QBism: Quantum Theory as a Hero’s Handbook

Christopher A. Fuchs1 and Blake C. Stacey1

1Physics Department, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA 02125, USA

This article situates QBism among other well-known interpretations of quantum mechanics.QBism has its roots in personalist Bayesian probability theory, is crucially dependent upon thetools of quantum information, and in latest developments has set out to investigate whether thephysical world might be of a type sketched in the philosophies of pragmatism, pluralism, nonre-ductionism, and meliorism. Beyond conceptual issues, the technical side of QBism is focused onthe mathematically hard problem of finding a good representation of quantum mechanics purely interms of probabilities, without amplitudes or Hilbert-space operators. The best candidate repre-sentation involves an entity called a symmetric informationally complete quantum measurement,or SIC. Contemplation of it gives a way to think of the Born rule as an addition to the rules ofprobability theory, applicable when an agent considers gambling on the consequences of her actionson the external world, duly taking into account a new universal capacity: namely, Hilbert-spacedimension. The article ends by showing that the egocentric elements in QBism represent no imped-iment to pursuing quantum cosmology and even open up possibilities never dreamt of in the usualformulations.

I. INTRODUCTION

Chauncey Wright a nearly forgotten philosopher ofreal merit, taught me when young that I must notsay necessary about the universe, that we don’tknow whether anything is necessary or not. So Idescribe myself as a bettabilitarian. I believe thatwe can bet on the behavior of the universe in itscontact with us. [Our underlining; his italics.]

— Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Quantum physics works. But why?The mathematical apparatus that we heft onto physics

students is astonishingly successful. It guides our under-standing of phenomena from the submicroscopic cluster-ing of quarks to the spectra of quasars, and it underpinstechnological advances that affect our lives more dramati-cally by the day. But when we take a moment and ask—whether in a dorm room or the pages of a philosophyjournal—what the theory is all about, we find ourselvesthrashing about in decades of accumulated murk. Howmuch of the mathematical gadgetry is human conventionand historical happenstance, and how much of it truly in-dicates the character of the natural world that was herebefore we were and would endure in our absence? Canwe take discourse about observership and agency, aboutwhat it means to be an agent whose actions have con-sequences, about the relation between truth and whatworks in practice, and make honest mathematics of it?

According to the research program of QBism [1–9],the modern development of the older Quantum Bayesian-ism [10–13], the answer is wholeheartedly Yes. On onehand, QBism is a way of investing meaning in the ab-stract structure of quantum theory: It tells us that quan-tum theory is fundamentally about agency, actions, con-sequences and expectations. On the other, QBism pointsout the virtue of reconstructing quantum theory fromdeep, physical principles. Of all the ideas and theoremsthat look important, which are the ideas, the captivatingand compelling seed from which all the formulae would

grow given only careful thinking?

We can illustrate the trouble with quantum mechanicsby comparing it with other areas of physics in which wehave collectively honed our understanding to a high de-gree of sophistication. Two examples that come to mindare the science of thermodynamics and the special the-ory of relativity. An old joke has it that the three laws ofthermodynamics are “You can’t win,” “You can’t breakeven,” and “You can’t get out of the game.” To these, weought to prepend the zeroth law, which we could state as,“At least the scoring is fair.” But consider the premiseof the joke, which is really rather remarkable: There arelaws of thermodynamics—a concise list of deep physicalprinciples that underlie and nourish the entire subject.Likewise for special relativity: Inertial observers Aliceand Bob can come to agree on the laws of physics, butno experiment they could ever do can establish that oneis “really moving” and the other “really standing still”—not even measuring the speed of light. We invest a littlemathematics, and then close and careful consideration ofthese basic principles yields all the details of the formalapparatus, with its nasty square roots or interminglingpartial derivatives.

This level of understanding brings many advantages.Having the deep principles set out in explicit form pointsout how to test a theory in the most direct manner.Moreover, it greatly aids us when we teach the theory.We do not have to slog through all the confusions thatbedeviled the physicists who first developed the subject,to say nothing of the extra confusions created by the factthat “historical” pedagogy is almost inevitably a carica-ture. In addition, a principled understanding helps usapply a theory. As we work our way into a detailed cal-culation, we can cross-check against the basic postulates.Does our calculation imply that signals travel faster thanlight? Does our seventeenth equation imply that entropyis flowing the wrong way? We must have made an error!And, when we found our theory upon its deep princi-ples, we have a guide for extending our theory, because

arX

iv:1

612.

0730

8v3

[qu

ant-

ph]

26

Jul 2

019

2

we know what properties must obtain in order for a new,more general theory to reduce to our old one in a specialcase.

To our great distress, we must admit that in the matterof quantum mechanics, the physics profession lacks thislevel of understanding.

Instead, we have a mathematical apparatus and day-to-day experience on how to apply it successfully. Butthe deep principles remain elusive. What we have in theirplace is almost a century of “interpretations” cooked upfor the theory—campfire stories told to give meaning tothe mathematics and say what it is “all about.” Andwhat a host of tales have there been!

• Copenhagen Interpretations – Bohr, Heisenberg,Pauli, von Weizsacker, Peierls, Wheeler (they’reactually all different!)

• Nonlocal Hidden Variables – de Broglie, Bohm,Bub (early on), Maudlin, Goldstein, Valentini,Norsen, Hardy

• Stochastic Mechanics – Nelson, Smolin (Lee)

• Modal Interpretations – Kochen, Dieks, vanFraassen, Bub (later on), Healey (for a time),Spekkens & Sipe (briefly)

• Quantum Logics – Birkhoff & von Neumann,Mackey, Jauch, Piron, Finkelstein, Putnam

• Consciousness-Induced Collapse Theories –Wigner, von Neumann

• Objective Collapse Models –Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber, Pearl, Penrose, Frigg,Gisin, Tumulka, Albert

• Consistent Histories – Griffiths, Omnes

• Transactional Interpretation – Cramer, Kastner

• Relational Interpretations – Rovelli, Spekkens(TBA)

• Ensemble Interpretation – Einstein (?), Ballentine

• Informational Interpretations – Zeilinger,Brukner, Bub (presently)

• Superdeterminism – Bell (as a joke), ’t Hooft (infull seriousness)

• Many-Worlds Interpretations – Everett, Albert &Loewer, Barbour, Coleman, Deutsch (earlyversion), Deutsch (later version), DeWitt,Gell-Mann & Hartle, Geroch, Graham, Greaves,Lockwood, Papineau, Saunders, Smolin (John),Tegmark, Vaidman, Wallace, Zurek . . .

This list is far from exhaustive, and as already hintedabundantly, two authors listed under the same bullet maywell disagree on significant issues.1

It is often said that “all interpretations of quantummechanics make the same predictions, so we cannot tellthem apart by experiment.” This is false for at leasttwo reasons, a small one and a big one. The small pointis that some ideas classified among the “interpretations”are deliberately fashioned to depart from quantum the-ory in some way. Objective Collapse models are the chiefexamples of this. But more importantly, it is not clearthat all of the interpretations can be made to yield predic-tions at all, when they are thought upon with adequatestringency.

We should also mention the attitude that there is nopoint to “interpreting” quantum theory, because quan-tum theory will turn out to be wrong anyway. Perhapsthe reason why we have yet to fit quantum physics to-gether with gravity is that the quantum side is funda-mentally defective, in some fashion that has only mani-fested when we put the full weight of general relativityupon it. (Feynman even speculated that gravity itselfcould be the result of quantum mechanics breaking down,in which case “quantizing gravity” would be meaning-less [14].) Fair enough! But how, then, do we modifyquantum theory in such a way that it still works in allthe many places it has worked so far?

So the field of quantum foundations is not unfounded;it is absolutely vital to physics as a whole. But what con-stitutes “progress” in quantum foundations? How wouldone know progress if one saw it? Through the years, itseems the most popular strategy has been to remove theobserver from the theory just as quickly as possible, andwith surgical precision. In practice this has generallymeant to keep the mathematical structure of quantumtheory as it stands (complex Hilbert spaces, operators,tensor products, etc.), but, by hook or crook, find a wayto tell a story about the mathematical symbols that in-volves no observers at all.

In short, the strategy has been to reify or objectifyall the mathematical symbols of the theory and then ex-plore whatever comes of the move. All the various in-terpretations that result see quantum states as physicalentities, like a blob of ψ-flavored gelatin, sliding aboutin accord with its own dynamical laws. Three exam-ples suffice to give a feel: In the de Broglie–Bohm “pilotwave” version of quantum theory, there are no funda-mental measurements, only “particles” flying around ina 3N -dimensional configuration space, pushed around bya wave function regarded as a real physical field in thatspace. In “spontaneous collapse” versions, systems areendowed with quantum states that generally evolve uni-

1 Over the years, the many-worlders in particular have done aremarkably poor job of agreeing with one another about whatspecifically there are supposed to be many of.

3

tarily, but from time-to-time collapse without any needfor measurement. In Everettian or “many-worlds” quan-tum mechanics, it is only the world as a whole—theycall it a multiverse—that is really endowed with an in-trinsic quantum state, and that quantum state evolvesdeterministically, with only an illusion from the inside ofprobabilistic “branching.”

The trouble with all these interpretations as quick fixesfor quantum strangeness is that they look to be just that,really quick fixes. They look to be interpretive strategieshardly compelled by the particular details of the quan-tum formalism, giving only more or less arbitrary ap-pendages to it. This already explains in part why wehave been able to exhibit three such different strategies,but it is worse: Each of these strategies gives rise to itsown set of tough-to-swallow ideas. Pilot-wave theories,for instance, give instantaneous action at a distance, butnot actions that can be harnessed to send detectable sig-nals. If so, then what a delicately balanced high-wire actnature presents us with. And how much appeal doesthe idea of waves pushing particles about really havewhen it turns out that, in order to be consistent, “po-sition measurements” don’t really measure particle posi-tions [15]? Or take the Everettians. Their world purportsto have no observers, but then it has no probabilities ei-ther. What are we then to do with the Born rule forcalculating quantum probabilities? Throw it away andsay it never mattered? It is true that quite an efforthas been made by the Everettians to rederive the ruleby one means or another. But these attempts may havere-imported at least as much vagueness as they claimto eliminate [16–20]. To many in the outside world, itlooks like the success of these derivations depends uponwhere they are assessed—for instance, whether in Oxford[21, 22] or Cambridge [23, 24].

QBists hold that the way forward is to own up to thefollowing lesson. Before there were people using quantumtheory as a branch of physics, before they were calculatingneutron-capture cross-sections for uranium and workingon all the other practical problems the theory suggests,there were no quantum states. The world may be full ofstuff and things of all kinds, but among all the stuff andall the things, there is no unique, observer-independent,quantum-state kind of stuff.

The immediate payoff of this strategy is that it elimi-nates the conundrums arising in the various objectified-state interpretations. A paraphrase of a quote by JamesHartle makes the point decisively [25]:

A quantum-mechanical state being a sum-mary of the observers’ information about anindividual physical system changes both bydynamical laws, and whenever the observeracquires new information about the systemthrough the process of measurement. The ex-istence of two laws for the evolution of thestate vector becomes problematical only if itis believed that the state vector is an objec-tive property of the system. If, however, the

state of a system is defined as a list of [ex-perimental] propositions together with their[probabilities of occurrence], it is not sur-prising that after a measurement the statemust be changed to be in accord with [any]new information. The “reduction of the wavepacket” does take place in the consciousnessof the observer, not because of any uniquephysical process which takes place there, butonly because the state is a construct of theobserver and not an objective property of thephysical system.

The objective quantum state is the latter-day equiv-alent of the luminiferous æther. But recognizing this isonly the first step of an adventure. Luckily the days forthis expedition are ripe, thanks in large part to the devel-opment of the field of quantum information theory in thelast 25 years—that is, the multidisciplinary field that hasbrought about quantum cryptography, quantum telepor-tation, and will one day bring about full-blown quantumcomputation. Terminology can say it all: A practitionerin this field, whether she has ever thought an ounce aboutquantum foundations, is just as likely to say “quantuminformation” as “quantum state” when talking of any |ψ〉.“What does the quantum teleportation protocol do?” Anow completely standard answer is: “It transfers quan-tum information from Alice’s site to Bob’s.” What wehave here is a change of mindset [2].

What the facts and figures, protocols and theoremsof quantum information pound home is the idea thatquantum states look, act, and feel like information in thetechnical sense of the word—the sense provided by prob-ability theory and Shannon’s information theory. Thereis no more beautiful demonstration of this than RobertSpekkens’s “toy model” for mimicking various features ofquantum mechanics [26]. In that model, the “toys” areeach equipped with four possible mechanical configura-tions; but the players, the manipulators of the toys, areconsistently impeded from having more than one bit ofinformation about each toy’s actual configuration. (Ora total of two bits for each two toys, three bits for eachthree toys, and so on.) The only things the players canknow are their own states of uncertainty about the con-figurations. The wonderful thing is that these states ofuncertainty exhibit many of the characteristics of quan-tum information: from the no-cloning theorem to ana-logues of quantum teleportation, quantum key distribu-tion, entanglement monogamy, and even interference ina Mach–Zehnder interferometer. More than two dozenquantum phenomena are reproduced qualitatively, and allthe while one can always pinpoint the underlying causeof this: The phenomena arise in the uncertainties, neverin the mechanical configurations. It is the states of un-certainty that mimic the formal apparatus of quantumtheory, not the toys’ so-called ontic states (states of re-ality).

4

What considerations like this tell the ψ-ontologists2—i.e., those who to attempt to remove the observertoo quickly from quantum mechanics by giving quan-tum states an unfounded ontic status—was well put bySpekkens:

[A] proponent of the ontic view might arguethat the phenomena in question are not mys-terious if one abandons certain preconceivednotions about physical reality. The challengewe offer to such a person is to present afew simple physical principles by the light ofwhich all of these phenomena become concep-tually intuitive (and not merely mathemati-cal consequences of the formalism) within aframework wherein the quantum state is anontic state. Our impression is that this chal-lenge cannot be met. By contrast, a sin-gle information-theoretic principle, which im-poses a constraint on the amount of knowl-edge one can have about any system, is suffi-cient to derive all of these phenomena in thecontext of a simple toy theory . . .

The point is, far from being an appendage cheaply tackedon to the theory, the idea of quantum states as informa-tion has a simple unifying power that goes some waytoward explaining why the theory has the very mathe-matical structure it does.3 By contrast, who could takethe many-worlds idea and derive any of the structure ofquantum theory out of it? This would be a bit like try-ing to regrow a lizard from the tip of its chopped-off tail:The Everettian conception never purported to be morethan a reaction to the formalism in the first place.

But there are still deep puzzles left outstanding. Aboveall, there are the old questions of Whose information?and Information about what?—these certainly must beaddressed before any resolution of the quantum mysteriescan be declared a success. It must also be settled whetherquantum theory is obligated to give a criterion for whatcounts as an observer. Finally, because no one wantsto give up on physics, we must tackle head-on the mostcrucial question of all: If quantum states are not part ofthe stuff of the world, then what is? What sort of stuffdoes quantum mechanics say the world is made of?

2 This beautiful word, not to be confused with a practitioner ofScientology, was coined by Christopher Granade [27].

3 We say “goes some way toward” because, though the toy modelmakes about as compelling a case as we have ever seen thatquantum states are states of information (an extremely valuablestep forward), it gravely departs from quantum theory in otheraspects. For instance, by its nature, it can give no Bell inequalityviolations or analogues of the Kochen–Specker noncolorabilitytheorems. Later sections of this paper will indicate that thecause of the deficit is that the toy model differs crucially fromquantum theory in its answer to the question Information aboutwhat?

An understanding of the quantum, like all things worthhaving, will not come easily. But this much is sure: Theglaringly obvious (that a large part of quantum theory,the central part in fact, is about information) should notbe abandoned rashly. To do so is to lose grip of thetheory as it is applied in practice, with no better graspof reality in return. If on the other hand, one holds fast tothe central point about information, initially frighteningthough it may be, one may still be able to reconstruct apicture of reality from the unfocused edge of one’s vision.Often the best stories come from there anyway.

FIG. 1: “May not the creatia of a quantum observer’s actionslikewise be such additions to the universe as to enhance itstotal value? And on this view, is not the QBist quantumobserver—the agent—a kind of superhero for the universe asa whole, making extra things happen wherever, whenever heis called to duty?” (Drawing courtesy of Mark Staff Brandl.)

So, what is the overarching story of QBism, and whatdoes the QB stand for anyway? The Q clearly stands forQuantum, but the B? Initially, we had taken the B tostand for Bayesian, the interpretation of probability fromwhich our efforts grew. This is reflected in much of the lit-erature on the subject—see, for instance, the title of theStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on QBism[9]. However, QBists eventually became dissatisfied withthis meaning for the B, as there are just too many va-rieties of Bayesianism [28]—QBism only represents onevery specific strain of it [7]. So, for a time we would sayjokingly that the B rather stands for Bruno de Finetti,our hero in probability theory. But eventually and with

5

good reason, we landed on the idea of B for Bettabili-tarian! This rolling word, coined by U.S. Supreme CourtJustice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., seemed to captureQBism perfectly. Author Louis Menand, in his magis-terial book The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas inAmerica [29], put it like this:

‘The loss of certainty’ is a phrase many intel-lectual historians have used the characterizethe period in which Holmes lived. But thephrase has it backward. It was not the loss ofcertainty that stimulated the late-nineteenth-century thinkers with whom Holmes asso-ciated; it was the discovery of uncertainty.Holmes was, in many respects, a materialist.He believed, as he put it, that “the law ofthe grub . . . is also the law for man.” Andconcerning the hope of social betterment, hewas something worse than a pessimist. “I de-spise,” he said, “the upward and onward.”But he was not entirely a determinist, be-cause he did not think that the course of hu-man events was fixed . . . . Complete certaintywas an illusion; of that he was certain. Therewere only greater and lesser degrees of cer-tainty, and that was enough. It was, in fact,better than enough; for although we alwayswant to reduce the degree of uncertainty inour lives, we never want it to disappear en-tirely, since uncertainty is what puts the playin the joints. Imprecision, the sportiveness,as it were, of the quantum, is what makes lifeinteresting and change possible. Holmes likedto call himself a “bettabilitarian”: we cannotknow what consequences the universe will at-tach to our choices, but we can bet on them,and we do it every day.

