FAQBism · HackerPapers discussions

FAQBism — mentioned by cosmophany

Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:30:21 GMT

A reference is points 17 and 18 in [https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.13401] Long story short, QBism inherits "agent" from Bayesian decision theory. In that context, we talk about gamblers making bets on the outcomes of dice rolls. In QBism, we talk about scientists making bets on the outcomes of measurements. What exactly can be a "gambler?" Can a dog gamble? What about a trained dog? Or a flea? The answer is: if the shoe fits, wear it. Same goes for QBism. If a dog walks into a lab, lights up a pipe, scribbles equations on the blackboard and starts aligning beamsplitters, then QBism regards him as…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

FAQBism — mentioned by cosmophany

Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:45:44 GMT

(pro QBist physicist here). Just some clarifications on the interesting points you raise. 1. In practice, experimental physicists can and do disagree all the time about what their apparatuses are doing, what the results mean, and so on -- at least, they do at the beginning of the experiment. By the end, they have gone through a process that results in agreement, which allows them to write a paper together declaring things in an objective manner. So it is important to distinguish between the "inputs" to scientific practice (our individual, subjective initial guesses about what is going on)…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.