Painting a QBist Picture of Reality

Also interesting is whether probabilities have any claim to being a part of reality. They relate to possibilities and potential. I have put those two on the border of Object reality between what does and does not yet exist on my diagrams. Yet there are two kinds of possibilities or potential. 1. might be-s that do not yet exist ( as shown on my diagrams) and another class, 2. unknowns that do exist. eg. the unmeasured spin of a globe. In the case of electron spins I think it is not that they do all co-exist but that the possibility of getting a detection of any of them is not excluded by the existing Object reality, until provoked by interaction with the apparatus, into producing one 'spin" outcome. So the first kind of possibilities.

'Exist' is the wrong word to use for spin of a globe, a kind of motion not a thing. I should have said- 'Unknowns that do exist or are happening'.

Georgina, I doubt I can be very helpful, but I'll try... Am I right that your intention is to call the events that are recorded as part of an experiment "provocations" instead of "measurements"? It's not clear to me from your discussion how one differs from the other. In particular I can't see any instrumentalist difference, in that the same datasets will be recorded for later analysis, but I also can't see in your account what difference of metaphysics you intend?

Reading my PoV into your account, measurement events are a consequence of including a macroscopic, meta-stable thermodynamic system as part of an experimental apparatus. An event happens when the electric resistance (or some other thermodynamic property) of this relatively large assemblage changes, and the amplified current is enough to be recorded, together with a time-stamp, in a computer memory somewhere. If the macroscopic, meta-stable thermodynamic system were not there (as a provocation, if you will, but I don't like this coining much), there would have been no event to record in the computer memory, and hence no datasets that we can use to verify that quantum theory correctly predicts events. One has to keep in mind, however, that not all the usefulness of quantum theory derives from records of discrete events.

I think I read your second comment just to say that you're not sure whether probabilities are "real". FWIW, my take is that probability distributions are parts of mathematical models, which have a typically slightly equivocal, less than completely formal relationship to datasets containing raw experimental results (which are still mathematical objects, but with significantly less mathematical structure; they're typically just large but finite lists of numbers). The World --perhaps we might even call it The Real World-- is not to me obviously a Mathematical Object, though perhaps it is; however I've never been able to see a way to determine whether it is or is not.

Whether this is helpful or not, Best Wishes.

Joe, I am deleting your posts because you are blanket posting the same message over and over again. I find your behaviour inconsiderate and tedious. I have tried discussing your ideas with you and have read and commented on your essay. You have not been ignored or had your idea suppressed. Your essay has been accepted for the contest and is available for anyone who is interested.Its just that enough is enough.

My feeling about Qbism is that it is in a long line of ideas about physics that leap off into philosophy. Quantum interpretations are all ways of trying to make metaphysical or existential categories fit with quantum mechanics. In general these fit into two sets ψ-ontology and ψ-epistemology. The big example of the first of these are the Everett-DeWitt Many Worlds Interpretation,. While less popular the Bohm interpretation is also in this set. The main example of the latter is the Copenhagen interpretation. Qubism is pretty clearly a case of ψ-epistemic interpretation. These all have some utility in working certain problems. I also think they are all ultimately flawed. The reason is that with quantum mechanics we can only talk about outcomes that are real valued as having ontology. Quantum mechanics is complex valued, which means there are formal aspects of QM that can't be expressed in ordinary language that fits within these categories completely.

ψ-epsitemic interpretations have the problem that Heisenberg pointed out with Bohr's insistence on a quantum vs classical divide. Where does this exists? The Schrodinger cat and other arguments are meant to illustrate this difficulty. Much the same holds with Qubism, where the observer's perspective is considered central. However, who or what is an observer? I can consider myself to be an observer, but I am different with every breath I take, or with each meal or every time I use the bathroom. Where is the cut-off with the observer? How is the observer that distinguishable from the rest of the world? If I find cosmic ray tracks in multi-billion year old rock am I really measuring a wave function collapse? I could say in some way that I plus the rock over billions of years are a composite as an observer. However, does that really change what happened quantum mechanically with the reduction of states in the rock? At some point this starts to sound less like physics and more like philosophy.