And that is it—that is QBism! To be a QBist is to usequantum theory to be a “better bettabilitarian” in thisworld in which we are all immersed and which we shapewith our every action.

Let us unroll this big idea.

II. EXACTLY HOW QUANTUM STATES FAILTO EXIST

An experimental physicist usually says that an “ex-perimentally determined” probability has an “er-ror,” and writes P (H) = NH/N ± 1/2

√N . There

is an implication in such an expression that thereis a “true” or “correct” probability which could becomputed if we knew enough, and that the observa-tion may be in “error” due to a fluctuation. Thereis, however, no way to make such thinking logicallyconsistent. It is probably better to realize that theprobability concept is in a sense subjective, that itis always based on uncertain knowledge, and thatits quantitative evaluation is subject to change aswe obtain more information.

— Richard P. FeynmanThe Feynman Lectures on Physics

Every area of human endeavor has its bold extremes.Ones that say, “If this is going to be done right, we mustgo this far. Nothing less will do.” In probability theory,the bold extreme is the personalist Bayesian account ofprobability [30]. It says that probability theory is of thecharacter of formal logic—a set of criteria for testing con-sistency. In the case of formal logic, the consistency isbetween truth values of propositions. However logic itselfdoes not have the power to set the truth values it manip-ulates. It can only say if various truth values are consis-tent or inconsistent; the actual values come from anothersource. Whenever logic reveals a set of truth values to beinconsistent, one must dip back into the source to find away to alleviate the discord. But precisely in which wayto alleviate it, logic gives no guidance. “Is the truth valuefor this one isolated proposition correct?” Logic itself ispowerless to say.

The key idea of personalist Bayesian probability the-ory is that it too is a calculus of consistency (or “coher-ence” as the practitioners call it), but this time for one’sdecision-making degrees of belief. Probability theory canonly say if various degrees of belief are consistent or in-consistent with each other. The actual beliefs come fromanother source, and there is nowhere to pin their respon-sibility but on the agent who holds them. Dennis Lindleyput it nicely in his book Understanding Uncertainty [31]:

The Bayesian, subjectivist, or coherent, para-digm is egocentric. It is a tale of one personcontemplating the world and not wishing tobe stupid (technically, incoherent). He real-izes that to do this his statements of uncer-tainty must be probabilistic.

A probability assignment is a tool an agent uses to makegambles and decisions—it is a tool she uses for navigat-ing life and responding to her environment. Probabilitytheory as a whole, on the other hand, is not about asingle isolated belief, but about a whole mesh of them.When a belief in the mesh is found to be incoherent withthe others, the theory flags the inconsistency. However,it gives no guidance for how to mend any incoherences

6

it finds. To alleviate the discord, one can only dip backinto the source of the assignments—specifically, the agentwho attempted to sum up all her history, experience, andexpectations with those assignments in the first place.This is the reason for the terminology that a probabilityis a “degree of belief” rather than a “degree of truth” or“degree of facticity.”

To give an example of how mere internal consistencycan yield the mathematical rules of probability is toquantify the consequences of acting upon beliefs in termsof costs and benefits. An agent, whom we can call Alice,does business with a bookie, whose goal is to profit byexposing inconsistencies in Alice’s mesh of beliefs. Al-ice’s goal is to avoid gambling in a way that forces herinto a sure loss. The bookie buys and sells lottery ticketsof the form

Worth $1 if the event E occurs. (1)

Based on her own expectations about the event E, Aliceassigns a number p(E), which is the price in dollars atwhich she is willing to buy or to sell a lottery ticket ofthis form. The normative rule that Alice should avoida sure loss implies bounds on p(E): If p(E) < 0, thenAlice would be willing to pay money to have the bookietake the ticket off her hands, whereas if p(E) > 1, shewould be willing to pay more for a ticket than it couldever be worth. Furthermore, consider two events E andF , which Alice believes to be mutually exclusive. Alicemust strive for consistency in her pricing for the followingthree tickets. First,

Worth $1 if E. (2)

Second,

Worth $1 if F . (3)

And finally,

Worth $1 if E or F . (4)

The value of the third ticket should be the sum totalvalue of the first two. If Alice sets her prices such thatp(E or F ) > p(E)+p(F ), then the bookie can have a setof transactions that lead her into a sure loss. In the jar-gon, Alice is vulnerable to a “Dutch book”: The bookiesells Alice the third ticket and buys the first two, leavingAlice in debt. Whichever event happens, Alice cannotrecoup the loss. Likewise, the bookie can lead Alice intoa sure loss if Alice chooses p(E or F ) < p(E) + p(F ). Inthis way, striving to satisfy the normative rule of avoid-ing sure loss, Alice builds up the theory of probabilities:Her personal probability for an event E is simply her fairprice for a gamble upon E.

Suppose now that Alice feels compelled to mak-ing assignments p(E), p(F ), and p(E or F ) such thatp(E or F ) 6= p(E) + p(F ). She detects that something isamiss. What to do to fix the problem? For this, proba-bility theory says nothing: It’s now up to Alice to make

an adjustment somewhere, somehow, or else she will bevulnerable to a sure loss.

Where personalist Bayesianism breaks away the mostfrom other developments of probability theory is that itsays there are no external criteria for declaring an iso-lated probability assignment right or wrong. The onlybasis for a judgment of adequacy comes from the inside,from the greater mesh of beliefs Alice may have the timeor energy to access when appraising coherence.

It was not an arbitrary choice of words to title thissection Exactly How Quantum States Fail To Exist, buta hint of what we must elaborate to develop a per-fected vaccine against the fever of quantum interpreta-tions. This is because the phrase has a precursor in aslogan that Bruno de Finetti, the founder of personalistBayesianism, used to vaccinate probability theory itself.In the preface to his seminal book [32], de Finetti writes,centered in the page and in all capital letters,

PROBABILITY DOES NOT EXIST.

It is a powerful statement, constructed to put a finger onthe single most-significant cause of the conceptual prob-lems in pre-Bayesian probability theory. A probabilityis not a solid object, like a rock or a tree that the agentmight bump into, but a feeling, an estimate inside herself.

Previous to Bayesianism, probability was oftenthought to be a physical property4—something objectiveand having nothing to do with decision-making or agentsat all. But when thought so, it could be thought onlyinconsistently so. And hell hath no fury like an inconsis-tency scorned. The trouble is always the same in all itsvaried and complicated forms: If probability is to be aphysical property, it had better be a rather ghostly one—one that can be told of in campfire stories, but never quiteprodded out of the shadows. Here’s a sample dialogue:

Pre-Bayesian: Ridiculous, probabilities are with-out doubt objective. They can be seen in therelative frequencies they cause.

Bayesian: So if p = 0.75 for some event, after 1000trials we’ll see exactly 750 such events?

Pre-Bayesian: You might, but most likely youwon’t see that exactly. You’re just likely tosee something close to it.

Bayesian: “Likely”? “Close”? How do you defineor quantify these things without making ref-erence to your degrees of belief for what willhappen?

Pre-Bayesian: Well, in any case, in the infinitelimit the correct frequency will definitely oc-cur.

4 Witness Richard von Mises, who even went so far as to write,“Probability calculus is part of theoretical physics in the sameway as classical mechanics or optics, it is an entirely self-contained theory of certain phenomena . . . ”[33].

7

Bayesian: How would I know? Are you sayingthat in one billion trials I could not possiblysee an “incorrect” frequency? In one trillion?

Pre-Bayesian: OK, you can in principle see anincorrect frequency, but it’d be ever less likely!

Bayesian: Tell me once again, what does “likely”mean?

This is a cartoon of course, but it captures the essenceand the futility of every such debate. It is better to admitat the outset that probability is a degree of belief, anddeal with the world on its own terms as it coughs up itsobjects and events. What do we gain for our theoreticalconceptions by saying that along with each actual eventthere is a ghostly spirit (its “objective probability,” its“propensity,” its “objective chance”) gently nudging itto happen just as it did? Objects and events are enoughby themselves.

Similarly for quantum mechanics. Here too, if ghostlyspirits are imagined behind the actual events produced inquantum measurements, one is left with conceptual trou-bles to no end. The defining feature of QBism [1–8, 10–13] is that it says along the lines of de Finetti, “If this isgoing to be done right, we must go this far.” Specifically,there can be no such thing as a right and true quantumstate, if such is thought of as defined by criteria exter-nal to the agent making the assignment: Quantum statesmust instead be like personalist, Bayesian probabilities.

The direct connection between the two foundationalissues is this. Quantum states, through the Born rule,can be used to calculate probabilities. Conversely, if oneassigns probabilities for the outcomes of a well-selectedset of measurements, then this is mathematically equiva-lent to making the quantum-state assignment itself. Thetwo kinds of assignments determine each other uniquely.Just think of a spin-12 system. If one has elicited one’sdegrees of belief for the outcomes of a σx measurement,and similarly one’s degrees of belief for the outcomes ofσy and σz measurements, then this is the same as speci-fying a quantum state itself: For if one knows the quan-tum state’s projections onto three independent axes, thenthat uniquely determines a Bloch vector, and hence aquantum state. Something similar is true of all quan-tum systems of all sizes and dimensionality. There is nomathematical fact embedded in a quantum state ρ thatis not embedded in an appropriately chosen set of prob-abilities.5 Thus generally, if probabilities are personal inthe Bayesian sense, then so too must be quantum states.

What this buys interpretatively, beside airtight consis-tency with the best understanding of probability theory,is that it gives each quantum state a home. Indeed, ahome localized in space and time—namely, the physicalsite of the agent who assigns it! By this method, one

5 See Section VII where this statement is made precise in all di-mensions.

expels once and for all the fear that quantum mechan-ics leads to “spooky action at a distance,” and expels aswell any hint of a problem with “Wigner’s friend” [34]. Itdoes this because it removes the very last trace of confu-sion over whether quantum states might still be objective,agent-independent, physical properties.

The innovation here is that, for most of the historyof efforts to take an informational point of view aboutquantum states, the supporters of the idea have tried tohave it both ways: that on the one hand quantum statesare not real physical properties, yet on the other thereis a right and true quantum state independent of theagent after all. For instance, one hears things like, “Theright quantum state is the one the agent should adoptif he had all the information.” The tension in these twodesires leaves their holders open to attack on both flanksand general confusion all around.

Take first instantaneous action at a distance—the hor-ror of this idea is often one of the strongest motivationsfor those seeking to take an informational stance on quan-tum states. But, now an opponent can say:

If there is a right quantum state, then whynot be done with all this squabbling and callthe state a physical fact to begin with? Itis surely external to the agent if the agentcan be wrong about it. But, once you admitthat (and you should admit it), you’re sunk:For, now what recourse do you have to declareno action at a distance when a delocalizedquantum state changes instantaneously?

Here I am with a physical system right infront of me, and though my probabilities forthe outcomes of measurements I can do onit might have been adequate a moment ago,there is an objectively better way to gamblenow because of something that happened farin the distance? (Far in the distance andjust now.) How could that not be the sig-nature of action at a distance? You can tryto defend yourself by saying “quantum me-chanics is all about relations”6 or some other

6 A typical example is of a woman traveling far from homewhen her husband divorces her. Instantaneously she becomesunmarried—marriage is a relational property, not something lo-calized at each partner. It seems to be popular to give thisexample and say, “Quantum mechanics might be like that.” Theconversation usually stops without elaboration, but let’s carry ita little further: Suppose the woman, Carol, is right in front of Al-ice. Alice has a set of probabilities for what might happen shouldshe buy Carol a celebratory bottle of tequila and congratulateCarol on losing the deadbeat. Would the far-off divorce meanthat there is instantaneously a different set of probabilities thatAlice could use for weighing the consequences of those actions?Not at all. Alice would have no account to change her probabili-ties (not due to the divorce, anyway) until Alice became aware ofCarol’s changed relation, however long it might take that newsto get to Alice.

8

feel-good phrase, but I’m talking about mea-surements right here, in front of me, with out-comes I can see right now. Ones entering myawareness—not outcomes in the mind of Godwho can see everything and all relations. Itis that which I am gambling upon with thehelp of the quantum formalism. An objec-tively better quantum state would mean thatmy gambles and actions, though they wouldhave been adequate a moment ago, are nowsimply wrong in the eyes of the world—theycould have been better. How could the quan-tum system in front of me generate outcomesinstantiating that declaration without beingprivy to what the eyes of the world alreadysee? That’s action at a distance, I say, orat least a holism that amounts to the samething—there’s nothing else it could be.

Without the protection of truly personal quantum-state assignments, action at a distance is there asdoggedly as it ever was. And things only get worse with“Wigner’s friend” if one insists there be a right quantumstate. As it turns out, the method of mending this co-nundrum displays one of the most crucial ingredients ofQBism. Let us put it in plain sight.

“Wigner’s friend” is the story of two agents, Wignerand his friend, and one quantum system—the only de-viation we make from a more common presentation7 isthat we put the story in informational terms. It starts offwith the friend and Wigner having a conversation: Sup-pose they both agree that some quantum state |ψ〉 cap-tures their mutual beliefs about the quantum system.8

Furthermore suppose they agree that at a specified timethe friend will make a measurement on the system ofsome observable (outcomes i = 1, . . . , d). Finally, theyboth note that if the friend gets outcome i, he will (andshould) update his beliefs about the system to some newquantum state |i〉. There the conversation ends and theaction begins: Wigner walks away and turns his back tohis friend and the supposed measurement. Time passesto some point beyond when the measurement should havetaken place.

What now is the “correct” quantum state each agentshould have assigned to the quantum system? We havealready concurred that the friend will and should assignsome |i〉. But what of Wigner? If he were to consistentlydip into his mesh of beliefs, he would very likely treat hisfriend as a quantum system like any other: one with someinitial quantum state ρ capturing his (Wigner’s) beliefsof it (the friend), along with a linear evolution operator9

7 For instance, see Ref. [35].8 Being Bayesians, of course, they don’t have to agree at this

stage—for recall |ψ〉 is not a physical fact for them, only a cata-logue of beliefs. But suppose they do agree.

9 We suppose for the sake of introducing less technicality that U is

FIG. 2: In contemplating a quantum measurement, onemakes a conceptual split in the world: one part is treatedas an agent, and the other as a kind of reagent or catalyst(one that brings about change in the agent itself). The latteris a quantum system of some finite dimension d. A quantummeasurement consists first in the agent taking an action onthe quantum system. The action is represented formally bya set of operators {Ei}—a positive-operator-valued measure.The action generally leads to an incompletely predictable con-sequence Ei for the agent. The quantum state |ψ〉 makes noappearance but in the agent’s head; for it captures his degreesof belief concerning the consequences of his actions, and, incontrast to the quantum system itself, has no existence in theexternal world. Measurement devices are depicted as pros-thetic hands to make it clear that they should be consid-ered an integral part of the agent. The sparks between themeasurement-device hand and the quantum system representthe idea that the consequence of each quantum measurementis a unique creation within the previously existing universe.Two points are decisive in distinguishing this picture of quan-tum measurement from a kind of solipsism: 1) The concep-tual split of agent and external quantum system: If it werenot needed, it would not have been made. 2) Once the agentchooses an action {Ei} to take, the particular consequenceEk of it is beyond his control—that is, the actual outcome isnot a product of his whim and fancy.

U to adjust those beliefs with the flow of time.10 Sup-pose this quantum state includes Wigner’s beliefs abouteverything he assesses to be interacting with his friend—in old parlance, suppose Wigner treats his friend as an

a unitary operation, rather than the more general completelypositive trace-preserving linear maps of quantum informationtheory [36]. This, however, is not essential to the argument.

10 For an explanation of the status of unitary operations from theQBist perspective, as personal judgments directly analogous toquantum states themselves, see Section VII and Refs. [1, 11, 37].

9

isolated system. From this perspective, before any fur-ther interaction between himself and the friend or theother system, the quantum state Wigner would assignfor the two together would be U

(ρ⊗ |ψ〉〈ψ|

)U† — most

generally an entangled quantum state. The state of thesystem itself for Wigner would be gotten from this largerstate by a partial trace operation; in any case, it will notbe an |i〉.

