CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 296Quantum Mechanics and ApplicationsQuantum Information and CryptographyQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture

QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism

Open access
Fuchs, Christopher A.·2010·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1003.5209arXiv 1003.5209
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article summarizes the Quantum Bayesian point of view of quantum mechanics, with special emphasis on the view's outer edges---dubbed QBism. QBism has its roots in personalist Bayesian probability theory, is crucially dependent upon the tools of quantum information theory, and most recently, has set out to investigate whether the physical world might be of a type sketched by some false-started philosophies of 100 years ago (pragmatism, pluralism, nonreductionism, and meliorism). Beyond conceptual issues, work at Perimeter Institute is focused on the hard technical problem of finding a good representation of quantum mechanics purely in terms of probabilities, without amplitudes or Hilbert-space operators. The best candidate representation involves a mysterious entity called a symmetric informationally complete quantum measurement. Contemplation of it gives a way of thinking of the Born Rule as an addition to the rules of probability theory, applicable when an agent considers gambling on the consequences of his interactions with a newly recognized universal capacity: dimension (formerly Hilbert-space dimension). (The word "capacity" should conjure up an image of something like gravitational mass---a body's mass measures its capacity to attract other bodies. With hindsight one can say that the founders of quantum mechanics discovered another universal capacity, "dimension.") The article ends by showing that the egocentric elements in QBism represent no impediment to pursuing quantum cosmology and outlining some directions for future work.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1003.5209

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • On these interpretations, an unobserved electron lacks position, and its state does not generally predict the exact position a measurement will find, so no causal story explains the precise result.

    “According to these interpretations an electron, for instance, has no position when it is not observed and the state of the electron does not, in general, allow one to predict the specific position one will find when making a position measurement, i.e., no causal account can be given for the precise measurement obtained.”

    From The Interface Theory of Perception (2015) · cites this paper as Fuchs 2010

    In “PROBABILITY DOES NOT EXIST” (pp. 6–7), Fuchs says measurement consequences are generally incompletely predictable and describes an outcome as something new that comes into the world. But the paper does not establish the categorical claim that an unobserved electron has no position: “THE ESSENCE OF BELL'S THEOREM, QBISM STYLE” (p. 15) presents a system's lack of a definite premeasurement value as one of two positions under discussion. Nor does unpredictability establish that no causal account of a precise result can be given. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The Copenhagen interpretation and quantum Bayesianism also make both predictions.

    “both predictions are made by the standard BCopenhagen^interpretation of quantum theory and by more recent interpretations, such as quantum Bayesianism (Allday 2009;Fuchs 2010).”

    From The Interface Theory of Perception (2015) · cites this paper as Fuchs 2010

    Section IV (pp. 10–12) describes how quantum Bayesianism uses the Born rule to assign probabilities to measurement outcomes, supporting its ability to make quantum predictions. The citing sentence does not identify what “both predictions” are, and the passages do not establish that quantum Bayesianism and the Copenhagen interpretation make those two particular predictions. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The difference between agent F's pure state assignment and agent W's maximally mixed state assignment can be explained by the two agents' distinct level of knowledge.

    “But, crucially, the difference can be explained by the two agents’ distinct level of knowledge: Agent F has observed z and hence knows the final spin direction, whereas agent W is ignorant about it5.”

    From Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself (2018) · cites this paper as [5]

    In “PROBABILITY DOES NOT EXIST.” (pp. 6–7), the friend assigns a state |i⟩ after observing an outcome, while Wigner, who has not learned that outcome, assigns a different state. The paper says Wigner’s state is obtained by a partial trace and is not |i⟩; it does not specify a maximally mixed state, a z measurement, or a final spin direction. It also frames the distinction in terms of each agent’s own experiences and beliefs, rather than simply their levels of knowledge. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. [13]J. M. Bernardo and A. F. M. Smith, Bayesian Theory (Wiley, Chichester, 1994).
  2. [14]D. V. Lindley, Understanding Uncertainty , (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2006).
  3. [15]B. de Finetti, Theory of Probability , 2 volumes, (Wiley, New York, 1990).
  4. [16]R. von Mises, ' ¨ Uber die gegenw¨ artage Krise der Mechanik,' Die Naturwissenschaften 10 , 25 (1922); translated in, M. St¨ oltzner, 'Vienna Indeterminism II: From Exner's Synthesis to Frank and von Mises,' in Logical Empiricism. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives , edited by P. Parrini, W. Salmon, and M. Salmon, (University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 2003), p. 194.
  5. [23]J. A. Wheeler, 'Bohr, Einstein, and the Strange Lesson of the Quantum,' in Mind in Nature: Nobel Conference XVII, Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota , edited by R. Q. Elvee, (Harper & Row, San Francisco, CA, 1982), pp. 1-23, with discussions pp. 2330, 88-89, 112-113, and 148-149.
  6. [32]G. Zauner, Quantum Designs - Foundations of a NonCommutative Theory of Designs (in German), PhD thesis, University of Vienna, 1999.
  7. [35]A. J. Scott and M. Grassl, 'SIC-POVMs: A New Computer Study,' arXiv:0910.5784v1 [quant-ph] , (2009). · arXiv
  8. [55]A. Fine, Shaky Game: Einstein Realism and The Quantum Theory , second edition, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996).
  9. [62]R. Rorty, Philosophical Papers, Volume 1: Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth , (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1991).
  10. [72]H. J. Folse, 'Niels Bohr's Concept of Reality,' in Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1987: The Copenhagen Interpretation 60 Years after the Como Lecture , edited by P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987), pp. 161.
  11. [91]M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-toClassical Transition , (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007).
  12. C. G. Jung , (Springer, Berlin, 2005).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fuchs, C. A.
Affiliations
Perimeter Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
Fuchs, Christopher A.
ORCID
Fuchs, Christopher A.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2010
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1003.5209
arXiv
1003.5209
OpenAlex
W1521579410
Cited by
295
References
95
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 34
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Keywords
QBism, quantum information, symmetric informationally complete measurements, Born rule, Hilbert space dimension, non-reductionism, pragmatism, pluralism, meliorism, quantum cosmology, quantum foundations, amplitude

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review