Where’s Brendon?

New Scientist reckons that all quantum mysteries disappear when you look at it as a Bayesian:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229680.400-qbism-is-quantum-uncertainty-all-in-the-mind.html

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where’s Brendon?

NZ. HTH.

OCDC said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where’s Brendon?

NZ. HTH.

Living in wedded bliss, apparently.

sibeen said:

OCDC said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Where’s Brendon?

NZ. HTH.

Living in wedded bliss, apparently.

He must be a good person.

>New Scientist reckons that all quantum mysteries disappear when you look at it as a Bayesian:

I think Brendon suspected as much himself.

Bubblecar said:

>New Scientist reckons that all quantum mysteries disappear when you look at it as a Bayesian:

I think Brendon suspected as much himself.

If we all think Bayesian thoughts really hard, he’ll probably drop in.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

The “origin” and “background” sections of this read more like religious doctrine than hard physics.

The introduction reads like a bad joke (eg. don’t try reading Caves-Fuchs-Shacks out loud, “QBism” a pun on “cubism”).

I won’t take this seriously until I read the equations. The description sounds like a form of “hidden variable” theory, probabilities we can see depend on hidden probabilities that we can’t see. Hidden variable interpretations of of quantum mechanics are rejected by Bell’s theorem, so you’d have to look at in detail to see if this new interpretation has somehow dodged the bullet.

mollwollfumble said:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism

The “origin” and “background” sections of this read more like religious doctrine than hard physics.

The introduction reads like a bad joke (eg. don’t try reading Caves-Fuchs-Shacks out loud, “QBism” a pun on “cubism”).

I won’t take this seriously until I read the equations. The description sounds like a form of “hidden variable” theory, probabilities we can see depend on hidden probabilities that we can’t see. Hidden variable interpretations of of quantum mechanics are rejected by Bell’s theorem, so you’d have to look at in detail to see if this new interpretation has somehow dodged the bullet.

I don’t think you should bother with the New scientist article then :)

(But it seems their names do just happen to be Caves, Fuchs and Shacks)