Does this make Wigner’s new state assignment incor-rect? After all, “if he had all the information” (i.e., allthe facts of the world) wouldn’t that include knowing thefriend’s measurement outcome? Since the friend shouldassign some |i〉, shouldn’t Wigner himself (if he had allthe information)? Or is it the friend who is incorrect?For if the friend had “all the information,” wouldn’t hesay that he is neglecting that Wigner could put the sys-tem and himself into the quantum computational equiv-alent of an iron lung and forcefully reverse the so-calledmeasurement? I.e., Wigner, if he were sufficiently sophis-ticated, should be able to force

U(ρ⊗ |ψ〉〈ψ|

)U† −→ ρ⊗ |ψ〉〈ψ| . (5)

And so the back and forth goes. Who has the right stateof information? The conundrums simply get too heavyif one tries to hold to an agent-independent notion ofcorrectness for otherwise personalistic quantum states.A QBist dispels these and similar difficulties by beingconscientiously forthright. Whose information? “Mine!”Information about what? “The consequences (for me) ofmy actions upon the physical system!” It’s all “I-I-me-memine,” as the Beatles sang.

The answer to the first question surely comes as nosurprise by now, but why on earth the answer for thesecond? Why something so egocentric, anthropocentric,psychology-laden, and positivistic (we’ve heard any num-ber of expletives) as the consequences (for me) of my ac-tions upon the system? Why not simply say somethingneutral like “the outcomes of measurements”? Or, whynot fall in line with Wolfgang Pauli and say [38]:

The objectivity of physics is . . . fully ensuredin quantum mechanics in the following sense.Although in principle, according to the the-ory, it is in general only the statistics of seriesof experiments that is determined by laws,the observer is unable, even in the unpre-dictable single case, to influence the result ofhis observation—as for example the responseof a counter at a particular instant of time.Further, personal qualities of the observer donot come into the theory in any way—the ob-servation can be made by objective registeringapparatus, the results of which are objectivelyavailable for anyone’s inspection. [Our em-phasis.]

To the uninitiated, our answer for Information aboutwhat? surely appears to be a cowardly, unnecessary re-treat from realism. But it is the opposite. The answer

we give is the very injunction that keeps the potentiallyconflicting statements of Wigner and his friend in check,at the same time as giving each agent a hook to theexternal world in spite of QBism’s egocentric quantumstates. Pauli’s statement certainly wouldn’t have donethat. Results objectively available for anyone’s inspec-tion? This is the whole issue with “Wigner’s friend” inthe first place. If both agents could just “look” at thecounter simultaneously with negligible effect in principle,we would not be having this discussion.

You see, for the QBist, the real world, the one bothagents are embedded in—with its objects and events—is taken for granted. What is not taken for grantedis each agent’s access to the parts of it he has nottouched. Wigner holds two thoughts in his head: 1)that his friend interacted with a quantum system, elicit-ing some consequence of the interaction for himself, and2) after the specified time, for any of Wigner’s own fur-ther interactions with his friend or system or both, heought to gamble upon their consequences according toU(ρ ⊗ |ψ〉〈ψ|

)U†. One statement refers to the friend’s

potential experiences, and one refers to Wigner’s own.So long as it is explicit that U

(ρ⊗|ψ〉〈ψ|

)U† refers to the

latter—i.e., how Wigner should gamble upon the thingsthat might happen to him—making no statement what-soever about the former, there is no conflict. The worldis filled with all the same things it was before quantumtheory came along, like each of our experiences, that rockand that tree, and all the other things under the sun; itis just that quantum theory provides a calculus for gam-bling on each agent’s own experiences—it doesn’t giveanything else than that. It certainly doesn’t give oneagent the ability to conceptually pierce the other agent’spersonal experience. It is true that with enough effortWigner could enact Eq. (5), causing him to predict thathis friend will have amnesia to any future questions on hisold measurement results. But we always knew Wignercould do that—a mallet to the head would have beengood enough.

The key point is that quantum theory, from this light,takes nothing away from the usual world of common ex-perience we already know. It only adds.11 At the veryleast it gives each agent an extra tool with which to nav-igate the world. More than that, the tool is here for areason. QBism says that when an agent reaches out andtouches a quantum system—when he performs a quantummeasurement—this process gives rise to birth in a nearlyliteral sense. With the action of the agent upon the sys-tem, the no-go theorems of Bell and Kochen–Specker as-sert that something new comes into the world that wasn’tthere previously: It is the “outcome,” the unpredictableconsequence for the very agent who took the action. JohnArchibald Wheeler said it this way, and we follow suit,“Each elementary quantum phenomenon is an elemen-

11 This point will be much elaborated on in Section IX.

10

tary act of ‘fact creation’.” [39]

With this much, QBism has a story to tell on bothquantum states and quantum measurements, but whatof quantum theory as a whole? The answer is found intaking it as a universal single-user theory in much thesame way that Bayesian probability theory itself is. It isa user’s manual that any agent can pick up and use tohelp make wiser decisions in this world of inherent uncer-tainty.12 To say it in a more poignant way: In my case, itis a world in which I am forced to be uncertain about theconsequences of most of my actions; and in your case, itis a world in which you are forced to be uncertain aboutthe consequences of most of your actions. “And what ofGod’s case? What is it for him?” Trying to give him aquantum state was what caused this trouble in the firstplace! In a quantum mechanics with the understandingthat each instance of its use is strictly single-user—“Mymeasurement outcomes happen right here, to me, and Iam talking about my uncertainty of them.”—there is noroom for most of the standard, year-after-year quantummysteries.

The only substantive conceptual issue left13 before syn-thesizing a final vaccine is whether quantum mechanicsis obligated to derive the notion of agent for whose aidthe theory was built in the first place. The answer comesfrom turning the tables: Thinking of probability theoryin the personalist Bayesian way, as an extension of for-mal logic, would one ever imagine that the notion of anagent, the user of the theory, could be derived out ofits conceptual apparatus? Clearly not. How could youpossibly get flesh and bones out of a calculus for makingwise decisions? The logician and the logic he uses aretwo different substances—they live in conceptual cate-gories worlds apart. One is in the stuff of the physicalworld, and one is somewhere nearer to Plato’s heaven ofideal forms. Look as one might in a probability textbookfor the ingredients to reconstruct the reader herself, onewill never find them. So too, the QBist says of quantum

12 Most of the time one sees Bayesian probabilities characterized(even by very prominent Bayesians like Edwin T. Jaynes [40])as measures of ignorance or imperfect knowledge. But that de-scription carries with it a metaphysical commitment that is notat all necessary for the personalist Bayesian, where probabilitytheory is an extension of logic. Imperfect knowledge? It soundslike something that, at least in imagination, could be perfected,making all probabilities zero or one—one uses probabilities onlybecause one does not know the true, pre-existing state of affairs.Language like this, the reader will notice, is never used in thispaper. All that matters for a personalist Bayesian is that thereis uncertainty for whatever reason. There might be uncertaintybecause there is ignorance of a true state of affairs, but theremight be uncertainty because the world itself does not yet knowwhat it will give—i.e., there is an objective indeterminism. Aswill be argued in later sections, QBism finds its happiest spotin an unflinching combination of “subjective probability” with“objective indeterminism.”

13 Not to worry, there are still plenty of technical ones, as well asplenty more conceptual ones waiting for after the vaccination.

theory.What counts as a “user” of quantum theory? Must the

user be conscious? We find that an inopportune way ofphrasing things, for it takes the issue too far afield. In-stead, we prefer to say it is whatever it takes to be a userof probability theory. Dogs don’t collapse wave functionsbecause dogs don’t use wave functions. Upon readingthis argument, one correspondent immediately protested:“But ants already use probabilities, it has been shown.For the paths they take, one can model the trajectorieswith an appropriate choice of probabilities and utilities.”

To which the QBist involved replied, “No, that’s notwhat I mean. And that is no proof whatsoever that antsuse probability theory in the sense I mean it. To useprobability theory, I mean one must use it internally, andin a normative sense.” Probability assignments springfrom an attempt to organize one’s previous experiencefor the purpose of future actions. Ants are surely notusing it normatively. Modeling agents from the outside(at least in the discussions we’ve seen so far) never takesinto account the normative struggle that is required forany but the most trivial probability assignments.

With this we finally pin down the precise way in whichquantum theory is “different in character from any physi-cal theory posed before.” For the QBist, quantum theoryis not something outside probability theory—it is not apicture of the world as it is, as say Einstein’s programof a unified field theory hoped to be—but rather it isan addition to probability theory itself. As probabilitytheory is a normative theory, not saying what one mustbelieve, but offering rules of consistency an agent shouldstrive to satisfy within his overall mesh of beliefs, so itis the case with quantum theory. If quantum theory isa user’s manual, one cannot forget that the world is itsauthor. And from its writing style, one may still be ableto tell something of the author herself. The question ishow to tease out the psychology of the style, frame it,and identify the underlying motif.

To take this idea into one’s mindset is all the vaccina-tion one needs against the threat that quantum theorycarries something viral for theoretical physics as a whole.A healthy body is made healthier still. With this protec-tion, we are for the first time in a position to ask, witheyes wide open to what the answer could not be, justwhat after all is the world made of? Far from being thelast word on quantum theory, QBism, we believe, is thestart of a great adventure. An adventure full of mysteryand danger, with hopes of triumph . . . and all the marksof life.

III. TELEPORTATION

“Teleportation” in the quantum information sense isn’tso very much like the Star Trek version as the press al-ways wants to portray it. It’s not about getting thingsfrom here to there without going in between, but aboutmaking your information stop being about this and start

11

FIG. 3: The Born rule is not like the other classic laws of physics. Its normative nature means, if anything, it is more likethe Biblical Ten Commandments. The classic laws on the left give no choice in their statement: If a field is going to be anelectromagnetic field at all, it must satisfy Maxwell’s equations; it has no choice. Similarly for the other classic laws. Theirstatements are intended to be statements concerning nature just exactly as it is. But think of the Ten Commandments. “Thoushalt not steal.” People steal all the time. The role of the Commandment is to say, “You have the power to steal if you thinkyou can get away with it, but it’s probably not in your best interest to do so. Something bad is likely to happen as a result.”Similarly for “Thou shalt not kill,” and all the rest. It is the worshipper’s choice to obey each or not, but if he does not, heought to count on something potentially bad in return. “And I commend enjoyment,” urges Ecclesiastes, “for man has nothingbetter under the sun than to eat, to drink and to be merry.” This is a guideline for behavior—but one conditioned on, andjustified in terms of, the character of the natural world. The Born rule guides, “Gamble in such a way that all your probabilitiesmesh together through me.” The agent is free to ignore the advice, but if he does so, he does so at his own peril. Yet, as withthe advice of Ecclesiastes, the specifics of the rule can tell us about the character of the world we inhabit.

being about that without being about anything else inbetween. In slightly stuffier language: Quantum telepor-tation is the transference of an agent’s predictions aboutone object onto another object that has never interactedwith the first.

In the usual way the teleportation drama is staged,the cast of characters includes an Alice and a Bob whoshare two systems in a maximally entangled state, andimplicitly, a Charlie who prepares a third system in thestate of his choice and then hands it off to Alice. Alicethen performs a measurement on the two systems in herpossession and announces the result of the measurementto Bob. The teleportation process is completed with Bobperforming an operation on his system conditioned uponhis newly acquired information.

In what sense is it completed? Only in this: If Charliehas the promise that Alice and Bob went through allthe actions described above, then he can safely ascribethe same quantum state to Bob’s system that he hadoriginally ascribed to the system he handed off to Alice.

The way in which the story is typically told leads oneto ask, “How is so much information transmitted?” and“Just how does the information get from Alice to Bob?”The honest answer is that no information is transmittedin the process of teleportation (excepting the two bits

that tell Bob which action to perform). The only nontriv-ial thing transferred in the process of teleportation is ref-erence. Charlie’s information—that is, his compendiumof Bayesian degrees of belief—stops being about the qubithe just handed off to Alice and starts being about Bob’s.

Here’s a corresponding classical example. In place ofentanglement, let us equip Alice and Bob each with a coin(oriented heads or tails) encased in a magical opaque box.These magical opaque boxes have the following proper-ties: 1) though one cannot see how a coin is orientedwithin it, one can nevertheless reach inside a box andturn the coin over if one wishes, and 2) if one touches twoof these boxes together, they will glow green if the coinswithin them have the same orientations, and they willglow red if they have opposite orientations—the glow-ing reveals nothing about the actual orientation of eithercoin, only about their relationship. Finally let us stipu-late the following for Alice and Bob: That their opaqueboxes contain identically oriented coins, but Alice andBob (or anyone else for that matter) know nothing moreabout the coins beyond that. In other words, Alice andBob possess HH or TT, but they do not know which.

Now, as in quantum teleportation let us introduce athird character, Charlie. Charlie has an opaque box ofhis own. But let us give him some partial certainty about

12

the orientation of his coin. Particularly, let us suppose heascribes a probability p for his coin to be heads. This isa real number between 0 and 1, and in principle it mighttake an arbitrarily huge number of bits to specify.

Here’s the protocol. Charlie hands off his coin (encasedin a magical opaque box) to Alice. Alice touches hernewly acquired box to her old box. The two glow redor green, and she communicates the result to Bob. Ifthe result was green, Bob leaves his coin alone. If theresult was red, he reaches into his opaque box and turnsthe coin over. Meanwhile, Alice randomizes the coinsin her possession, i.e., she shuffles them so that Charlieno longer knows which is which. Thus from Charlie’sperspective, he now knows nothing about the coin in theoriginal box he gave Alice, and he would write down a 50–50 distribution for heads versus tails. Charlie’s originalstate for his original coin is, in this way, “destroyed”. Atthat point the “teleportation” process is completed.

Again we can ask, “In what sense is it completed?”Only in this: If Charlie has the promise that Alice andBob went through all the actions described above, thenhe can safely ascribe the same probability p to the coinin Bob’s box (i.e., p that it will be heads) that he hadoriginally ascribed to the coin in his own box. In otherwords, Charlie has everything it takes to update his epis-temic state about the orientation of the coin in Bob’s boxto what he had originally thought of the coin in his ownbox.

Is this wildly exciting? The stuff that would makeheadlines in papers all around the world and be called“teleportation”? At the material cost of transferring asingle bit from Alice to Bob, has Charlie instantaneouslytransferred an arbitrarily stupendously big number ofbits (in the form of the real number p) between the twosites? Not at all! The only thing that was materiallytransported from one site to the other was a single bit(that the boxes glowed red or green). The rest was just“conditionalizing” or “updating”. And there is no shock-ing headline in that.

IV. THE MEANING OF NO-CLONING

It is often underappreciated that taking a stand on theinterpretation of quantum states carries with it a fairlydistinctive force on one’s research. For, the stand onetakes implicitly directs the analogies (and disanalogies)one will seek for comparing classical physics to quantumphysics. At least this is the case for an information the-oretic conception of quantum states.

In 1995, one of the authors (CAF) was quite taken witha point that both Asher Peres and Michael Berry em-phasized in their discussions of quantum chaos and morebroadly [41]. In making a comparison between quan-tum mechanics and classical Hamiltonian mechanics, theproper correspondence is not between quantum statesand points in phase space, but between quantum statesand Liouville distributions on the phase space. The key

insight is that the points of phase space are meant to rep-resent states of reality, whereas the Liouville distributionsare rather explicitly meant to represent one’s uncertaintyabout the true state of reality. In an information theo-retic conception of quantum states, a quantum state tooshould not be a state of reality, but uncertainty aboutsomething (maybe not uncertainty of the true state ofreality, but nonetheless uncertainty about something).

If the analogy worked once, then it should be testedfurther afield! Furthermore, maybe one could even takethe insight the other way around, from quantum to clas-sical. This prompted the thought that despite all thehoopla over the no-cloning theorem, there was noth-ing particularly quantum mechanical about it. Classi-cal Liouville evolution preserves phase space volume—this any graduate student versed in Goldstein’s classical-mechanics book [42] knows—but a less emphasized con-sequence of it is that Hamiltonian evolution must pre-serve the overlap between Liouville distributions as well(as Peres and Berry had been stressing in their quantumchaos work). But then the same argument that drives theproof of the no-cloning theorem for quantum states wouldalso drive it for classical Liouville distributions—for theno-cloning theorem is a nearly immediate consequence ofthe fact that unitary evolutions preserve Hilbert-spaceinner products. So, nonorthogonal quantum states can-not be cloned, but neither can nonorthogonal classicalLiouville distributions [43].

A historical aside: The issue of no-cloning boils downto an almost immediate consequence of unitarity—innerproducts cannot decrease. In fact, Wigner’s theoremon symmetries [44] even shows that the group of time-continuous, inner-product preserving maps on Hilbertspace is strictly equivalent to the unitary group. There-fore, it is an intriguing historical fact that Wigner him-self just missed the no-cloning theorem! In a 1961 paper,Wigner took on the question, “How probable is life?” [45].He did this by identifying the issue of self-reproductionwith the existence of the types of maps required for thecloning of quantum states. He didn’t tackle the questionof cloning for a completely unknown quantum state headon, but instead analysed the “fraction” of unitary oper-ators on a tensor-product Hilbert space that can lead toa cloning transformation for at least some states. Nev-ertheless, he states quite clearly that an arbitrary linearsuperposition of clonable states ought also to be clonable.But this, of course, cannot be.

The fact that both teleportation and no-cloning arisein classical statistical theories has implications for theproject of reconstructing quantum theory. In our searchfor deep principles, should we try to rederive quantumphysics from the postulate that “quantum informationcan be teleported,” or that “quantum information can-not be cloned”? These phenomena being not at all funda-mentally quantum makes them feel like poor candidatesfor the seed from which quantum theory grows. It wouldbe far better to seek that essential DNA in the answer tothe question, Information about what?

