Painting a QBist Picture of Reality

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.

Never, it is I suppose my bet, though I am not sure what Bayesian prior estimate to put on it ;-) As I see it quantum mechanics is of a physical nature that will always fail to conform to the brain's processing of reality. We would need a quantum brain! I might amend never once in the future we have cyber-neural connection (brains becoming a major set of hubs on the internet) and with that we start connecting quantum computers to brains.

Would I prefer that people stop wasting time on quantum interpretations? No not really, and some of them are useful. Even Penrose's interpretation, which is related to the Montevideo interpretation, is useful in some ways. Also, the more people spend on quantum interpretations that takes competitors off the game of doing real physics.

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).

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.

Dear Georgina,

There is no inconsistency in any of my essay, or in any of the answers I have given for its accuracy. Natural reality must be infinite in its singular visible physical state. Unfortunately, I have to use finite written English language to try to accurately describe that simple real infinite state, which am a logical impossibility. Popes and Scientists and mathematicians are in a worst position than I am. They have to try to explain why they would think that visible infinite surface could possibly have been preceded by a finite state of invisibility.

Joe Fisher, Realist

The other way round is dubious too; saying that for any random electron tested the first time the outcome is random it must also be so for the members of a specially prepared pair. They are not alike because the correlation has been established at preparation. Though we can't know which outcome the individual partners will give they can only give one half of the possibilities each, unlike the randoms. The random electron's outcome will be a matter of how it happens to be behaving when it encounters the provocation of the experimental conditions. Like has to be compared with like. You can't scramble eggs in one bowl and use the mixture to make assumptions about how the unscrambled eggs in another bowl will respond to movement, or vice versa. I realize it may seem an unsophisticated argument, however I think it is preferable to ditching an independent reality.

@ Hughes: Quantum mechanics is really strange in some ways. It is strange in that the wave mechanics results in odd behavior with respect to classical thinking. Essentially Bell's theorem tells us that if we have reality we do not have locality (have nonlocality) and if we have locality then we do not have reality.

@Woodward: My point is that quantum mechanics should be taken as it is without invoking various ideology to make it somehow commensurate with our ordinary sense of reality. Qubism is an extreme ψ-epistemology that ties an interpretation to our conscious existence. At this point one might have to take some sort of pause. It is not so much that it is wrong, but as with all interpretation of QM it is not verifiable. Quantum interpretations are heuristics that have some utility in some problems, but largely the quest for the ultimate interpretation is probably a bit like the search for the holy grail --- it ain't there.

LC

It bears remembrance that it was Einstein himself whom first suggested that there may be a hidden variable which would allow that two particles at a distance could both respond as if there is a rigid spacetime connection directly between the two. It is QM in its axiomatic regime of absolute seperateness of any events which makes 'entanglement' spooky. And rather than hidden, the correct question as to what variable might constantly relate across a distance should be; "what is it we are ignoring?".

In efforts to obtain a unified field theory, when a 5th dimension has been inserted into GR on an ad hoc provisional basis, Mawell's equations emerge. And this strongly argues for Faraday's own observation that the orthogonal relationship of direction of field orientation to direction of motion observed consistently in electromagnetic field behavior, is the same as the abstract geometric relationship devised more than two millennia earlier by the school of Pythagoras, and that where there is a field there is spacetime and where there is spacetime there is a field operationally orthogonal.

A dimension is that by which we construct a measure, whether it be the side of a box or the surface of a sphere. The 5th dimension might well be had as an obverse of SR where it is commonly taken that the time parameter advances from relative rest up to light velocity. As a scalar value the speed of time at light velocity could exist at comensurate light velocity when spatial extension of the field domain ceases to itself propogate further. And that the rigid, instantaneous, connection inherent to the flat geometry component in spacetime is evident only where there exists a maintained perfect alignment of spin orientations of a singlet pair (as consistently observed), and the limit of separation in an experiment is relativistic to the duration of preparation and production of the singlet pair creating its own gravitationally discrete domain in a topological measurement scheme.