Christopher Fuchs is revolutionizing how we understand our quantum reality

By making the quantum state observer dependent QBism challenges the classical view of an objective, observer-independent reality.

I wonder if there is a practical application (as opposed to abstract philosophical discussion) where QBism demonstrates its superiority?

I mean if Alice and Bob (in the terminology of entanglement) measured the polarisation of their photons using axes at 45 degrees to each other (rather than the usual 90) would we end up with a system exhibiting something new?

I do have a sneaking suspicion that this subject is just an excuse for physicists to earn a living drowning in yet more abstruse formalism!

I wonder if science and spirituality have moved so far apart that science just can't contribute much to the debate.

It is amazing that only Kamarling's link (written by a physicist) makes clear that there is a non-materialist motivation for this work.

Are you (sbu) able to enjoy much progress reading Fuchs' papers?

David

I wonder if there is a practical application (as opposed to abstract philosophical discussion) where QBism demonstrates its superiority?

I mean if Alice and Bob (in the terminology of entanglement) measured the polarisation of their photons using axes at 45 degrees to each other (rather than the usual 90) would we end up with a system exhibiting something new?

I do have a sneaking suspicion that this subject is just an excuse for physicists to earn a living drowning in yet more abstruse formalism!

I wonder if science and spirituality have moved so far apart that science just can't contribute much to the debate.

It is amazing that only Kamarling's link (written by a physicist) makes clear that there is a non-materialist motivation for this work.

Are you (sbu) able to enjoy much progress reading Fuchs' papers?

David

To me this is just an abstract philosophical discussion. QBism seems to share some attributes with idealism which helds everything exists as spiritual components. Consciousness doesn’t seem to be explainable by any objective/reductional scientific theory which also motivates the existence of some spiritual reality.

I must admit I’m not a big fan of metaphysical speculation (probably the reason why I’m so skeptical of almost every claim). My main interest is about what we can learn from empirical evidence.

While the epistemological and ontological aspects of quantum theory probably are very intriguing I’m more interested in the applications of QM.

To me this is just an abstract philosophical discussion. QBism seems to share some attributes with idealism which helds everything exists as spiritual components. Consciousness doesn’t seem to be explainable by any objective/reductional scientific theory which also motivates the existence of some spiritual reality.

I must admit I’m not a big fan of metaphysical speculation (probably the reason why I’m so skeptical of almost every claim). My main interest is about what we can learn from empirical evidence.

Well aren't we all interested in empirical evidence, but when it is produced, it just seems to be brushed aside.

While the epistemological and ontological aspects of quantum theory probably are very intriguing I’m more interested in the applications of QM.

If you haven't already, I suggest you look up the work of the physicist Henry Stapp. He shows how a mind-body link might work by modulating the frequency of quantum measurements. This is sometimes known as the quantum zeno effect. Of course, what that doesn't explain consciousness itself - just its interaction with the body.

If you read the article that Kamarling references:

https://aeon.co/essays/materialism-alone...sciousness

You can't help feeling the depth of the problem.

Fuchs' links to other papers he has written, seem to happily introduce additional layers of formalism and complexity, but I'd like to know what practical problems this relates to. The cynic in me says this just puts up a barrier to anyone wanting to understand QM.

David

Fuchs' links to other papers he has written, seem to happily introduce additional layers of formalism and complexity, but I'd like to know what practical problems this relates to. The cynic in me says this just puts up a barrier to anyone wanting to understand QM.

David

I think this depends on what you mean by understand QM, as from your own education the basic math/physics are available even at the undergraduate level right?

But understanding QM in a deeper sense...we can look back to the quantum fathers to now to see that is no small task...made more difficult by the way the materialist faith has corrupted scientific investigation...

That said I do think it's interesting that Vox, a publication that usually leans toward the New Atheist side of things, published this article. I see it as yet another sign that some self-reflection is going on in the people who run the media...

I think this depends on what you mean by understand QM, as from your own education the basic math/physics are available even at the undergraduate level right?

But understanding QM in a deeper sense...we can look back to the quantum fathers to now to see that is no small task...made more difficult by the way the materialist faith has corrupted scientific investigation...

That said I do think it's interesting that Vox, a publication that usually leans toward the New Atheist side of things, published this article. I see it as yet another sign that some self-reflection is going on in the people who run the media...

Well there are endless interpretations of QM, and what has that got us? Remember, all these interpretations give the same answers to specific questions!

It is worth remembering how silly some of those interpretations really are. The MWI 'explains' quantum events by postulating that the entire universe splits at every such event. Seemingly, that interpretation is popular with physicists.

There were certain experimental facts that caused QM to be invented, such as the interference patterns created by things that were thought to be particles, but turn out also to be waves. In the same way, I would argue that there are other experimental facts that need to be understood - such as how telepathy happens. Most of science never really engages such questions, so just as science without QM would have stalled, so science without psychic effects will stall.

The real problem here, is that scientists don't like to talk about the idea that matter and mind are somehow linked - even though several of the founders of QM felt no such constraint!

I think, like a lot of people, that QM and psi are deeply linked, but the place to attack that is inside the laboratory, not by inventing yet more impenetrable maths!