13

V. THE ESSENCE OF BELL’S THEOREM,QBISM STYLE

It is easy enough to say that a quantum system (andhence each piece of the world) is a “seat of possibility.” Ina spotty way, certain philosophers have been saying sim-ilar things for 150 years. What is unique about quantumtheory in the history of thought is the way in which itsmathematical structure has pushed this upon us to ourvery surprise. It wasn’t that all these grand statementson the philosophical structure of the world were builtinto the formalism, but that the formalism reached outand shook its users until they opened their eyes. Bell’stheorem and all its descendants are examples of that.

So when the users opened their eyes, what did they see?From the look of several recent prominent expositions[46–48], the lesson was indisputably what Tim Maudlinput so forcefully in [49],

What Bell proved, and what theoreticalphysics has not yet properly absorbed, is thatthe physical world itself is nonlocal.

The world really is full of spooky action at a distance—live with it and love it! But conclusions drawn from eventhe most rigorous of theorems can only be additions toone’s prior understanding and beliefs when the theoremsdo not contradict those beliefs flat out. Such was the casewith Bell’s theorem. It has just enough room in it to notcontradict a misshapen notion of probability, and thatis the hook and crook that the sci-fi fans have thrivedon. A QBist, however, with a different understandingof probability and a commitment to the idea that quan-tum measurement outcomes are personal, draws quite adifferent conclusion from the theorem. In fact it is a con-clusion from the far opposite end of the spectrum: Ittells of a world unknown to most monist and rationalistphilosophies: The universe, far from being one big nonlo-cal block, should be thought of as a thriving communityof connubial, but otherwise autonomous entities. Thatthe world should violate Bell’s theorem remains, even forQBism, the deepest statement ever drawn from quantumtheory. It says that quantum measurements are momentsof creation.

This language has already been integral to our presen-tation, but seeing it come about in a formalism-drivenway like Bell’s makes the issue particularly vivid. Herewe devote some effort to showing that the language ofcreation is a consequence of three things: 1) the quan-tum formalism, 2) a personalist Bayesian interpretationof probability, and 3) the elementary notion of what itmeans to be two objects rather than one. We do not doit however with Bell’s theorem precisely, but with an ar-gument that more directly implicates the EPR “criterionof reality” as the source of trouble with quantum theory.The thrust of it is that it is the EPR criterion that shouldbe jettisoned, not locality.

Our starting point is like our previous setup—an agentand a system—but this time we make it two systems:

One of them, the left-hand one, is ready. The other,the right-hand one, is waiting. The agent will eventuallymeasure each in turn.14 Simple enough to say, but thingsget hung at the start with the issue of what is meant by“two systems?” A passage from a 1948 paper of Einstein[50] captures the essential issue well:

If one asks what is characteristic of therealm of physical ideas independently of thequantum-theory, then above all the follow-ing attracts our attention: the concepts ofphysics refer to a real external world, i.e.,ideas are posited of things that claim a “realexistence” independent of the perceiving sub-ject (bodies, fields, etc.), and these ideas are,on the one hand, brought into as secure a re-lationship as possible with sense impressions.Moreover, it is characteristic of these physi-cal things that they are conceived of as beingarranged in a space-time continuum. Fur-ther, it appears to be essential for this ar-rangement of the things introduced in physicsthat, at a specific time, these things claim anexistence independent of one another, inso-far as these things “lie in different parts ofspace.” Without such an assumption of themutually independent existence (the “being-thus”) of spatially distant things, an assump-tion which originates in everyday thought,physical thought in the sense familiar to uswould not be possible. Nor does one see howphysical laws could be formulated and testedwithout such a clean separation. . . .

For the relative independence of spatially dis-tant things (A and B), this idea is charac-teristic: an external influence on A has noimmediate effect on B; this is known as the“principle of local action,” . . . . The completesuspension of this basic principle would makeimpossible the idea of (quasi-) closed systemsand, thereby, the establishment of empiricallytestable laws in the sense familiar to us.

We hope it is clear to the reader by now that QBismconcurs with every bit of this. Quantum states may notbe the stuff of the world, but QBists never shudder frompositing quantum systems as “real existences” externalto the agent. And just as the agent has learned fromlong, hard experience that he cannot reach out and touchanything but his immediate surroundings, so he imaginesof every quantum system, one to the other. What is itthat A and B are spatially distant things but that theyare causally independent?

14 It should be noted how we depart from the usual presentationhere: There is only the single agent and his two systems. Thereis no Alice and Bob accompanying the two systems.

14

This notion, in Einstein’s hands,15 led to one of thenicest, most direct arguments that quantum states can-not be states of reality, but must be something more likestates of information, knowledge, expectation, or belief[52]. The argument is important—let us repeat the wholething from Einstein’s most thorough version of it [53]. Itmore than anything sets the stage for a QBist develop-ment of a Bell-style contradiction.

Physics is an attempt conceptually to graspreality as it is thought independently of itsbeing observed. In this sense on speaks of“physical reality.” In pre-quantum physicsthere was no doubt as to how this was tobe understood. In Newton’s theory realitywas determined by a material point in spaceand time; in Maxwell’s theory, by the fieldin space and time. In quantum mechanicsit is not so easily seen. If one asks: doesa ψ-function of the quantum theory repre-sent a real factual situation in the same sensein which this is the case of a material sys-tem of points or of an electromagnetic field,one hesitates to reply with a simple “yes” or“no”; why? What the ψ-function (at a defi-nite) time asserts, is this: What is the prob-ability for finding a definite physical magni-tude q (or p) in a definitely given interval,if I measure it at time t? The probabilityis here to be viewed as an empirically deter-minable, therefore certainly as a “real” quan-tity which I may determine if I create thesame ψ-function very often and perform a q-measurement each time. But what about thesingle measured value of q? Did the respec-tive individual system have this q-value evenbefore this measurement? To this questionthere is no definite answer within the frame-work of the theory, since the measurement isa process which implies a finite disturbance ofthe system from the outside; it would there-fore be thinkable that the system obtains adefinite numerical value for q (or p) the mea-sured numerical value, only through the mea-surement itself. For the further discussion Ishall assume two physicists A and B, whorepresent a different conception with refer-ence to the real situation as described by theψ-function.

A. The individual system (before the measure-ment) has a definite value of q (or p) for all

15 Beware! This is not to say in the hands of EPR—Einstein, Podol-sky, and Rosen. The present argument is not their argument. Fora discussion of Einstein’s dissatisfaction with the one appearingin the EPR paper itself, see [51].

variables of the system, and more specifically,that value which is determined by a measure-ment of this variable. Proceeding from thisconception, he will state: The ψ-function isno exhaustive description of the real situationof the system but an incomplete description;it expresses only what we know on the basis offormer measurements concerning the system.

B. The individual system (before the measure-ment) has no definite value of q (or p). Thevalue of the measurement only arises in co-operation with the unique probability whichis given to it in view of the ψ-function onlythrough the act of measurement itself. Pro-ceeding from this conception, he will (or, atleast, he may) state: The ψ-function is an ex-haustive description of the real situation of thesystem.

We now present to these two physicists thefollowing instance: There is to be a systemwhich at the time t of our observation con-sists of two partial systems S1 and S2, whichat this time are spatially separated and (inthe sense of classical physics) are without sig-nificant reciprocity. The total system is tobe completely described through a known ψ-function ψ12 in the sense of quantum me-chanics. All quantum theoreticians now agreeupon the following: If I make a complete mea-surement of S1, I get from the results of themeasurement and from ψ12 an entirely def-inite ψ-function ψ2 of the system S2. Thecharacter of ψ2 then depends upon what kindof measurement I undertake on S1.

Now it appears to me that one may speak ofthe real factual situation of the partial systemS2. Of this real factual situation, we knowto begin with, before the measurement of S1,even less than we know of a system describedby the ψ-function. But on one supposition weshould, in my opinion, absolutely hold fast:The real factual situation of the system S2

is independent of what is done with the sys-tem S1, which is spatially separated from theformer. According to the type of measure-ment which I make of S1, I get, however, avery different ψ2 for the second partial sys-tem. Now, however, the real situation of S2

must be independent of what happens to S1.For the same real situation of S2 it is possibletherefore to find, according to one’s choice,different types of ψ-function. . . .

If now the physicists, A and B, accept thisconsideration as valid, then B will have togive up his position that the ψ-function con-stitutes a complete description of a real fac-tual situation. For in this case it would

15

be impossible that two different types of ψ-functions could be coordinated with the iden-tical factual situation of S2.

Aside from asserting a frequentistic conception of prob-ability, the argument is nearly perfect. It tells us oneimportant reason why we should not be thinking of quan-tum states as the ψ-ontologists do. Particularly, it is onewe should continue to bear in mind as we move to a Bell-type setting: Even there, there is no reason to waiveron its validity. It may be true that Einstein implicitlyequated “incomplete description” with “there must exista hidden-variable account” (though we do not think hedid), but the argument as stated neither stands nor fallson this issue.

There is, however, one thing that Einstein does missin his argument, and this is where the structure of Bell’sthinking steps in. Einstein says, “to this question there isno definite answer within the framework of the theory”when speaking of whether quantum measurements are“generative” or simply “revealing” of their outcomes. Ifwe accept everything he said above, then with a littleclever combinatorics and geometry one can indeed settlethe question.

Let us suppose that the two spatially separated sys-tems in front of the agent are two ququarts (i.e., each sys-tem is associated with a four-dimensional Hilbert spaceH4), and that the agent ascribes a maximally entangledstate to the pair, i.e., a state |ψ〉 in H4⊗H4 of the form,

|ψ〉 =1

2

4∑i=1

|i〉|i〉 . (6)

Then we know that there exist pairs of measurements,one for each of the separate systems, such that if the out-come of one is known (whatever the outcome), one willthereafter make a probability-one statement concerningthe outcome of the other. For instance, if a nondegener-ate Hermitian operator H is measured on the left-handsystem, then one will thereafter ascribe a probability-oneassignment for the appropriate outcome of the transposedoperator HT on the right-hand system. What this meansfor a Bayesian agent is that after performing the firstmeasurement he will bet his life on the outcome of thesecond.

But how could that be if he has already recognized twosystems with no instantaneous causal influence betweeneach other? Mustn’t it be that the outcome on the right-hand side is “already there” simply awaiting confirmationor registration? It would seem Einstein’s physicist B isalready living in a state of contradiction.

Indeed it must be this kind of thinking that led Ein-stein’s collaborators Podolsky and Rosen to their famoussufficient criterion for an “element of [preexistent] real-ity” [51]:

If, without in any way disturbing a system,we can predict with certainty (i.e., with prob-ability equal to unity) the value of a physical

quantity, then there exists an element of re-ality corresponding to that quantity.

Without doubt, no personalist Bayesian would ever ut-ter such a notion: Just because he believes somethingwith all his heart and soul and would gamble his life onit, it would not make it necessarily so by the powers ofnature—even a probability-one assignment is a state ofbelief for the personalist Bayesian. But he might stillentertain something not unrelated to the EPR criterionof reality. Namely, that believing a particular outcomewill be found with certainty on a causally disconnectedsystem entails that one also believes the outcome to be“already there” simply awaiting confirmation.

But it is not so, and the QBist has already builtthis into her story of measurement. Let us show thispresently16 by combining all the above with a beautifullysimple Kochen–Specker style construction discovered byCabello, Estebaranz, and Garcıa-Alcaine (CEGA) [57].Imagine some measurement H on the left-hand system;we will denote its potential outcomes as a column of let-ters, like this:

abcd

(7)

Further, since there is a fixed transformation taking anyH on the left-hand system to a corresponding HT on theright-hand one, there is no harm in identifying the no-tation for the outcomes of both measurements. That isto say, if the agent gets outcome b (to the exclusion ofa, c, and d) for H on the left-hand side, he will make aprobability-one prediction for b on the right-hand side,even though that measurement strictly speaking is a dif-ferent one, namely HT. If the agent further subscribes to(our Bayesian variant of) the EPR criterion of reality, hewill say that he believes b to be TRUE of the right-handsystem as an element of reality.

Now let us consider two possible measurements, H1

and H2 for the left-hand side, with potential outcomes

abcd

and

efgh

(8)

respectively. Both measurements cannot be performedat once, but it might be the case that if the agent getsa specific outcome for H1, say c particularly, then notonly will he make a probability-one assignment for c ina measurement of HT

1 on the right-hand side, but alsofor e in a measurement of HT

2 on it. Similarly, if H2

16 Overall this particular technique has its roots in Stairs [54],and seems to bear some resemblance to the gist of Conway andKochen’s “Free Will Theorem” [55, 56].

16

were measured on the left, getting an outcome e; then hewill make a probability-one prediction for c in a measure-ment of HT

1 on the right. This would come about if H1

and H2 (and consequently HT1 and HT

2 ) share a commoneigenvector. Supposing so and that c was actually theoutcome for H1 on the left, what conclusion would theEPR criterion of reality draw? It is that both c and e areelements of reality on the right, and none of a, b, d, f ,g, or h are. Particularly, since the right-hand side couldnot have known whether H1 or H2 was measured on theleft, whatever c and e stands for, it must be the samething, the same property. In such a case, we discard theextraneous distinction between c and e in our notationand write

abcd

and

cfgh

(9)

for the two potential outcome sets for a measurement onthe right.

We now have all the notational apparatus we need tohave some fun. The genius of CEGA was that they wereable to find a set of nine “interlocking” Hermitian oper-ators H1, H2, . . . , H9 for the left, whose set of potentialoutcomes for the corresponding operators on the rightwould look like this:

abcd

aefg

hicj

hkgl

bemn

ikno

pqdj

prfl

qrmo

(10)

Take the second column as an example. It means that ifH2 were measured on the left-hand system, only one of a,e, f , or g would occur—the agent cannot predict which—but if a occurred, he would be absolutely certain of it alsooccurring in a measurement of HT

1 on the right. And ife were to occur on the left, then he would be certain ofgetting e as well in a measurement of HT

5 on the right.And similarly with f and g, with their implications forHT

8 and HT4 .

The wonderful thing to note about (10) is that everyletter a, b, c, . . . , r occurs exactly twice in the collection.But the EPR criterion of reality (or our Bayesian variantof it) would require exactly one letter to have the truthvalue TRUE in each column, with the other three havingthe value FALSE. In total, nine values of TRUE: A cleancontradiction! For if every letter occurs exactly twicein the collection, whatever the total number of TRUEvalues is, it must be an even number.

To emphasize the point, let us sketch a similar argu-ment for the case where the two halves are both qutrits,quantum systems of dimension 3. Again, the argumentis a little variation of the EPR thought experiment. Thistime, we begin by ascribing to our bipartite system themaximally entangled state

|ψ〉 =1

2

3∑i=1

|i〉|i〉 . (11)

The experimentalist—let us call her Alice—considersmaking a measurement on the left-hand particle in somebasis. If Alice obtains outcome number 2 on the leftside, then she can predict that if she were to make aparticular measurement on the right side, she would getoutcome number 2. (The bases for the left-hand andright-hand measurements are related by a transpose op-eration.) So, under the assumption of Einsteinian localityand the EPR criterion, Alice would say, “Aha! It must bethe case that there is an element of reality on the rightside corresponding to outcome number 2 of that mea-surement. It’s something inherent in that body.” But wecan play this game with any basis: If Alice were to getoutcome i for a measurement on one particle, she wouldpredict with certainty that she would get outcome i forthat measurement, transposed, on the other particle.

We’re talking about noncommuting variables here; bythe EPR criterion and locality, Alice would conclude itmust be the case that there were elements of reality as-sociated with those noncommuting observables. But it isno fun to consider only one basis, or only two. Instead,we proceed to analyze a whole set of them, correspond-ing to one of the qutrit Kochen–Specker constructions,for instance the one that Asher Peres found [41]. In or-der to present this construction in a concise way, let ususe an abbreviated notation in which a “2” stands for

√2

and an overline means a minus sign. Thus, “112” standsfor the ray (1,−1,

√2)T. We tabulate the following ten

sets of three orthogonal rays apiece:

001 100 010101 101 010011 010 100112 112 110102 201 010211 011 211201 010 102112 110 112012 100 021121 101 121

(12)

The EPR criterion tells us that for each basis, thereexists an “element of physical reality” that determineswhat the outcome of a measurement in that basis will be.This applies to each row above: According to the EPRcriterion, in any set of three orthogonal rays, one must bemarked TRUE and the other two marked FALSE. But ifwe start labeling our rays, marking each one orthogonalto a TRUE ray with FALSE, eventually we hit a pointwhere we can’t do it consistently. We end up marking aset of three orthogonal rays all FALSE, which is againstthe rules.

For each of these bases, Alice would have said, “Bymaking a measurement here, I draw an inference aboutthe element of reality over there.” She can do it for one,she can do it for another, and another . . . but she can’tdo it for all of them without running into trouble!

Something must give. The quick reaction of most ofthe quantum foundations community has been to ques-

17

FIG. 4: Each ray in Asher Peres’s qutrit Kochen–Speckerconstruction can be written as a ray in R3 and illustrated bywhere those rays intersect a cube.

tion the causal independence of the two systems underconsideration. But if one gives up on the autonomy ofone system from the other—after very explicitly assum-ing it—this surely amounts to saying that there werenever two systems there after all; the very idea of sepa-rate systems is a broken concept. This first raises a minorconundrum: Why then would the quantum formalism en-gender us to formulate our description from beginning toend in terms of H3 ⊗H3, rather than simply a raw nine-dimensional spaceH9? Why is that separating symbol ⊗,apparently marking some kind of conceptual distinction,always hanging around?