Quantum interpretations are starting to multiply like bunnies, and there seems to be no clear way to indicate which one is (ones are?) correct. The workshops and conferences on these things grow in size and number, but as I sense things they all seem to be like meetings of philosophers arguing the truth of some point based on clever use of language. Polls are sometimes taken at meetings or conferences of physicists on QM interpretations. There is always a split and this changes a bit with time, but no interpretation appears headed for becoming the clear winner. Some are very popular right now, such as MWI, and others are in the dumps such as Bohm's QM. Bohm's QM has problems but it is not as horrible as people think.

There is in a sense one interpretation, which is the null-interpretation. QM can only interpret itself, not us. I think this is tied into the prospect that a quantum measurement as a quantum system plus quantum apparatus (apparatus ultimately made of quantum states etc) is a quantum information or quantum Turing case of Godel's theorem. QM lacks the power to predict a specific outcome, only probabilities for the outcome of some observable (Born rule etc), and there does not exist a quantum interpretation that will close off QM in a consistent manner with measurement or the existence of a classical (classical-like really) world. The so called quantum measurement problem will never be solved.

Peter,

Measurement is of an already existing or happening, property or behaviour. Provocation causes the behaviour or property of the thing to come in to being or happen.The difference is not in the results but in how we think about what is going on.

Lawrence -never is very definite. Would you rather there was no discussion and no new thoughts on the matter? As there are already bunnies galore and no clear winner.

Thanks, Georgina. Do you take "existence" to be a property that only happens after provocation? If an individual event is provoked, does the particle that is said to cause the event exist only at the moment of the event, not before or after? If so, is a particle a synonym for an event? Or how is a particle different from an event? Too many questions! Choose any or none.

There's a slight feel of contextuality to your proposal, though enough differences are apparent to me that I won't ask you to delineate what differences you see.l

I take existence to be only at one time, not spread over time. I am not using events as I think you intend the word to mean , i.e. as space-time co-ordinates. My proposal is that provocation induces the state measured, that state being a behaviour in response. the electron isn't carrying X,Y and Z spins but if its just a random electron, just moving. I imagine how it happens to be moving interacts with the fores encountered to give an outcome then referred to as a spin.

It seems to me the wave function collapse is a switching of model used to represent reality. The interaction with the apparatus that makes the outcome inevitable is something happening in the foundational Object reality that is not observable so separate from the observer awareness pre- and post result ( and pre and post models of reality.) Just because the "redundancy" is taking place prior to information receipt by the observer doesn't mean it isn't happening. I'm not sure if that is at all similar to your line of thought re. the computer.

Thinking about the computer registering a detection; it can happen faster than human awareness. So it might be said that it registers "redundancy" of the wave function prior to "collapse ". Using the idea that "collapse" is when the physics model is updated (by the physicist) using the received information. I think there is some usefulness in separating the moment of inevitability of outcome ("redundancy")from the moment of receipt of transmitted information about it, ("collapse")- i.e. altering the description of the physics by the conscious receiver. Though it could all be automated and the computer could report the state that was detected but that report might not be immediately read. So maybe "collapse" could be said to be at the report making. I don't think the when of the moment of "collapse", (which just requires agreement by scientists) is as important as the difference between "redundancy" and 'collapse": being the difference between an unknown inevitable outcome of a singular state and a known or reported( by man or machine) outcome of a singular state. That is prior to and post receipt of information. whereas the "collapse" when argument, here, is about what receivers will be designated, by agreement, as switching the physics model that is applicable.

Lawrence,

what is the game of doing real physics?

