In QBism the wave function does not represent an element of physical reality external to the agent, but represent an agent’s personal probability assignments, reflecting his subjective degrees of belief about the future content of his experience. In this paper, I argue that this view of the wave function is not consistent with protective measurements. The argument does not rely on the realist assumption of the ψ-ontology theorems, namely the existence of the underlying ontic state of a quantum system.

Quantum theory determines the evolution of quantum states between quantum jumps. Quantum theory also allows us to calculate rates of quantum jumps and, on a probabilistic level, the outcomes of those quantum jumps. Both quantum jumps and the continuous evolution of quantum states are important in the time evolution of quantum systems, and the scattering matrix ties those seemingly disparate concepts together. Indeed, quantum jumps are so essential in quantum dynamics that we should refocus discussion of a quantum ontology on (...) the power and principal limitations of our knowledge about quantum jumps as encoded in the scattering matrix. On the one hand, one might argue that the lack of a dynamical resolution of quantum jumps indicates an inherent incompleteness of the theory. However, we would rather submit that quantum theory is complete and that the observations indicate a principal limitation to the description of the universe as a smoothly evolving dynamical system. The modern understanding of quantum jumps therefore calls for updates to the Copenhagen interpretation instead of modifications of quantum theory. (shrink)

Putnam coined what is now known as the no miracles argument “[t]he positive argument for realism”. In its opposition, he put an argument that by his own standards counts as negative. But are there no positive arguments against scientific realism? I believe that there is such an argument that has figured in the back of much of the realism-debate, but, to my knowledge, has nowhere been stated and defended explicitly. This is an argument from the success of quantum physics to (...) the unlikely appropriateness of scientific realism as a philosophical stance towards science. I will here state this argument and offer a detailed defence of its premises. The purpose of this is to both exhibit in detail how far the intuition that quantum physics threatens realism can be driven, in the light also of more recent developments, as well as to exhibit possible vulnerabilities, i.e., to show where potential detractors might attack. (shrink)

In ‘Reichenbach's cubical universe and the problem of the external world’, Elliott Sober attempts a refutation of solipsism à la Reichenbach. I here contrast Sober's line of argument with observati...

Despite remarkable efforts, it remains notoriously difficult to equip quantum theory with a coherent ontology. Hence, Healey (2017, 12) has recently suggested that ‘‘quantum theory has no physical ontology and states no facts about physical objects or events’’, and Fuchs et al. (2014, 752) similarly hold that ‘‘quantum mechanics itself does not deal directly with the objective world’’. While intriguing, these positions either raise the question of how talk of ‘physical reality’ can even remain meaningful, or they must ultimately embrace (...) a hidden variables-view, in tension with their original project. I here offer a neo-Kantian alternative. In particular, I will show how constitutive elements in the sense of Reichenbach (1920) and Friedman (1999, 2001) can be identified within quantum theory, through considerations of symmetries that allow the constitution of a ‘quantum reality’, without invoking any notion of a radically mind-independent reality. The resulting conception will inherit elements from pragmatist and ‘QBist’ approaches, but also differ from them in crucial respects. Furthermore, going beyond the Friedmanian program, I will show how non-fundamental and approximate symmetries can be relevant for identifying constitutive principles. (shrink)

David Lewis' "Principal Principle" is a purported principle of rationality connecting credence and objective chance. Almost all of the discussion of the Principal Principle in the philosophical literature assumes classical probability theory, which is unfortunate since the theory of modern physics that, arguably, speaks most clearly of objective chance is the quantum theory, and quantum probabilities are not classical probabilities. Given the generally accepted updating rule for quantum probabilities, there is a straight forward sense in which the Principal Principle is (...) a theorem of quantum probability theory for any credence function satisfying a suitable additivity requirement. No additional principle of rationality is needed to bring credence into line with objective chance. (shrink)