Reaching much deeper however, if one is willing tothrow away one’s belief in systems’ autonomy from eachother, why would one ever believe in one’s own auton-omy? All stringent reason for it gets lost, and indeed asEinstein warns, what now is the meaning of science? AsHans Primas once emphasized [58],

It is a tacit assumption of all engineering sci-ences that nature can be manipulated andthat the initial conditions required by experi-ments can be brought about by interventionsof the world external to the object under in-vestigation. That is, we assume that the ex-perimenter has a certain freedom of actionwhich is not accounted for by first principlesof physics. Without this freedom of choice,experiments would be impossible. Man’s freewill implies the ability to carry out actions,it constitutes his essence as an actor. We actunder the idea of freedom, but the topic un-der discussion is neither man’s sense of per-sonal freedom as a subjective experience, nor

the question whether this idea could be anillusion or not, nor any questions of moralphilosophy, but that the framework of experi-mental science requires the freedom of actionas a constitutive though tacit presupposition.

If the left-hand system can manipulate the right-handsystem, even when by assumption it cannot, then whois to say that the right-hand system cannot manipulatethe agent herself? To put it still differently: If one isnever allowed to assume causal independence betweenseparated systems because of a contradiction in the term,then one can never assume it of oneself either, even withrespect to the components of the world that one thinksone is manipulating. It would be a wackier world thaneven the one QBism entertains.

But QBism’s world is not such a bad world, and someof us find its openness to possibility immensely exciting.What gives way in this world is not the idea of reality,but simply the narrow-minded EPR criterion for it. Wejettison both the idea that a probability-one assignmentimplies there is a pre-existent outcome (property) “overthere” waiting to be revealed and, barring that, that itmust have been “over here” pre-existent, waiting to betransferred and then revealed. The solution lies closer toone of John Wheeler’s quips, “No question? No answer.”A probability-one assignment lays no necessary claim onwhat the world is, but what the agent using it believeswith all her heart and soul. In the case of our presentexample, what the agent believes is that if an outcome bcame about as a result of her action H on the left-handsystem, an outcome b would come about if she were toperform the action HT on the right-hand system. But ifshe does not walk over to the right-hand system and takethe action, there is no good sense in which the outcome(or property) b is already there. Measurement is not apassive process, but instead a fundamentally participa-tory one.

At the instigation of a quantum measurement, some-thing new comes into the world that was not there before;and that is about as clear an instance of creation as onecan imagine. Sometimes one will have no strong beliefsfor what will result from the creation (as with the mea-surement of H), and sometimes one will have very strongbeliefs (as with the subsequent measurement of HT ), buta free creation of nature it remains.

18

VI. THE QUANTUM DE FINETTI THEOREM

You know how men have always hankered after unlaw-ful magic, and you know what a great part in magicwords have always played. If you have his name, . . .you can control the spirit, genie, afrite, or whateverthe power may be. Solomon knew the names of all thespirits, and having their names, he held them subjectto his will. So the universe has always appeared to thenatural mind as a kind of enigma, of which the keymust be sought in the shape of some illuminating orpower-bringing word or name. That word names theuniverse’s principle, and to possess it is after a fashionto possess the universe itself.

But if you follow the pragmatic method, you cannotlook on any such word as closing your quest. You mustbring out of each word its practical cash-value, set itat work within the stream of your experience. It ap-pears less as a solution, then, than as a program formore work, and more particularly as an indication ofthe ways in which existing realities may be changed.

Theories thus become instruments, not answers toenigmas, in which we can rest. We don’t lie back uponthem, we move forward, and, on occasion, make natureover again by their aid.

— William James

Since the beginning, those who brought Bayesian prob-ability into quantum physics have been on the run prov-ing technical theorems whenever required to close a gapin their logic or negate an awkwardness induced by theirnew way of speaking. It was never enough to “lie backupon” the pronouncements: They had to be shown tohave substance, something that would drive physics it-self forward. A case in point is the quantum de Finettitheorem [12, 59].

The term “unknown state” is ubiquitous in quantuminformation: Unknown quantum states are teleported,protected with quantum error correcting codes, used tocheck for quantum eavesdropping, and arise in innumer-able other applications. For a QBist, though, the phrasecan only be an oxymoron: If quantum states are com-pendia of beliefs, and not states of nature, then the stateis known to someone, at the very least the agent whoholds it. But if so, then what are experimentalists do-ing when they say they are performing quantum-statetomography in the laboratory? The very goal of the pro-cedure is to characterize the unknown quantum state apiece of laboratory equipment is repetitively preparing.There is certainly no little agent sitting on the inside ofthe device devilishly sending out quantum systems rep-resentative of his beliefs, and smiling as the experimenteron the outside slowly homes in on those private thoughtsthrough his experiments.

The quantum de Finetti theorem is a result that allowsthe story of quantum-state tomography to be told purelyin terms of a single agent—namely, the experimentalistin the laboratory. In a nutshell, the theorem is this.Suppose the experimentalist walks into the laboratorywith the very minimal belief that, of the systems herdevice is spitting out (no matter how many), she could

interchange any two of them and it would not change thestatistics she expects for any measurements she mightperform. Then the theorem says that “coherence withthis belief alone” requires her to make a quantum-stateassignment ρ(n) (for any n of those systems) that can berepresented in the form:

ρ(n) =

∫P (ρ) ρ⊗n dρ , (13)

where P (ρ) dρ is some probability measure on the spaceof single-system density operators and ρ⊗n = ρ⊗ · · · ⊗ ρrepresents an n-fold tensor product of identical quantumstates.

To put it in words, this theorem licenses the exper-imenter to act as if each individual system has somestate ρ unknown to her, with a probability density P (ρ)representing her ignorance of which state is the true one.But it is only as if—the only active quantum state in thepicture is the one the experimenter actually possesses inher mind, namely ρ(n). When the experimenter performstomography, all she is doing is gathering data system-by-system and updating, via Bayes rule [60], the state ρ(n)

to some new state ρ(k) on a smaller number of remainingsystems. Particularly, one can prove that this form ofquantum-state assignment leads the agent to expect thatwith more data, she will make her P (ρ) more and morenarrow, and thus she will approach ever more closely aposterior state of the form ρ(k) ≈ ρ⊗k. This is the real,underlying reason that excuses the habit of speaking oftomography as revealing “the unknown quantum state.”

One important consequence of this theorem is the fol-lowing. Suppose that Alice is collaborating with Bob.From her perspective, Bob is a physical system. Al-ice mathematically models Bob as having expectationsabout the sequence of systems they are studying, expec-tations that matter to Alice because she can ask Bobquestions and get answers. In Alice’s mental model ofBob, she writes a de Finetti representation PB(ρ), sat-isfying the same general properties as her own expecta-tions, which she encodes into the function PA(ρ). Aliceimagines that she and Bob are receiving the same data.It follows from the quantum de Finetti theorem that ifPA(ρ) and PB(ρ) initially agree to at least a small ex-tent, then Alice should expect that their expectationswill come into greater and greater agreement.

Furthermore, just as there is a de Finetti theorem tomake sense of “unknown states,” there is a de Finettitheorem to make sense of “unknown measurements” and“unknown processes” [61].

Despite the explicitly foundational motivation, thequantum de Finetti theorem has nonetheless fared likea stand-alone result for quantum information theory.Among other things, it turned out to be useful for provingthe security of some quantum key distribution schemes[62–64], it became an important component in the anal-ysis of entanglement detection [65, 66], and even servedin an analysis of the quantum state of propagating laserlight [67, 68].

19

During the effort to prove the quantum de Finetti the-orem, Carlton Caves brought attention to a special typeof quantum measurement. Up to that point, those of uswho were bringing Bayesianism to quantum physics werein the habit of regarding a quantum state ρ as a “cata-logue of probabilities.” This way of thinking rested onthe old way of modeling measurements, that is, the vonNeumann tradition, where a measurement correspondsto an orthonormal basis. The Born rule lets us get prob-abilities out of a density matrix ρ, yet no single von Neu-mann basis can yield sufficient information to reconstructρ; hence, the “catalogue of probabilities” language. Butquantum information theory brought a new manner ofthinking, in which a measurement can be any collectionof positive operators that sum to the identity—a Posi-tive Operator-Valued Measure, or POVM. This change ofperspective opened the possibility of an informationallycomplete experiment, i.e., a single measurement whosestatistics suffice to reconstitute an entire density matrixρ. Once we have constructed an “IC” POVM, we canthen replace any ρ with a probability distribution. Onematrix ρ, one vector ~p.

At first, Caves believed that proving the quantumde Finetti theorem would require a specific type of ICPOVM. Luckily, this turned out to be wrong: Finding aconstruction of an IC POVM in arbitrary finite Hilbert-space dimension was enough. However, the particularkind of IC POVM to which Caves called attention soontook on a life of its own, and it is to that kind which wenow turn.

VII. SEEKING SICS – THE BORN RULE ASFUNDAMENTAL

If quantum theory is so closely allied with probabil-ity theory, then why is it not written in a language thatstarts with probability, rather than a language that endswith it? Why does quantum theory invoke the mathe-matical apparatus of complex amplitudes, Hilbert spaces,and linear operators? This question quickly brings us tothe research frontier.

For, actually there are ways to pose quantum theorypurely in terms of probabilities—indeed, there are manyways, each with a somewhat different look and feel [69].The work of W. K. Wootters is an example, and as heemphasized long ago [70],

It is obviously possible to devise a formula-tion of quantum mechanics without probabil-ity amplitudes. One is never forced to useany quantities in one’s theory other than theraw results of measurements. However, thereis no reason to expect such a formulation tobe anything other than extremely ugly. Af-ter all, probability amplitudes were inventedfor a reason. They are not as directly observ-able as probabilities, but they make the the-ory simple. I hope to demonstrate here that

one can construct a reasonably pretty formu-lation using only probabilities. It may not bequite as simple as the usual formulation, butit is not much more complicated.

What has happened in the intervening years is that themathematical structures of quantum information theoryhave grown significantly richer than the ones he hadbased his considerations on—so much so that we maynow be able to optimally re-express the theory. Whatwas once “not much more complicated,” now has thepromise of being downright insightful.

The key ingredient is a hypothetical structure called a“symmetric informationally complete positive-operator-valued measure,” or SIC (pronounced “seek”) for short.This is a set of d2 rank-one projection operators Πi =|ψi〉〈ψi| on a finite d-dimensional Hilbert space such that∣∣〈ψi|ψj〉∣∣2 =

1

d+ 1whenever i 6= j . (14)

Because of their extreme symmetry, it turns out thatsuch sets of operators, when they exist, have three veryfine-tuned properties: 1) the operators must be linearlyindependent and span the space of Hermitian operators,2) there is a sense in which they come as close to anorthonormal basis for operator space as they can underthe constraint that all the elements in a basis be posi-tive semi-definite [71], and 3) after rescaling, they forma resolution of the identity operator, I =

∑i1dΠi.

The symmetry, positive semi-definiteness, and prop-erties 1 and 2 are significant because they imply thatan arbitrary quantum state ρ—pure or mixed—can beexpressed as a linear combination of the Πi. Further-more, the expansion is likely to have some significantfeatures not found in other, more arbitrary expansions.The most significant of these becomes apparent when onetakes property 3 into account. Because the operatorsHi = 1

dΠi are positive semi-definite and form a resolu-tion of the identity, they can be interpreted as labelingthe outcomes of a quantum measurement device—not astandard-textbook, von Neumann measurement devicewhose outcomes correspond to the eigenvalues of someHermitian operator, but to a measurement device of themost general variety allowed by quantum theory, thePOVMs [36, 41]. Particularly noteworthy is the smoothrelation between the probabilities P (Hi) = tr

(ρHi

)given

by the Born rule for the outcomes of such a measure-ment17 and the expansion coefficients for ρ in terms ofthe Πi:

ρ =

d2∑i=1

((d+ 1)P (Hi)−

1

d

)Πi . (15)

17 There is a slight ambiguity in notation here, as Hi is dually usedto denote an operator and an outcome of a measurement. Forthe sake of simplicity, we hope the reader will forgive this andsimilar abuses.

20

There are no other operator bases that give rise to sucha simple formula connecting probabilities with densityoperators.

Before getting to that, however, we should reveal whatis so consternating about the SICs: It is the question ofwhen they exist. Despite years of growing effort sincethe definition was first introduced [72–74], no one hasbeen able to show that they exist in completely generaldimension. All that is known firmly is that they existin dimensions 2 through 147 inclusive, as well as in somescattered cases beyond those: 168, 172, 195, 199, 228, 259and 323. Dimensions 2–21, 24, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 39, 43and 48 are known through direct or computer-assisted an-alytic proof; the remaining solutions are known throughnumerical calculation, satisfying Eq. (14) to high preci-sion (in some cases, up to 16,000 digits accuracy).18 Forthe remainder of the article we will proceed as if theydo always exist for finite d. At least this is the con-ceit of our story. We note in passing, however, that theSIC existence problem is not without wider context: Ifthey do exist, they solve at least four other (more prac-tical, non-foundational) optimality problems in quantuminformation theory [71, 76–79]. In addition, the resultsthey imply for Lie and Jordan algebras indicate that ifSICs didn’t always exist, linear algebra itself would havea drastically different character from one dimension toanother [80]. It would be a nasty trick if SICs failed toexist!

So suppose they do. Thinking of a quantum state as lit-erally an agent’s probability assignment for the outcomesof a potential SIC measurement leads to a new way to ex-press the Born rule for the probabilities associated withany other quantum measurement. Consider the diagramin Figure 4. It depicts a SIC measurement “in the sky,”with outcomes Hi, and any standard von Neumann mea-surement “on the ground.”19 For the sake of specificity,let us say the latter has outcomes Dj = |j〉〈j|, the vectors|j〉 representing some orthonormal basis. We conceive oftwo possibilities (or two “paths”) for a given quantumsystem to get to the measurement on the ground: “Path1” is that it proceeds directly to the measurement onthe ground. “Path 2” is that it proceeds first to themeasurement in the sky and only subsequently to themeasurement on the ground—the two measurements arecascaded.

Suppose now, we are given the agent’s personal prob-

18 Numerical and some analytical solutions up through dimension67 are detailed in [75]. Others were reported to us by AndrewScott and Marcus Appleby. Numerical solutions in dimensions122 through 142 and in dimensions 144, 145 and 146 are due toMichael C. Hoang, in collaboration with the authors, using theChimera supercomputer.

19 Do not, however, let the designation “SIC sitting in thesky” make the device seem too exalted to be of any inter-est. Already, announcements of experimental implementationshave been made for qubits [81], qutrits [82], and still higher-dimensional systems [83].

FIG. 5: Any quantum measurement can be conceptualized intwo ways. Suppose an arbitrary von Neumann measurement“on the ground,” with outcomes Dj = 1, . . . , d. Its probabili-ties P (Dj) can be derived by cascading it with a fixed fiducialSIC measurement “in the sky” (of outcomes Hi = 1, . . . , d2).Let P (Hi) and P (Dj |Hi) represent an agent’s probabilities,assuming the measurement in the sky is actually performed.The probability Q(Dj) represents instead the agent’s proba-bilities under the assumption that the measurement in the skyis not performed. The Born rule, in this language, says thatP (Dj), P (Hi), and P (Dj |Hi) are related by the Bayesian-style Eq. (19).

abilities P (Hi) for the outcomes in the sky and hispersonal conditional probabilities P (Dj |Hi) for the out-comes on the ground subsequent to the sky. I.e., we aregiven the probabilities the agent would assign on the sup-position that the quantum system follows Path 2. Then“coherence alone” (in the Bayesian sense) is enough totell what probabilities P (Dj) the agent should assign forthe outcomes of the measurement on the ground—it isgiven by the Law of Total Probability applied to thesenumbers:

P (Dj) =∑i

P (Hi)P (Dj |Hi) . (16)

That takes care of Path 2, but what of Path 1? Is thisenough information to recover the probability assignmentQ(Dj) the agent would assign for the outcomes on Path1 via a normal application of the Born rule? That is,that

Q(Dj) = tr(ρDj) (17)

for some quantum state ρ? Maybe, but the answer will

21

clearly not be P (Dj). One has

Q(Dj) 6= P (Dj) (18)

simply because Path 2 is not a coherent process (in thequantum sense!) with respect to Path 1—there is a mea-surement that takes place in Path 2 that does not takeplace in Path 1.

What is remarkable about the SIC representation isthat it implies that, even though Q(Dj) is not equal toP (Dj), it is still a function of it. Particularly,

Q(Dj) = (d+ 1)P (Dj)− 1

= (d+ 1)

d2∑i=1

P (Hi)P (Dj |Hi)− 1 . (19)

The Born rule is nothing but a kind of QuantumLaw of Total Probability! No complex amplitudes, nooperators—only probabilities in, and probabilities out.Indeed, it is seemingly just a rescaling of the old law,Eq. (16). And in a way it is.

Earlier, we stressed the importance of consideringquantum measurements in all their generality: The no-tion of “measurement” should include all POVMs, notjust the von Neumann ones. So, what happens if themeasurement on the ground is an arbitrary POVM, notnecessarily given by an orthonormal basis? Then,

Q(Dj) =

d2∑i=1

[(d+ 1)P (Hi)−

1

d

]P (Dj |Hi). (20)

This is only slightly more intricate than our previous ex-pression, Eq. (19), which is itself a special case of thismore general formula. And the general formula is stillquite similar to the classical prescription for combiningconditional probabilities: We simply stretch the P (Hi)and then shift them to preserve the overall normaliza-tion.

