QBians Do Not Exist
arXiv:2012.14375
Abstract
We remark on John Earman's paper ``Quantum Bayesianism Assessed'' [The Monist 102 (2019), 403--423], illustrating with a number of examples that the quantum ``interpretation'' Earman critiques and the interpretation known as QBism have almost nothing to do with each other.
arXiv comment12 pages
References in corpus (22)
- Quantum probabilities as Bayesian probabilities
- Unknown Quantum States: The Quantum de Finetti Representation
- Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information (and only a little more)
- Quantum-Bayesian Coherence: The No-Nonsense Version
- Quantum states and generalized observables: a simple proof of Gleason's theorem
- QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism
- Quantum Bayes rule
- QBism and the Greeks: why a quantum state does not represent an element of physical reality
- Conditions for compatibility of quantum state assignments
- Respecting One's Fellow: QBism's Analysis of Wigner's Friend
- Introducing the Qplex: A Novel Arena for Quantum Theory
- Notwithstanding Bohr, the Reasons for QBism
- Symmetric Informationally Complete Measurements Identify the Irreducible Difference between Classical and Quantum Systems
- A de Finetti Representation Theorem for Quantum Process Tomography
- QBism: Quantum Theory as a Hero's Handbook
- Information-disturbance tradeoff in quantum measurement on the uniform ensemble and on the mutually unbiased bases
- Does it Make Sense to Speak of Self-Locating Uncertainty in the Universal Wave Function? Remarks on Sebens and Carroll
- Lüders Channels and the Existence of Symmetric Informationally Complete Measurements
- Interview with a Quantum Bayesian
- Quantum Theory as Symmetry Broken by Vitality
- Ideas Abandoned en Route to QBism
- Quantum Measurement and the Paulian Idea