Dear Georgina,

There must only be one real observable Universe. The question is whether reality is simple and self evident, or if reality is complex, elusive, and only scientifically verifiable. I have proven without a doubt that The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Your unrealistic considering of my truth being inappropriate does not alter it. It confirms it dear.

Joe Fisher, Realist

In classical terms, the difference between "redundancy" and "collapse", as you put it, would be, I suppose, the same as the difference between probabilities and statistics, with the latter computed from accumulated datasets. It seems to me that the "accumulated datasets", whether from experiments we consider to be "quantum" or not, are very close to objective, indeed for most physicists such datasets would be taken to be objective, insofar as everyone would see the same numbers on the screen as they scrolled through a dataset. Indeed, a classical collection of datasets is only distinguishable from a quantum collection of datasets by paying close attention (to what joint probability distributions can be constructed, as a particular example).

As you put it, only with provocations, putting the macroscopic numbers of degrees of freedom of "detectors" in the way of a prepared quantum state, does redundancy become collapse (although I think philosophers might phrase the same idea as potential becoming actual).

Lawrence - a very good summary. In my view, many people aren't yet willing to take conceptual steps that were made necessary by QM almost a century ago. Genuinely new models of reality are still too easily dismissed as "new age nonsense". It's become almost a political divide, and obsolete concepts like "an independently existing physical reality" have become non-negotiable articles of faith.

We'll know we're once again making progress when articles about QM aren't full of words like "bizarre", "weird", and "spooky".

Joe, I made it perfectly clear that it is your inconsiderate tedious behaviour that is inappropriate.

Why not add convincing arguments and research, and reconsideration of the replies you have given on your essay page, where it would be appropriate. Some suggestions: Surfaces are not one dimensional. I would be interested to know more about the infinite eye you mentioned and where the eyes of bacteria are located.

Hi Peter,

Redundancy is altered probability in Object reality, collapse could be used as a term to denote when the results ( maybe statistics) are considered, knowledge is updated and it is known that superposition no longer describes the situation; the physics model is swapped to accommodate the new information.

Prior to provocation causing a definite deflection one way or the other the potential for both electron paths is relevant. At some stage swapping to the other path can not happen as it is committed to its path. it has gone too far and doesn't have the energy to swap. So the outcome is inevitable and the potential for either path is lost. Redundancy starts here, as we can say a superposition of the two behaviours necessary for either path is no longer applicable. That is even prior to detection of the outcome by the apparatus. At detection the singular state has been measured, confirmed, even though not yet communicated.That could be called redundancy confirmation. (Prior to observer awareness.)

Dear Georgina,

Simplicity cannot be simplified. Nature must have provided a reality that all creatures could be capable of dealing with. As all of the creatures I have seen have eyes, in order for all creatures to be able to deal with simple natural reality, it am not too outlandish to assume that germs, bacterium and viruses must have some sort of eyes.

You will be pleased to know that my essay, THE SIMPLEST UNIVERSE am being reviewed by certified physicists.

Peace,

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe my message was ambiguous. I intended to mean -put your comments on your essay page!

Your reply to me is significantly different from one of your replies over on that page where you wrote : "A physical eye must be infinite in size and number. I know that every cell, germ and bacterium must have eyes because of natural consistency. A dimension am not linear."Joe Fisher.

So if your point of view has changed it is important to update your page so that people can know what you think now.

There is something wrong with using the behaviour of specially prepared particles as a model for particles that haven't undergone the same treatment; And arguing that the concept of independently existing reality must be retired to fit the findings. Right now I'm thinking its like having a machine prepare two balls one with spin and one with backspin but the observer has no way of knowing which is which because they look identical. They shoot out of the machine and whichever ball is tested first, by seeing how it deflects on impact, the other ball will act as if it has the opposite spin. We can not extrapolate from that and say all balls in motion can be modeled as a superposition of spins (forward and back), because they haven't had the spin imparting treatment.Also the balls with spin are not communicating with each other to ensure they 'choose' opposite spins at testing.