But beware: One should not interpret Eq. (20) as inval-idating probability theory itself in any way! For the oldLaw of Total Probability has no jurisdiction in the settingof our diagram, which compares a two distinct, mutuallyexclusive hypothetical scenarios. Path 1 is what Aliceintends to do, but she recognizes that she could in prin-ciple follow Path 2 instead, and Eq. (20) sets the standardof consistency to which Alice should strive when mesh-ing her probabilities together.20 Indeed as any Bayesian

20 This is one place where we can point out a mild historical an-tecedent to QBism. In the historical study [84], it is pointed outthat Born and Heisenberg, already at the 1927 Solvay conference,

refer to the calculation |cn(t)|2 =∣∣∑

m Smn(t)cm(0)∣∣2 and say,

“it should be noted that this ‘interference’ does not represent acontradiction with the rules of the probability calculus, that is,with the assumption that the |Snk|2 are quite usual probabili-ties.” Their reasons for saying this may have been different fromour own, but at least they had come this far.

would emphasize, if there is a distinguishing mark inone’s considerations—say, the fact of two distinct exper-iments, not one—then one ought to take that into ac-count in one’s probability assignments (at least initiallyso). Thus there is a hidden, or at least suppressed, condi-tion in our notation: Really we should have been writingthe more cumbersome, but honest, expressions P (Hi|E2),P (Dj |Hi, E2), P (Dj |E2), and Q(Dj |E1) all along. Withthis explicit, it is no surprise that,

Q(Dj |E1) 6=∑i

P (Hi|E2)P (Dj |Hi, E2) . (21)

The message is that quantum theory supplies some-thing—a new form of “Bayesian coherence,” though em-pirically based (as quantum theory itself is)—that rawprobability theory does not. The Born rule in these lightsis an addition to Bayesian probability, not in the sense ofa supplier of some kind of more-objective probabilities,but in the sense of giving extra normative rules to guidethe agent’s behavior when she interacts with the physicalworld.

It is a normative rule for reasoning about the conse-quences of one’s proposed actions in terms of the poten-tial consequences of an alternative action. It is like noth-ing else physical theory has contemplated before. Seem-ingly at the heart of quantum mechanics from the QBistview is a statement about the impact of hypotheticalson our expectations for the actual. The impact parame-ter is metered by a single, significant number associatedwith each physical system—its Hilbert-space dimensiond. The larger the d associated with a system, the moreQ(Dj) must deviate from P (Dj). Of course this pointmust have been implicit in the usual form of the Bornrule, Eq. (17). What is important from the QBist per-spective, however, is how the new form puts the signifi-cant parameter front and center, displaying it in a waythat one ought to nearly trip over.

Understanding this as the goal helps pinpoint the roleof SICs in our considerations. The issue is not that quan-tum mechanics must be rewritten in terms of SICs, butthat it can be.21 Certainly no one is going to drop theusual operator formalism and all the standard methodslearned in graduate school to do their workaday calcu-lations in SIC language exclusively. It is only that theSICs form an ideal coordinate system for a particularproblem (an important one to be sure, but nonethelessa particular one)—the problem of interpreting quantummechanics. The point of all the various representationsof quantum mechanics (like the various quasi-probabilityrepresentations of [69], the Heisenberg and Schrodingerpictures, and even the path-integral formulation) is thatthey give a means for isolating one or another aspect ofthe theory that might be called for by a problem at hand.

21 If everything goes right, that is, and the damned things actuallyexist in all dimensions!

22

Sometimes it is really important to do so, even for deepconceptual issues and even if all the representations arelogically equivalent.22 In our case, we want to bring intoplain view the idea that quantum mechanics is an addi-tion to Bayesian probability theory—not a generalizationof it [85], not something orthogonal to it altogether [86],but an addition. With this goal in mind, the SIC rep-resentation is a particularly powerful tool. Through it,one sees the Born rule as a replacement for a usage of theLaw of Total Probability that one would have made inanother context (one mutually exclusive with the first).

Furthermore it is similarly so of unitary time evolu-tion in a SIC picture. To explain what this means, letus change considerations slightly and make the measure-ment on the ground a unitarily rotated version of the SICin the sky. In this setting, Dj = 1

dUΠjU†, which in turn

implies a simplification of Eq. (20) to,

Q(Dj) = (d+ 1)

d2∑i=1

P (Hi)P (Dj |Hi)−1

d, (22)

for the probabilities on the ground. Note what this issaying! As the Born rule is a replacement for the Lawof Total Probability, unitary time evolution is a replace-ment for it as well. For, if we thought in terms of theSchrodinger picture, P (Hi) and Q(Dj) would be the SICrepresentations for the initial and final quantum statesunder an evolution given by U†. The similarity is noaccident. This is because in both cases the conditionalprobabilities P (Dj |Hi) completely encode the identity ofa measurement on the ground.

Moreover, it makes abundantly clear another pointof QBism that has not been addressed so much in thepresent paper. Since a personalist Bayesian cannot turnhis back on the clarification that all probabilities arepersonal judgments, placeholders in a calculus of con-sistency, he certainly cannot turn his back on the greaterlesson Eqs. (20) and (22) are trying to scream out.Just as quantum states ρ are personal judgments P (Hi),quantum measurement operators Dj and unitary timeevolutions U are personal judgments too—in this caseP (Dj |Hi). The only distinction is the technical one,that one expression is an unconditioned probability, whilethe other is a collection of conditionals. Most impor-tantly, it settles the age-old issue of why there shouldbe two kinds of state evolution at all. When Hartlewrote, “A quantum-mechanical state being a summary of

22 Just think of the story of Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates ingeneral relativity. Once upon a time it was not known whether aSchwarzschild black hole might have, beside its central singular-ity, a singularity in the gravitational field at the event horizon.Apparently it was a heated debate, yes or no. The issue was putto rest, however, with the development of the coordinate system.It allowed one to write down a solution to the Einstein equationsin a neighborhood of the horizon and check that everything wasindeed all right.

the observers’ information about an individual physicalsystem changes both by dynamical laws, and wheneverthe observer acquires new information about the systemthrough the process of measurement,” what is his dynam-ical law making reference to? There are not two thingsthat a quantum state can do, only one: Strive to be con-sistent with all the agent’s other probabilistic judgmentson the consequences of his actions, across all hypotheti-cal scenarios. The SICs emphasize and make this pointclear.

In fact, much of the most intense research of the UMassBoston QBism group is currently devoted to seeing howmuch of the essence of quantum theory is captured byEq. (20). We are frankly quite happy to have an ex-tremely hard problem about the structure of quantumstates spaces leading our thinking! (And, as we’ll see inthe next section, it is a problem that prompts a travelerto question the received wisdom about the boundary be-tween physics and pure mathematics.) For instance, oneway to approach this is to take Eq. (20) as a fundamen-tal axiom and ask what further assumptions are requiredto recover all of quantum theory. To give some hint ofhow a reconstruction of quantum theory might proceedalong these lines, note Eq. (15) again. What it expressesis that any quantum state ρ can be reconstructed fromthe probabilities P (Hi) the state ρ gives rise to. This,however, does not imply that plugging just any proba-bility distribution P (Hi) into the equation will give riseto a valid quantum state. A general probability distri-bution P (Hi) in the formula will lead to a Hermitianoperator of trace one, but it may not lead to an opera-tor with nonnegative eigenvalues. Indeed it takes furtherrestrictions on the P (Hi) to make this true. That beingthe case, the QBist starts to wonder if these restrictionsmight arise from the requirement that Eq. (20) simplyalways make sense. For note, if P (Dj) is too small inthe special case of Eq. (19), Q(Dj) will go negative; andif P (Dj) is too large, Q(Dj) will become larger than 1.So, P (Dj) must be restricted. But that in turn forcesthe set of valid P (Hi) to be restricted as well. And sothe argument goes. We already know how to reconstructmany features of quantum theory in this fashion [1, 87–89]. The question now is how to get the whole theoryin the most economical way [90]. Should we succeed, wewill have a new development of quantum theory, one thatputs its beguiling deviation from classicality, as encodedin Eq. (20), front and center.

Another exciting development comes from looseningthe form of Eq. (20) to something more generic:

Q(Dj) =

n∑i=1

[αP (Hi)− β

]P (Dj |Hi); , (23)

where there is initially no assumed relation between α, β,and n as there is in Eq. (20). Then, under a few furtherconditions with only the faintest hint of quantum theoryin them—for instance, that there should exist measure-ments on the ground for which, under appropriate con-ditions, one can have certainty for their outcomes—one

23

immediately gets a significantly more restricted form forwhat becomes the analogue of Eq. (19):

Q(Dj) =

(1

2qd+ 1

) n∑i=1

P (Hi)P (Dj |Hi)−1

2q . (24)

Here, very interestingly, the parameters q and d canonly take on integer values, q = 0, 1, 2, . . . ,∞ and d =2, 3, 4, . . . ,∞, and n = 1

2qd(d− 1) + d.The q = 2 case can be identified with the quantum me-

chanical one we have seen before. On the other hand, theq = 0 case can be identified with the usual vision of theclassical world: A world where hypotheticals simply donot matter, for the world just “is.” In this case, an agentis well advised to take Q(Dj) = P (Dj), meaning thatthere is no operational distinction between experimentsE1 and E2 for her. It should not be forgotten however,that this rule, trivial though it looks, is still an additionto raw probability theory. It is just one that meshes wellwith what had come to be expected by most classicalphysicists. To put it yet another way, in the q = 0 case,the agent says to herself that the fine details of her actionsdo not matter. This to some extent authorizes the viewthat observation is a passive process in principle—againthe classical worldview. Finally, the cases q = 1 andq = 4, though not classical, track still other structuresthat have been explored previously: They correspond towhat the Born rule would look like if alternate versionsof quantum mechanics, those over real [91] and quater-nionic [92] vector spaces, were expressed in the equivalentof SIC terms.23

Several years ago, Rudiger Schack gave a talk on thismaterial in Zurich, and Rob Spekkens asked, “Why thatparticular choice for modification of the Law of TotalProbability?” Schack replied, “If one is going to modifyit in any way at all, this is the simplest modification onecan imagine.” The remarkable fact is that the simplestpossible modification to the Law of Total Probability car-ries with it so much interlocking structure.

If all that you desire is a story that you can tell aboutthe current quantum formalism, then all this businessabout SICs and probabilistic representations might be oflittle moment. Of our fellow QBists, we know of one wholikely doesn’t care one way or the other about whether

23 The equivalent of SICs (i.e., informationally complete sets ofequiangular projection operators) certainly do not exist in gen-eral dimensions for the real-vector-space case—instead thesestructures only exist in a sparse set of dimensions, d =2, 3, 7, 23, . . . . With respect to the quaternionic theory, it ap-pears from numerical work that they do not generally exist inthat setting either [93]. Complex quantum mechanics, like babybear’s possessions, appears to be just right. This raises the pos-sibility that if one had reason to think that the user’s man-ual should be one of those three alternatives—real, complex andquaternionic—demanding the existence of SIC-type structuresin all dimensions could narrow down the choice exactly to thecomplex case.

SICs exist. Another would like to see a general proofcome to pass, but is willing to believe that QBism canjust as well be developed without them—i.e., they are notpart of the essential philosophical ideas—and is alwaysquick to make this point. On the other hand, we twoare inclined to believe that QBism will become stagnantin the way of all other quantum foundations programswithout a deliberate effort to rebuild the formalism. SICsmight not be the only path to this goal [94], but theyengage our attention for the following reason.

Formula (24) from the general setting indicates morestrongly than ever that it is the role of dimension that iskey to distilling the motif of our user’s manual. Quantumtheory, seen as a normative addition to probability the-ory, is just one theory (the second rung above classical)along an infinite hierarchy. What distinguishes the levelsof this hierarchy is the strength q with which dimension“couples” the two paths in our diagram of Figure 2. Itis the strength with which we are compelled to deviatefrom the Law of Total Probability when we transform ourthoughts from the consequences of hypothetical actionsupon a d’s worth of the world’s stuff to the consequencesof our actual ones. Settling upon q = 2 (i.e., settling uponquantum theory itself) sets the strength of the coupling,but the d variable remains. Different systems, different d,different deviations from a naive application of the Lawof Total Probability.

In some way yet to be fully fleshed out, each quantumsystem seems to be a seat of active creativity and pos-sibility, whose outward effect is as an “agent of change”for the parts of the world that come into contact withit. Observer and system, “agent and reagent,” might bea way to put it. Perhaps no metaphor is more pregnantfor QBism’s next move than this: If a quantum system iscomparable to a chemical reagent, then d is comparableto a valence. But valence for what more exactly?

VIII. MATHEMATICAL INTERMEZZO: THESPORADIC SICS

Before we leap off into cosmological speculations, letus take a moment to make a few things more concrete.What does a SIC look like, anyway? How do we writeone out explicitly? One of the ongoing challenges of SICresearch is that the solutions look so complicated: As wego up in the dimension, the vectors soon take many pagesof computer printout. Moreover, there are not obviousrelations between a SIC vector in one dimension and onein another, so finding one solution doesn’t help with find-ing the next. It is only recently that we have been able totease out some interconnections happening beneath thesurface. In this section, we’ll explore the patterns thatbind sets of SIC solutions together [95, 96].

A SIC is group covariant if it can be constructed bystarting with a single vector (the fiducial) and actingupon that vector with the elements of some group. Allknown SICs are group covariant, although since group

24

covariance simplifies the search process, this could bea matter of the light being under the lamppost. Fur-thermore, in all known cases but one, that group is aWeyl–Heisenberg group. Working in dimension d, letωd = e2πi/d, and define the shift and phase operators

X|j〉 = |j + 1〉 and Z|j〉 = ωjd|j〉 , (25)

where the shift is modulo d. Products of powers of Xand Z, together with dimension-dependent phase factorsthat we can neglect for the present purposes, define theWeyl–Heisenberg group for dimension d.

A historical aside: This group dates back to the earliestdays of quantum physics. Note that the two operatorsX and Z just fail to commute, doing so up to a phasefactor:

ZX = ωXZ. (26)

In July of 1925, Max Born had the idea that he couldsolve one of the equations in Heisenberg’s seminal 1925paper if he made an ansatz that the position observableq and momentum observable p satisfied the commutationrelation [97, 98]

qp− pq = i~I . (27)

Pascual Jordan later proved that Born’s ansatz was theonly one that could work, and the paper they wrote uptogether was received by Zeitschrift fur Physik on 27September 1925. It was titled “On Quantum Mechan-ics.” On the same day, Max Born received a letter fromHermann Weyl [99] saying that a previous discussion theyhad earlier in the month inspired him to generalize Born’srelation (27) to Eq. (26). Part of what pleased Weyl wasthat his generalization was not dependent upon infinitedimensional spaces—Weyl’s relation would always havea solution in the complex matrices, finite and infinitedimensional. And by that circumstance he declared tohave a way of “defining a general quantum system”—toeach would be associated a “phase space.” In the discretecase, the points of the phase space would be associatedwith the operators

(m,n) −→ XmZn . (28)

See Weyl’s 1927 textbook [100], as well as JulianSchwinger’s later development and extension of the ideain [101]. If a SIC covariant under the Weyl–Heisenberggroup always exists, then it would mean that not onlycould a phase space be associated with a quantum sys-tem abstractly, but that the points of the phase spacevery directly correspond to the outcomes of a potentialmeasurement. It is interesting to see how some of theearliest math in one of the earliest formulations of thetheory—Weyl’s—came so close to what we are workingwith today!

In d = 2, we can draw a SIC in the Bloch representa-tion. Any qubit SIC forms a tetrahedron inscribed in the

Bloch sphere [74]. One such tetrahedron is, in terms ofthe Pauli matrices,

Πs,r =1

2

(I +

1√3

(sσx + rσy + srσz)

), (29)

where the sign variables s and r take the values ±1. Theoutcome probabilities for a state |ψ〉 = α|0〉 + β|1〉 aregiven by the Born rule, p(s, r) = tr (Πs,r|ψ〉〈ψ|)/2. Ex-plicitly,

p(s, r) =1

4+

√3

12sr(|α|2 − |β|2

)+

√3

6Re [αβ∗(s+ ir)] .

(30)This expression simplifies in terms of the Cartesian coor-dinates (x, y, z) of points on the Bloch sphere:

p(s, r) =1

4+

√3

12(sx+ ry + srz) . (31)

Two SICs in higher dimensions will be important forour purposes. First is the Hesse SIC in d = 3, con-structed by applying the Weyl–Heisenberg group to thefiducial ∣∣∣ψ(Hesse)

0

⟩=

1√2

(0, 1,−1)T. (32)

Second is the Hoggar SIC in d = 8. We have multiplechoices of fiducial in this case, but they all yield struc-tures that are equivalent up to unitary or antiunitarytransformations, so for brevity we speak of “the” HoggarSIC [102]. One such fiducial [103, 104] is∣∣∣ψ(Hoggar)

0

⟩∝ (−1 + 2i, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)T. (33)

The Hoggar SIC is the only known case where the groupthat constructs the SIC from the fiducial is not the Weyl–Heisenberg group for d dimensions itself [102]. It is, how-ever, of a related kind: It is the tensor product of threecopies of the qubit Weyl–Heisenberg group. The morewe poke at the Hoggar SIC, the more odd and unusualthings turn up about it [104]. We’ll take a look at one ofthem in this section.

