Thursday, May 30, 2019

QBism is similar to Copenhagen

QBism is a variant of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which has dominated textbooks for 90 years.

The proponents of QBism sometimes argue that quantum mechanics does not need an interpretation. They see QBism as a sort of minimalist interpretation. A new paper, Is Quantum Mechanics Self-Interpreting?, criticizes this claim.

Another new paper on QBism is "B" is for Bohr. It argues that Bohr would have agreed with QBism. The Copenhagen interpretation is supposed to be Bohr's view, so that should be the same also, but Bohr is widely misunderstood. The paper says:
Today, Bohr seems obscure to most physicists. Catherine Chevalley17 has identified three reasons why. The first is that Bohr's views have come to be equated with one variant or another of the Copenhagen interpretation, which only emerged in the mid-1950's, in response to David Bohm's hidden-variables theory and the Marxist critique of Bohr's alleged idealism, which had inspired Bohm.
The leading opponent to Bohr/Copenhagen was David Bohm, a Communist. Einstein also opposed it, and he was also a Communist sympathizer.

Is there some connection between Communist-Marxist political theory, and anti-positivist hidden-variables theory? They are both contrary to what I consider good rational thinking, but is there some more direct reason why an anti-positivist would go Communist, or a Communist would go anti-positivist? Maybe someone can explain it to me.

I am also trying to understand this NY Post story:
City Department of Education brass are targeting a “white-supremacy culture” among school administrators — by disparaging ideas like “individualism,” “objectivity” and “worship of the written word,” The Post has learned.
For details of this anti-White ideology, see this paper.

I always thought science should be objective, but is that a White supremacist thing? Would anti-White political activists seek to undermine objectivity in science? I dunno, but it appears that political ideology drives a lot of bad ideas in science.


  1. Roger,
    If they want to suggest science is 'white supremist' I DARE them to provide an example what they think science should be instead. Without anything to compare and contrast present scientific methods to, I don't think they have an argument at all, just a baseless talking point.

  2. Ok, I read the link you provided. It's a bunch of piffle, reminding me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa goes to an all girls math class and they ask her about how certain numbers make her 'feel' and what a plus sign 'smells' like. Lisa wasn't in the least bit impressed when the whole class fell into a self congratulating self esteem exercise.

    I'm sorry. I just don't take comedy seriously. It's not meant to be.

  3. Actually, Bohr was the real leftist because the monistic death instinct of Eastern philosophy (regressive primary narcissism) informed his view of physics. Relativist collectivism!