Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Lorraine Ford: on 4/27/21 at 22:39pm UTC, wrote So, anyone who has even the slightest bit of trust [1] in themselves and...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/27/21 at 3:52am UTC, wrote QBism is the ONLY physics’ view of the world whereby people have a...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/25/21 at 1:06am UTC, wrote (continued) No one can argue with Chris Timpson that the lawful...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/25/21 at 1:04am UTC, wrote Chris Timpson has provided no explanation for how the micro-world of...

Christopher Timpson: on 4/21/21 at 17:14pm UTC, wrote Quantum Limits of Knowledge 2021 Tuesday 30th March, 2021 I will briefly...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Steve, The issue is consciousness, and more specifically pain. I’m..." in How does the brain...

Georgina Woodward: "John, I don't think which photon of a pair is which can be controlled at..." in On a contextual model...

Steve Dufourny: "For me Lorraine , the main problem os this planet is the vanity and our sad..." in How does the brain...

Paul Hayes: ""According to quantum physics, a system can be in a ’superposition,’..." in The Quantum Engine That...

Alan Lowey: "Brian What % chance would you give of Einstein's gravity theory being..." in Alternative Models of...

Brian Balke: "I offered this to the community roughly ten years ago, and thought that I..." in Alternative Models of...

John Cox: "Georgina, The ChiCom do admit publicly that their QUESS program includes..." in On a contextual model...

Steve Dufourny: "Rudiger, you could explain all what you have told me by mails , regards" in Alternative Models of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.


FQXi BLOGS
June 16, 2021

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: A Tale of Two QBisms (Realism more or less) by Chris Timpson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Christopher Gordon Timpson wrote on Apr. 21, 2021 @ 17:14 GMT
Quantum Limits of Knowledge 2021

Tuesday 30th March, 2021

I will briefly recapitulate the senses in which it can be said that QBism is a realist position and a realist programme. I will then contrast what may be called Full Blooded QBism, as currently maintained by Chris Fuchs and colleagues, with a more moderate, and perhaps more defensible, QBism Lite, this being a version of QBism along the lines that I articulate in Timpson (2013, Quantum Information Theory and the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, OUP). In particular I will explain why it seems to me that escaping the standard no-go results (especially Bell’s theorem) does not require one to move so far as to Full Blooded QBism.



Keywords: #quantum #foundations #philosophy #bayesianism #observer #interpretation

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

This forum thread is open to the public.


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 25, 2021 @ 01:04 GMT
Chris Timpson has provided no explanation for how the micro-world of particles and laws of nature becomes the human world of thoughts and ideas and equations and words and sentences ABOUT the micro-world of particles and laws of nature. All his assertions/ philosophising about the nature of the two worlds can’t be taken seriously UNTIL he connects up the two worlds.

But it is clear that:

1) What living things THINK can only be accurately represented using the symbols of Boolean algebra (AND and OR symbols, and symbols representing categories of information and numbers); and

2) What living things DO can only be accurately represented using algorithmic symbols (IF, AND, OR, THEN and ELSE symbols, and symbols representing categories of information and numbers).

These two types of representation CAN’T EVER be derived from the equations that represent the laws of nature, which represent static relationships between variables/ categories of information (like mass or position). These equations illustrate the problem with physics’ conception of the world: the equations that represent the laws of nature don’t have a proper explanation for number change.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 25, 2021 @ 01:06 GMT
(continued)

No one can argue with Chris Timpson that the lawful relationships that physics has found are “true (or approximately true)”. But despite the delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature merely represent static relationships between categories of information; the equations don’t represent a dynamic world. That is, the equations ASSUME that number change occurs, but the equations don’t ever EXPLAIN number change.

This is what the equations represent: IF one or more numbers for the variables change, then the numbers for all other related variables in the system change and re-balance instantly [1] by virtue of the all-pervading lawful relationships between categories which are essentially never contravened. And that’s the end of the number change. So the equations that represent the laws of nature can’t explain why the original numbers changed, or why the numbers for the variables would ever change again. The “matters of fact” are that the equations of physics that represent the laws of nature do NOT model a dynamic world: you need to include algorithmic symbols and the symbols of Boolean algebra to model a dynamic world.

1. Law of nature relationships exist in the world, but they can’t exist inside their own categories. In other words, the laws of nature can’t exist inside time, space or mass.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 27, 2021 @ 03:52 GMT
QBism is the ONLY physics’ view of the world whereby people have a genuine effect on the world, i.e. people genuinely change some of the numbers for the variables. I.e. QBism is the ONLY physics view of the world whereby people can genuinely have an effect on the climate, species extinctions and plastic in the ocean.

But this view of the nature of reality is far too radical and extremist for the vast, vast majority of physicists. Their models of the world mean that people can only ever have the superficial appearance of having an effect on the climate, species extinctions and plastic in the ocean: to most physicists, it’s the laws of nature that are the ONLY cause of all outcomes.

(And only the mathematically naïve would ever think that a topology whereby the laws of nature change every number for every variable can morph into a topology whereby people genuinely change some of the numbers for the variables. Truly mathematically laughable. Can’t happen mathematically.)

As physicist Chris Fuchs said:

“Quantum theory, thus, is no mirror image of what the world is, for “there is no one way the world is;” it is “still in creation, still being hammered out”. Rather the theory should be seen as a “user's manual” that any agent can adopt for better coping with the world external to him. The agent uses the manual to help guide his little part and participation in the world's ongoing creation.” [1]

1. Notwithstanding Bohr, the Reasons for QBism by Christopher A Fuchs, https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03483

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 27, 2021 @ 22:39 GMT
So, anyone who has even the slightest bit of trust [1] in themselves and other people would have to say that QBism is on the right track. The slightest bit of trust that when one burnt coal or dropped plastic in the ocean, that it was indeed oneself that was doing it, with the laws of nature merely playing a supporting role.

But physics is saying: no, you are kidding yourself mate; you are bloody stupid mate. Physics is saying: human beings have always completely deceived themselves; human beings are 100% puppeted by the laws of nature. Physics says: that wasn’t you burning coal, you fool - it was the laws of nature causing every aspect of every outcome. Physics says: that wasn’t you dropping plastic in the ocean, you fool - it was the laws of nature causing every aspect of every outcome.

This is what physics says to the world. Physics doesn’t trust people, and yet it somehow believes that complete fools (i.e. people) can do physics and mathematics and build the pyramids. Physics believes that it’s 100% the laws of nature doing physics and mathematics and building pyramids. Physics says that a set of static relationships between categories (i.e. law of nature relationships) built the world. But perhaps its stodgy old physics, with its stodgy old men, that is the fool for thinking that a set of static relationships could constitute a dynamic system.

1. Trust: “Firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something”, https://www.lexico.com/definition/trust (Oxford dictionary).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.