The SICs in dimensions 2 and 3, as well as the HoggarSIC in dimension 8, stand apart in some respects fromthe other known solutions [95, 105]. Recently, Appleby etal. [95] found a link between SICs and algebraic numbertheory. Their results apply to Weyl–Heisenberg SICs indimensions 4 and larger. The SICs in dimensions 2 and3, as well as the Hoggar SIC, fall outside of this category.Either their dimensions are too small, or (in the case ofthe Hoggar SIC) they have the wrong symmetry group.We can think of them as the sporadic SICs.

First, let us sketch the picture for the SICs studied byAppleby et al. The pattern, which is just beginning tocome clear, is a story about number fields. To a physicist,a “field” means something like the electric field, but to anumber theorist, a field is a set of numbers where additionand multiplication can both be done, and where both

25

FIG. 6: The lowest levels of a dimension tower. Conjecturally, Weyl–Heisenberg SICs in these dimensions are related by wayof algebraic number theory [95]. The arithmetical meaning of the arrows is left as an exercise to the interested reader.

additive and multiplicative inverses exist, and everythingplays together nicely. The real numbers R constitute afield, as do the rational numbers Q within them. Wecan build up a field by starting with some base, like therationals, and augmenting it with a new element. Forexample, let us invent a number “

√3,” about which all

we know is that it is a positive number that solves theequation x2 − 3 = 0. We then consider all the numbersof the form a + b

√3, where a and b are rational. This

set is a new field, Q extended by the new ingredient√

3,which we write as Q(

√3).

The connection between SICs and number fields hap-pens when we take the inner-product conditiont that de-fines a SIC,

|〈ψj |ψk〉|2 =1

d+ 1, (34)

and we leave off the magnitude-squared step:

〈ψj |ψk〉 =eiθjk√d+ 1

. (35)

The phase factors eiθjk turn out to live within very spe-cial number fields, and they are particularly special num-bers within those fields. They are units of ray class fieldsor extensions thereof—as Bengtsson quips, “These wordscarry deep meaning for algebraic number theorists” [106].They mean that we are knocking on the door of Hilbert’stwelfth problem, one of the last remaining unsolved puz-zles on history’s most influential list of mathematicalchallenges [107]. And, remember, we got here becausewe were trying to find a better way to talk about proba-bility in quantum mechanics!

Part of this still-emerging story [95] is that SICs indifferent dimensions are related in a hidden way becausetheir number fields are related. The SIC phase factorslive in fields that are extensions twice over of the ratio-nals. That is, for a Weyl–Heisenberg SIC in dimension d,

the phase factors eiθjk make their home in an extension

of Q(√

(d− 3)(d+ 1))

. Because we can factor perfect

squares out from under the radical sign, different valuesof d can yield the same extension of Q. This has ledto the image of a dimension tower, an infinite sequence{d1, d2, d3, . . .} where each dj follows neatly from thosebefore, and the number theory tells us how to build a SICin each dj . But this remains in the realm of conjecture.

And what of the sporadic SICs? Quite unexpectedly,the qubit SICs, the Hesse SIC and the Hoggar SIC alsoconnect to a subject in pure mathematics that has gonemostly un-utilized in physics. Specifically, their symme-tries are linked with a lattice of integers in the set ofnumbers known as the octonions [96]. Physics studentsgrow familiar with the complex numbers C by repeatedexposure, internalizing the image of a number plane thatextends out on either side of the number line. The quater-nions (usually written with an H for William Hamilton)and the octonions (denoted O) arise when one tries torepeat this dimension-doubling stunt, from two dimen-sions to four and then to eight. It so happens that famil-iar properties of arithmetic are lost with each repetition:Multiplication of quaternions is not commutative, but itis still associative. And multiplication of octonions is noteven associative! Nineteenth-century physics made muchuse of quaternions to study 3D rotations, and they stillfind application in geometry, for example in computergraphics. Octonions are less familiar still, and are per-haps best known for their relations to exceptional struc-tures in mathematics. John Baez observed [108],

Often you can classify some sort of gizmo,and you get a beautiful systematic list, butalso some number of exceptions. Nine timesout of 10 those exceptions are related to theoctonions.

It so transpires that this applies to SICs, too. Moreover,the link with octonionic integers connects the sporadic

26

SICs to the problem of sphere packing, that is, the ques-tion of how to fit Euclidean spheres of arbitrary dimen-sion together in the most efficient way [109].

A few years ago, one of the authors (BCS) was attend-ing an interdisciplinary workshop and, over lunch, fellinto conversation with a mathematician who had thatmorning lectured on higher-dimensional sphere packing.After a little while, the mathematician asked, “And whatare you working on?”

“Too many different things—but one problem has thesame feel as sphere packing, because solutions in one di-mension don’t seem to tell you about solutions in others.I guess the math people know it as the problem of ‘com-plex equiangular lines’.”

“Ah! SICs! You know, when I first heard about thatconjecture, I thought I could just sit down and solve it.But that didn’t quite happen.”

As the mathematical properties of SIC dimensionalitiesgrow more intriguing, we are led back to the question ofwhat the dimension of a Hilbert space means physically.

IX. HILBERT-SPACE DIMENSION AS AUNIVERSAL CAPACITY

It is entirely possible to conceive of a world com-posed of individual atoms, each as different fromone another as one organism is from the next.

— John Dupre

A common accusation heard by the QBist24 is that theview leads straight away to solipsism, “the belief that allreality is just one’s imagining of reality, and that one’sself is the only thing that exists.”25 The accusation goesthat, if a quantum state |ψ〉 only represents the degreesof belief held by some agent—say, the one portrayed inFigure 1—then the agent’s beliefs must be the source ofthe universe. The universe could not exist without him:This being such a ridiculous idea, QBism is dismissed outof hand, reductio ad absurdum. It is so hard for the QBistto understand how anyone could think this (it being theantithesis of everything in his worldview) that a little ofour own Latin comes to mind: non sequitur. See Fig. 7.

A fairer-minded assessment is that the accusationsprings from our opponents “hearing” much of what wedo say, but interpreting it in terms drawn from a partic-ular conception of what physical theories always ought to

24 For perhaps the loudest, see Ref. [110].25 This is the definition of The American Heritage New Dictionary

of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition (2005). Encyclopedia Brit-tanica (2008) expands, “in philosophy . . . the extreme form ofsubjective idealism that denies that the human mind has anyvalid ground for believing in the existence of anything but itself.The British idealist F. H. Bradley, in Appearance and Reality(1897), characterized the solipsistic view as follows: ‘I cannottranscend experience, and experience is my experience. Fromthis it follows that nothing beyond myself exists; for what isexperience is its (the self’s) states.’ ”

FIG. 7: Sarcasm. In a lecture bottlenecked by repeated ac-cusations of QBism’s solipsism, the authors sometimes usethe following technique to move things along. Referring tothe previous Figure 1, one asks the stubborn accuser, “Whatabout this diagram do you not get? It shows an agent anda physical system external to him. It says that a quantumstate is a state of belief about what will come about as aconsequence of his actions upon the system. The quantumstate is not a state of nature, but so what? There is an agentwith his belief; there is a system that is not part of him; andthere is something that really, eventually comes about—it iscalled the outcome. No agent, no outcome for sure, but that’snot solipsism: For, no system, no outcome either! A quan-tum measurement without an external system participatingwould be like the sound of one hand clapping, a Zen koan. Ifwe were really expressing solipsism, wouldn’t a diagram likethe one above be more appropriate? A big eyeball surveyingnothing. Now there’s really no external system and nothingto act upon. That’s solipsism.”

be: Attempts to directly represent (map, picture, copy,correspond to, correlate with) the universe—with “uni-verse” here thought of in its totality as a pre-existing,static system; an unchanging, monistic something thatjust is. From such a “representationalist” point of view,if a) quantum theory is a proper physical theory, b) itsessential theoretical objects are quantum states, and c)quantum states are states of belief, then the universe that“just is” corresponds to a state of belief. This chain ofdeduction is logical and clear, but completely misguided.

QBism sidesteps the poisoned dart, as the previoussections have tried to convey, by asserting that quantumtheory is just not a physical theory in the sense the ac-cusers want it to be. Rather it is an addition to personal,Bayesian, normative probability theory. Its normativerules for connecting probabilities (personal judgments)were developed in light of the character of the world, butthere is no sense in which the quantum state itself repre-sents (pictures, copies, corresponds to, correlates with) apart or a whole of the external world, much less a worldthat just is. In fact the very character of the theoryseems to point to the inadequacy of the representational-ist program when attempted on the particular world we

27

live in.

There are no lofty philosophical arguments here thatrepresentationalism must be wrong always and in all pos-sible worlds (perhaps because of some internal inconsis-tency26). Representationalism may well be true in this orthat setting—we take no stand on the matter. We onlyknow that for nearly 90 years quantum theory has beenactively resistant to representationalist efforts on its be-half. This suggests that it might be worth exploring somephilosophies upon which physics rarely sets foot. Physicsof course should never be constrained by any one philos-ophy (history shows it nearly always lethal), but it doesnot hurt to get ideas and insights from every source onecan. If one were to sweep the philosophical literature forschools of thought representative of what QBism actu-ally is about, it is not solipsism one will find, but nonre-ductionism [112, 113], (radical) metaphysical pluralism[114, 115], empiricism [116, 117], indeterminism and me-liorism27 [118], and above all pragmatism [29, 119].

A form of nonreductionism can already be seen in playin our answer to whether the notion of agent should bederivable from the quantum formalism itself. We say thatit cannot be and it should not be, and to believe other-wise is to misunderstand the subject matter of quantumtheory. But nonreductionism also goes hand in handwith the idea that there is real particularity and “in-teriority” in the world. Think again of the “I-I-me-memine” feature that shields QBism from inconsistency inthe “Wigner’s friend” scenario. When Wigner turns hisback to his friend’s interaction with the system, thatpiece of reality is hermetically sealed from him. Thatphenomenon has an inside, a vitality that he takes nopart in until he again interacts with one or both relevantpieces of it. With respect to Wigner, it is a bit like auniverse unto itself.

If one seeks the essence of indeterminism in quantummechanics, there may be no example more directly illus-trative of it than “Wigner’s friend.” For it expresses toa tee William James’s notion of indeterminism [118]:

26 As, e.g., Rorty [111] might try to argue.27 Strictly speaking, meliorism is the doctrine “that humans can,

through their interference with processes that would otherwisebe natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement overthe aforementioned natural one.” But we would be reluctantto take a stand on what “improvement” really means. So said,all we mean in the present essay by meliorism is that the worldbefore the agent is malleable to some extent—that his actionsreally can change it. Adam said to God, “I want the ability towrite messages onto the world.” God replied, “You ask much ofme. If you want to write upon the world, it cannot be so rigida thing as I had originally intended. The world would have tohave some malleability, with enough looseness for you to writeupon its properties. It will make your world more unpredictablethan it would have been—I may not be able to warn you aboutimpending dangers like droughts and hurricanes as effectively asI could have—but I can make it such if you want.” And withthat Adam brought all host of uncertainties to his life, but hegained a world where his deeds and actions mattered.

[Chance] is a purely negative and relativeterm, giving us no information about that ofwhich it is predicated, except that it happensto be disconnected with something else—notcontrolled, secured, or necessitated by otherthings in advance of its own actual presence.. . . What I say is that it tells us nothingabout what a thing may be in itself to callit “chance.” . . . All you mean by calling it“chance” is that this is not guaranteed, thatit may also fall out otherwise. For the systemof other things has no positive hold on thechance-thing. Its origin is in a certain fash-ion negative: it escapes, and says, Hands off!coming, when it comes, as a free gift, or notat all.

This negativeness, however, and this opacityof the chance-thing when thus considered abextra, or from the point of view of previousthings or distant things, do not preclude itshaving any amount of positiveness and lumi-nosity from within, and at its own place andmoment. All that its chance-character assertsabout it is that there is something in it reallyof its own, something that is not the uncon-ditional property of the whole. If the wholewants this property, the whole must wait tillit can get it, if it be a matter of chance. Thatthe universe may actually be a sort of joint-stock society of this sort, in which the shar-ers have both limited liabilities and limitedpowers, is of course a simple and conceivablenotion.

And once again [120],

Why may not the world be a sort of republi-can banquet of this sort, where all the qual-ities of being respect one another’s personalsacredness, yet sit at the common table ofspace and time?

To me this view seems deeply probable.Things cohere, but the act of cohesion itselfimplies but few conditions, and leaves the restof their qualifications indeterminate. As thefirst three notes of a tune comport many end-ings, all melodious, but the tune is not namedtill a particular ending has actually come,—sothe parts actually known of the universe maycomport many ideally possible complements.But as the facts are not the complements, sothe knowledge of the one is not the knowledgeof the other in anything but the few necessaryelements of which all must partake in order tobe together at all. Why, if one act of knowl-edge could from one point take in the totalperspective, with all mere possibilities abol-ished, should there ever have been anything

28

more than that act? Why duplicate it by thetedious unrolling, inch by inch, of the fore-done reality? No answer seems possible. Onthe other hand, if we stipulate only a partialcommunity of partially independent powers,we see perfectly why no one part controls thewhole view, but each detail must come and beactually given, before, in any special sense, itcan be said to be determined at all. This isthe moral view, the view that gives to otherpowers the same freedom it would have itself.

The train of logic back to QBism is this. If James andour analysis of “Wigner’s friend” are right, the universeis not one in a very rigid sense, but rather more truly apluriverse.28 To get some sense of what this can mean, itis useful to start by thinking about what it is not. A goodexample can be found by taking a solution to the vacuumMaxwell equations in some extended region of spacetime.Focus on a compact subregion and try to conceptuallydelete the solution within it, reconstructing it with somenew set of values. It can’t be done. The fields outsidethe region (including the boundary) uniquely determinethe fields inside it. The interior of the region has no iden-tity but that dictated by the rest of the world—it has no“interiority” of its own. The pluriverse conception sayswe’ll have none of that. And so, for any agent immersedin this world there will always be uncertainty for whatwill happen upon his encounters with it. To wit, wherethere is uncertainty there should be Bayesian probabili-ties, and so on and so on until much of the story we havealready told.

What all this hints is that for QBism the proper way tothink of our world is as the empiricist or the radical meta-physical pluralist does. Let us launch into making thisclearer, for that process more than anything will explainhow QBism hopes to interpret Hilbert-space dimension.

The metaphysics of empiricism can be put like this.Everything experienced, everything experienceable, hasno less an ontological status than anything else. A childawakens in the middle of the night frightened that thereis a monster under her bed, one soon to reach up andsteal her arm—that we-would-call-imaginary experiencehas no less a hold on onticity than a Higgs-boson de-tection event at the LHC, or the minuscule wobbles atLIGO that shook the scientific world. They are of equalstatus from this point of view—they are equal elementsin the filling out and making of reality. There is indeedno doubt that we should call the child’s experience imag-

28 The term “pluriverse” is again a Jamesian one. He used it inter-changeably with the word “multiverse,” which he also invented[121]. Unfortunately the latter has been coopted by the Ev-erettian movement for their own—in the end monistic—purposes:“The world is one; it is the deterministically evolving univer-sal quantum state, the ‘multiverse’.” Too bad. Multiverse is atempting word, but we stick with pluriverse to avoid any confu-sion with the Everettian usage.

inary. That, however, is a statement about the experi-ence’s meaning and interpretation, not its existence. Theexperience as it is exists, period. It is what it is. Likethe biblical burning bush, each experience declares, “I amthat I am.” Most likely in the present example, the expe-rience will be a little piece of the universe isolated, on itsown, and of no great consequence. But one never knowsuntil all future plays out. Some lucky dreams have builtnations. Maybe the same is true of some lucky Higgs-boson events. Most though, surely, will be of the moreminor fabric of existence. All in all, the world of theempiricist is not a sparse world like the world of Dem-ocritus (nothing but atom and void) or Einstein (nothingbut unchanging spacetime manifold equipped with thisor that field), but a world overflowingly full of variety—a world whose details are beyond anything grammatical(rule-bound) expression can articulate.

Yet this is no statement that physics should give up,or that physics has no real role in coming to grips withthe world. It is only a statement that physics shouldbetter understand its function. What is being aimed forhere finds its crispest, clearest contrast in a statementRichard Feynman once made [122]:

If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowl-edge were to be destroyed, and only one sen-tence passed on to the next generation ofcreatures, what statement would contain themost information in the fewest words? Ibelieve it is the atomic hypothesis (or theatomic fact) that all things are made ofatoms—little particles that move around inperpetual motion, attracting each other whenthey are a little distance apart, but repellingupon being squeezed into one another. . . .

Everything is made of atoms. That is the keyhypothesis.

The issue for QBism hangs on the imagery that usuallylies behind the phrase “everything is made of.” WilliamJames called it the great original sin of the rationalisticmind [123]:

Let me give the name of ‘vicious abstraction-ism’ to a way of using concepts which may bethus described: We conceive a concrete situa-tion by singling out some salient or importantfeature in it, and classing it under that; then,instead of adding to its previous charactersall the positive consequences which the newway of conceiving it may bring, we proceedto use our concept privatively; reducing theoriginally rich phenomenon to the naked sug-gestions of that name abstractly taken, treat-ing it as a case of ‘nothing but’ that, concept,and acting as if all the other characters fromout of which the concept is abstracted wereexpunged. Abstraction, functioning in thisway, becomes a means of arrest far more than

29

a means of advance in thought. It mutilatesthings; it creates difficulties and finds impos-sibilities; and more than half the trouble thatmetaphysicians and logicians give themselvesover the paradoxes and dialectic puzzles ofthe universe may, I am convinced, be tracedto this relatively simple source. The viciouslyprivative employment of abstract charactersand class names is, I am persuaded, oneof the great original sins of the rationalisticmind.