The physicist that wrote the AEON piece quoted by Kamarling, Adam Frank, seems to see all this far clearer than Fuchs (unless he sees it, but doesn't dare discuss it).

https://aeon.co/essays/materialism-alone...sciousness

David

Well there are endless interpretations of QM, and what has that got us? Remember, all these interpretations give the same answers to specific questions!

It is worth remembering how silly some of those interpretations really are. The MWI 'explains' quantum events by postulating that the entire universe splits at every such event. Seemingly, that interpretation is popular with physicists.

There were certain experimental facts that caused QM to be invented, such as the interference patterns created by things that were thought to be particles, but turn out also to be waves. In the same way, I would argue that there are other experimental facts that need to be understood - such as how telepathy happens. Most of science never really engages such questions, so just as science without QM would have stalled, so science without psychic effects will stall.

The real problem here, is that scientists don't like to talk about the idea that matter and mind are somehow linked - even though several of the founders of QM felt no such constraint!

I think, like a lot of people, that QM and psi are deeply linked, but the place to attack that is inside the laboratory, not by inventing yet more impenetrable maths!

The physicist that wrote the AEON piece quoted by Kamarling, Adam Frank, seems to see all this far clearer than Fuchs (unless he sees it, but doesn't dare discuss it).

https://aeon.co/essays/materialism-alone...sciousness

David

As someone who has tried to dive into Fuchs' massive public collections of his email communications mixed with diary entries, I do think he is trying to push the very link that you want. Or at least he wants to link QM and Consciousness in some way, rather than QM and Psi.

I think physicists don't like to just make complete departures from the accepted models - Frank is saying that consciousness and QM are possibly linked but Fuchs is putting pen to paper to give us some kind of model that can move the conversation along within STEM academia.

I'd put Fuchs in the same camp as Tononi and Kochs with their Integrated Information Theory in neuroscience. I would agree that the Truth, whatever that is, likely precedes the mathematics but I think for STEM academia to make a genuine shift one has to engage with the current science and take a relatively small step forward.

I'd put Fuchs in the same camp as Tononi and Kochs with their Integrated Information Theory in neuroscience. I would agree that the Truth, whatever that is, likely precedes the mathematics but I think for STEM academia to make a genuine shift one has to engage with the current science and take a relatively small step forward

Strangely enough, I was just thinking about Tononi et al while on a walk. Yes, there is a link, and I also agree with you that the ideas need to be fleshed out before the maths comes spewing out.

John Horgan attended a meeting about IIT, and his write-up was quite revealing. Someone had discovered that a very simple form of network of XOR gates satisfies the IIT criterion for consciousness! Also, most of the attendees seemed as confused as Horgan.

Did your digging reveal any nuggets about what insights QBism had so far revealed about the connections between mind and matter - beyond generalities?

I know I sound very cynical, but that is the way I feel. I mean why didn't Fuchs consult people such as Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, etc before developing his maths?

David

Strangely enough, I was just thinking about Tononi et al while on a walk. Yes, there is a link, and I also agree with you that the ideas need to be fleshed out before the maths comes spewing out.

John Horgan attended a meeting about IIT, and his write-up was quite revealing. Someone had discovered that a very simple form of network of XOR gates satisfied the IIT criterion for consciousness! Also, most of the attendees seemed as confused as Horgan.

Did  your digging reveal any nuggets about what insights QBism had so far revealed about the connections between mind and matter - beyond generalities?

I know I sound very cynical, but that is the way I feel. I mean why didn't Fuchs consult someone like Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, etc before writing his maths?

David

I mean I would agree with you that in an ideal world you'd have more integration of parapsychology and even some preliminary thinking about metaphysics before we get to the maths.

But I think Fuchs genuinely believes in physics, in at least some of the Standard Model, and that you do need to ground your views in maths. I don't know how interested he'd be in talking to parapsychologists, I do recall he had a deep appreciation for William James so he might be willing to follow James' own dive into parapsychology...

And, as much as I admire Sheldrake...he's been out in the cold for most of his career. We do need people like him, but I think you also need people like Fuchs and his QBist fellows just like you need Tononi + Koch and their team. Someone has to advance things within the system as well after all.

But I think Fuchs genuinely believes in physics, in at least some of the Standard Model, and that you do need to ground your views in maths. I don't know how interested he'd be in talking to parapsychologists, I do recall he had a deep appreciation for William James so he might be willing to follow James' own dive into parapsychology...

And, as much as I admire Sheldrake...he's been out in the cold for most of his career.

It would be interesting if Fuchs opened up about his views of William James.

Regarding Sheldrake, it is important to remember that he was a director of studies at Cambridge, and that shows in essentially all his experiments. They all seem to be well controlled and hard to dismiss except by cheating. They all, of course, contradict materialism.

David

It would be interesting if Fuchs opened up about his views of William James.

Regarding Sheldrake, it is important to remember that he was a director of studies at Cambridge, and that shows in essentially all his experiments. They all seem to be well controlled and hard to dismiss except by cheating. They all, of course, contradict materialism.

David

Oh I don't doubt Sheldrake's intellectual abilities or his rigor, I was just noting that he's something of a pariah in STEM.