MrMind comments on Quantum Bayesianism - Less Wrong

0 Post author: morganism 08 October 2016 11:27PM

Comments (32)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: qmotus 12 October 2016 09:08:30PM 0 points [-]

Fair enough. I feel like I have a fairly good intuitive understanding of quantum mechanics, but it's still almost entirely intuitive, and so is probably entirely inadequate beyond this point. But I've read speculations like this, and it sounds like things can get interesting: it's just that it's unclear to me how seriously we should take them at this stage, and also some of them take MWI as a starting point, too.

Regarding QBism, my idea of it is mostly based on a very short presentation of it by RĂ¼diger Schack at a panel, and the thing that confuses me is that if quantum mechanics is entirely about probability, then what do those probabilities tell us about?

Comment author: MrMind 13 October 2016 07:57:45AM *  1 point [-]

it's just that it's unclear to me how seriously we should take them at this stage

Well, categorical quantum mechanics is a program under developement since 2008, and it gives you a quantum framework in any computational theory with enough symmetries (databases, linguistics, etc).
It spawned quantum programming languages and a graphical calculus. So I think it's pretty succesful and has to be taken seriously, albeit it's far from being complete (it lacks a unified treatment of infinite systems, for example).