether you find QBism plausible or not, it's certainly not "scientific garbage" and also fully compatible with experimental data (as is any other interpretation of QM).

> However, nothing of what they propose is required to explain what we observe, experimentally.

So you would say that orthodox views of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen, shut up & calculate, many worlds (as it's becoming increasingly popular)) explain what we observe?

> More generally, no "interpretation" of QM is required to apply the theory in generalizable, predictive ways, so all this work isn't really helping us move science or engineering forward.

I disagree, once again. Have you actually deeply looked into the issues with QM? Many of them are linked to questions that come up in quantum gravity, so I would argue that getting QM right would be a very good first step in making scientific progress.

> What exactly is so absurd about two physical entities interacting with each other to produce an outcome?

That seems inadequate to explain Bell nonlocality.

> What exactly is so absurd about two physical entities interacting with each other to produce an outcome?

I hardly think that's a fair description of what he's claiming. This sounds almost like the textbook example of the motte and bailey fallacy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com