What is being realized through QBism’s peculiar way oflooking at things is that physics actually can be donewithout any accompanying vicious abstractionism. Youdo physics as you have always done it, but you throwaway the idea “everything is made of [Essence X]” beforeeven starting.

Physics—in the right mindset—is not about identify-ing the bricks with which nature is made, but about iden-tifying what is common to the largest range of phenom-ena it can get its hands on. The idea is not difficultonce one gets used to thinking in these terms. Carbon?The old answer would go that it is nothing but a build-ing block that combines with other elements accordingto the following rules, blah, blah, blah. The new answeris that carbon is a characteristic common to diamonds,pencil leads, deoxyribonucleic acid, burnt pancakes, thespace between stars, the emissions of Ford pick-up trucks,and so on—the list is as unending as the world is itself.For, carbon is also a characteristic common to this dia-mond and this diamond and this diamond and this. Buta flawless diamond and a purified zirconium crystal, nomatter how carefully crafted, have no such characteristicin common: Carbon is not a universal characteristic ofall phenomena. The aim of physics is to find character-istics that apply to as much of the world in its variedfullness as possible. However, those common character-istics are hardly what the world is made of—the worldinstead is made of this and this and this. The world isconstructed of every particular there is and every way ofcarving up every particular there is.

An unparalleled example of how physics operates insuch a world can be found by looking to Newton’s lawof universal gravitation. What did Newton really find?Would he be considered a great physicist in this day whenevery news magazine presents the most cherished goal ofphysics to be a Theory of Everything? For the law of uni-versal gravitation is hardly that! Instead, it merely saysthat every body in the universe tries to accelerate ev-ery other body toward itself at a rate proportional to itsown mass and inversely proportional to the squared dis-tance between them. Beyond that, the law says nothingelse particular of objects, and it would have been a rarethinker in Newton’s time, if any at all, who would haveimagined that all the complexities of the world could bederived from that limited law. Yet there is no doubt thatNewton was one of the greatest physicists of all time. Hedid not give a theory of everything, but a Theory of One

Aspect of Everything. And only the tiniest fraction ofphysicists of any variety, much less the TOE-seeking va-riety, have ever worn a badge of that more modest kind.It is as H. C. von Baeyer wrote in one of his books [124],

Great revolutionaries don’t stop at half mea-sures if they can go all the way. For Newtonthis meant an almost unimaginable widen-ing of the scope of his new-found law. Notonly Earth, Sun, and planets attract objectsin their vicinity, he conjectured, but all ob-jects, no matter how large or small, attractall other objects, no matter how far distant.It was a proposition of almost reckless bold-ness, and it changed the way we perceive theworld.

Finding a theory of “merely” one aspect of everythingis hardly something to be ashamed of: It is the loftiestachievement physics can have in a living, breathing non-reductionist world.

Which leads us back to Hilbert space. Quantumtheory—that user’s manual for decision-making agentsimmersed in a world of some yet to be fully identifiedcharacter—makes a statement about the world to the ex-tent that it identifies a quality common to all the world’spieces. QBism says the quantum state is not one of thosequalities. But of Hilbert spaces themselves, particularlytheir distinguishing characteristic one from the other, di-mension,29 QBism carries no such grudge. Dimension issomething one posits for a body or a piece of the world,much like one posits a mass for it in the Newtonian the-ory. Dimension is something a body holds all by itself,regardless of what an agent thinks of it.

That this is so can be seen already from reasons inter-nal to the theory. Just think of all the arguments roundedup for making the case that quantum states should be in-terpreted as of the character of Bayesian degrees of belief.None of these work for Hilbert-space dimension. Takeone example, an old favorite—Einstein’s argument aboutconditioning quantum states from afar. In Section V ofthis paper we repeated the argument verbatim, but it isrelevant to note that before Einstein could write down hisψ12, he would have had to associate some Hilbert spacesH1 and H2 with S1 and S2 and take their tensor productH1 ⊗ H2. Suppose the dimensionalities of these spacesto be d1 and d2, respectively. The question is, is thereanything similar to Einstein’s argument for changing thevalue of d2 from a distance? There isn’t. ψ2 may be

29 Hardy [125, 126] and Dakic and Brukner [127] are examples offoundational efforts that also emphasize this quantum analogueto what Eotvos tested on platinum and copper [128]. Hardy putit this way in one of his axioms, “There exist systems for whichN = 1, 2, · · · , and, furthermore, all systems of dimension N , orsystems of higher dimension but where the state is constrainedto an N dimensional subspace, have the same properties.”

30

forced into this or that subspace by choosing the appro-priate measurement on S1, but there is no question ofthe whole Hilbert space H2 remaining intact. When it istime to measure S2 itself, one will still have the full ar-senal of quantum measurements appropriate to a Hilbertspace of dimension d2 to choose from—none of those fallby the wayside. In Einstein’s terms, d2 is part of the“real factual situation” of S2.30

The claim here is that quantum mechanics, when itcame into existence, implicitly recognized a previouslyunnoticed capacity inherent in all matter—call it quan-tum dimension. In one manifestation, it is the fuel uponwhich quantum computation runs [128, 132]. In anotherit is the raw irritability of a quantum system to beingeavesdropped upon [76, 133]. In Eqs. (19) and (20) itwas a measure of deviation from the Law of Total Proba-bility induced by hypothetical thinking. And in a farther-fetched scenario to which we will come back, its logarithmmight just manifest itself as the squared gravitationalmass of a Schwarzschild black hole [134, 135].

When quantum mechanics was discovered, somethingwas added to matter in our conception of it. Think ofthe apple that inspired Newton to his law. With its dis-covery the color, taste, and texture of the apple didn’tdisappear; the law of universal gravitation didn’t reducethe apple privatively to just gravitational mass. Instead,the apple was at least everything it was before, but af-terward even more—for instance, it became known tohave something in common with the moon. A modern-day Cavendish would be able to literally measure thefurther attraction an apple imparts to a child alreadyhungry to pick it from the tree. So similarly with Hil-bert-space dimension. Those diamonds we have alreadyused to illustrate the idea of nonreductionism, in verycareful conditions, could be used as components in aquantum computer [136]. Diamonds have among theirmany properties something not envisioned before quan-tum mechanics—that they could be a source of relativelyaccessible Hilbert space dimension and as such have thismuch in common with any number of other proposed

30 Take a coin, and imagine flipping it. We generally write down a(subjective) probability distribution over two outcomes to cap-ture our degrees of belief of which way the flip will go. Butof course it is a judgement call that it can only go two ways.Steven van Enk would say it could always land on its side; sohe would always write down a probability distribution over threeoutcomes. If one takes (p0, p1) as a subjective assignment, thenumber 2 is objective with respect to it: It is something we imag-ine or hypothesize about the coin. If one takes the (p0, p1, p2)as a subjective assignment, then the number 3 is objective withrespect to it: It will fall one of three ways regardless of whatwe believe about which of the three ways it will fall. So ob-jectivity/subjectivity comes in layers. We call something objec-tive, and then make probability assignments in the subjectivelayer above it. But of course, the first “calling something ob-jective” has a personal element in itself. Recently, techniqueshave started to become available to “test” the supposition of adimension against one’s broader mesh of beliefs; see [129–131].

implementations of quantum computing. Diamonds notonly have something in common with the moon, but nowwith the ion-trap quantum-computer prototypes aroundthe world.

Diamondness is not something to be derived fromquantum mechanics. It is that quantum mechanics issomething we add to the repertoire of things we alreadysay of diamonds, to the things we do with them andthe ways we admire them. This is a very powerful re-alization: For diamonds already valuable, become evermore so as their qualities compound. And saying moreof them, not less of them as is the goal of all reduction-ism, has the power to suggest all kinds of variations onthe theme. For instance, thinking in quantum mechan-ical terms might suggest a technique for making “purerdiamonds”—though to an empiricist this phrase meansnot at all what it means to a reductionist. It means thatthese similar things called diamonds can suggest exoticvariations of the original objects with various pinpointedproperties this way or that. Purer diamond is not more ofwhat it already was in nature. It is a new species, withtraits of its parents to be sure, but nonetheless stand-alone, like a new breed of dog.

To put it still differently, and now in the metaphor ofmusic, a jazz musician might declare that a tune onceheard thereafter plays its most crucial role as a substratefor something new. It is the fleeting solid ground uponwhich something new can be born. The nine tracks ti-tled Salt Peanuts in CAF’s mp3 player31 are momentsof novelty in the universe never to be recreated. So ofdiamonds, and so of all this quantum world. Or at leastthat is the path QBism seems to indicate.32

To the reductionist, of course, this seems exactly back-wards. But then, it is the reductionist who must live witha seemingly infinite supply of conundrums arising fromquantum mechanics. It is the reductionist who must livein a state of arrest, rather than moving on to the nextstage of physics. Take a problem that has been a largetheme of the quantum foundations meetings for the last30 years. To put it in a commonly heard question, “Whydoes the world look classical if it actually operates ac-cording to quantum mechanics?” The touted mystery isthat we never “see” quantum superposition and entan-glement in our everyday experience. But have you everseen a probability distribution sitting in front of you?Probabilities in personalist Bayesianism are not the sortsof things that can be seen; they are the things that arethought. It is events that are seen.

The real issue is this. The expectation of the quantum-to-classical transitionists33 is that quantum theory is atthe bottom of things, and “the classical world of our ex-

31 Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Charlie Parker,Charlie Parker, Joshua Redman, Miles Davis Quintet, ArturoSandoval, “The Quintet” (Massey Hall, 1953).

32 A nice logical argument for this can be found in [137].33 See [138, 139] for particularly clear discussions of the subject.

31

perience” is something to be derived out of it. QBismsays “No. Experience is neither classical nor quantum.Experience is experience with a richness that classicalphysics of any variety could not remotely grasp.” Quan-tum mechanics is something put on top of raw, unre-flected experience. It is additive to it, suggesting whollynew types of experience, while never invalidating the old.To the question, “Why has no one ever seen superpo-sition or entanglement in diamond before?,” the QBistreplies: It is simply because before recent technologiesand very controlled conditions, as well as lots of refinedanalysis and thinking, no one had ever mustered a meshof beliefs relevant to such a range of interactions (factualand hypothetical) with diamonds. No one had ever beenin a position to adopt the extra normative constraintsrequired by the Born rule. For QBism, it is not the emer-gence of classicality that needs to be explained, but theemergence of our new ways of manipulating, controlling,and interacting with matter that do.

In this sense, QBism declares the quantum-to-classicalresearch program unnecessary (and actually obstruc-tive34) in a way not so dissimilar to the way Bohr’s 1913model of the hydrogen atom declared another researchprogram unnecessary (and actually obstructive). BeforeBohr, everyone thought that the only thing that couldcount as an explanation of the hydrogen atom’s stablespectrum was a mechanical model. Bohr’s great geniusin comparison to all the other physicists of his day was inbeing the first to say, “Enough! I shall not give a mech-anistic explanation for these spectra we see. Here is away to think of them with no mechanism.” Researchershad wasted years seeking an unfulfillable vision of theworld, and that certainly was an obstruction to science.

All is not lost, however, for the scores of decoherentiststhis policy would unforgivingly unemploy. For it onlysuggests that they redirect their work to the oppositetask. The thing that needs insight is not the quantum-to-classical transition, but the classical-to-quantum! Theburning question for the QBist is how to model inHilbert-space terms the common sorts of measurementswe perform just by opening our eyes, cupping our ears,and extending our fingers.

Take a professional baseball player watching a ball flytoward him: He puts his whole life into when and how heshould swing his bat. But what does this mean in termsof the immense Hilbert space a quantum theoretical de-scription would associate with the ball? Surely the playerhas an intuitive sense of both the instantaneous positionand instantaneous momentum of the baseball before helays his swing into it—that’s what “keeping his eye on the

34 Without an ontic understanding of quantum states, quantumoperations, and unitary time evolutions—all of which QBism re-jects [1, 11, 37]—how can the project even get off the ground? Asone can ask of the Big Bang, “What banged?,” the QBist mustask, “In those days of the world before agents using quantumtheory, what decohered?”

ball” means. Indeed it is from this intuition that New-ton was able to lay down his laws of classical mechanics.Yet, what can it mean to say this given quantum theory’sprohibition of simultaneously measuring complementaryobservables? It means that whatever the baseball playeris measuring, it ain’t that—it ain’t position and momen-tum as usually written in operator terms. Instead, aquantum model of what he is doing would be some inter-esting, far-from-extremal single POVM—perhaps evenone that takes into account some information that doesnot properly live within the formal structure of quan-tum theory (the larger arena that Howard Barnum calls“meaty quantum physics” [140]). For instance, that aneigenvector |i〉 of some Hermitian operator, though iden-tically orthogonal to fellow eigenvectors |j〉 and |k〉 inthe Hilbert-space sense, might be closer in meaning to|k〉 than to |j〉 for some issue at hand.

So the question becomes how to take a given common-day measurement procedure and add to it a consistentquantum description? The original procedure was standalone—it can live without a quantum description of it—but if one wants to move it to a new level or new direction,having added a consistent quantum description will bemost helpful to those ends. Work along these lines isnascent, but already some excellent examples exist [141].Of course, unconsciously it is what has been happeningsince the founding days of quantum mechanics. Here, wefind an affinity with a comment of John Stuart Bell, oneburied in a letter to Rudolf Peierls and almost lost tophysics history [6]:

I have the impression as I write this, that amoment ago I heard the bell of the tea trol-ley. But I am not sure because I was concen-trating on what I was writing. [. . .] The idealinstantaneous measurements of the textbooksare not precisely realized anywhere anytime,and more or less realized, more or less all thetime, more or less everywhere.

QBism thinks of the textbook “ideal instantaneous mea-surements” as on the same continuum as listening for thetea trolley. But what POVM elements should one writefor the latter? Only time, actively spent in new research,will tell.

The important question is how matter can be coaxedto do new things. It is in the ways the world yields toour desires, and the ways it refuses to, that we learn thedepths of its character.

I give you an object of this much gravita-tional mass. What can you do with it?What can you not? And when you arenot about, what does it cause?

I give you an object of this much quantumdimension. What can you do with it?What can you not? And when you arenot about, what does it cause?

If taken seriously what do these questions imply by

32

their very existence? That they should have meaning-ful answers! Here is one example. A knee-jerk reactionin many physicists upon hearing these things is to de-clare that dimension as a capacity collapses to a trivialityas soon as it is spoken. “All real-world systems possessinfinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. And it doesn’t takequantum field theory to be completely correct to makethat true; a simple one-dimensional harmonic oscillatorwill do. It has an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.”But maybe not. Maybe no real-world quantum systemhas that much oomph. Just as one can treat the Earth’sinertial mass as infinite for many a freshman mechanicsproblem, or a heat bath as infinite for many a thermody-namical one, maybe this is all that has ever been going onwith infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. It is a useful ar-tifice when a problem can be economically handled witha differential equation. (Ask Schrodinger.) It is worthnoting that when the algebraists set about making a rig-orous statement of what a quantum field theory oughtto be, they seem only to be able to make progress byimposing a postulate that says, roughly, “In a QFT, thestates that are localized in space and bounded in energyform a finite-dimensional space” [142].

And with this, we come to nearly the farthest edge ofQBism. It is the beginning of a place where quantummechanics must step past itself. To make quantum di-mension meaningful in ontic terms, as a quality commonto all physical objects, is to say it should be finite—goingup, going down from this object to the next, but alwaysfinite. Every region of space where electromagnetism canpropagate, finite. Every region of space where there is agravitational “field,” finite.

It means that despite its humble roots in nonrelativis-tic quantum mechanics, there is something already cos-mological about QBism. It tinkers with spacetime, say-ing that in every “hole” (every bounded region) there isan interiority not given by the rest of the universe and acommon quality called dimension. It says that there isprobably something right about the “holographic princi-ples” arising from other reaches of physics [143]. Recog-nizing entropy as a personal concept (entropy is a func-tion of probability), QBism would suspect that it is notan entropy bound that arises from these principles, butperhaps a dimension bound [4, 128].

Invocations of a “holographic principle” in quantumgravity research traditionally contain a statement alongthe lines of, “The information in a volume actually liveson its boundary.” These locutions grow more opaque themore closely they are studied. To talk of the “degreesof freedom existing on the boundary” is to trap oneselfwithin obsolete intuitions. Fundamentally, probabilitiesdo not exist without a gambler, and likewise, “informa-tion” does not exist without an agent concerned withcommunication and computation. (The latter statementis the logarithm of the former.) Two orthogonal quantumstates for a system are not two distinct physical config-urations, in the sense of classical physics. Rather, theyare two maximally distinct hypotheses for its possible fu-

ture behavior consequent upon an agent’s action. Alice’squantum state for a system—whether a benzene ring or ablack hole—does not live on the system’s boundary, norin its bulk. It lives in Alice’s mesh of beliefs, along withall her other fears and aspirations.

A novel perspective requires new images andmetaphors, which can in turn stimulate novel technicaldevelopments. How do we distance ourselves from thelanguage that Hilbert-space dimension quantifies “thenumber of distinct states a system can be in”? For thismode of thought is at the root of all the loose talk intrying to interpret those holographic principles.

Suppose that Alice has access to a localized physicalphenomenon that she wishes to employ in a quantumcommunication scheme. Her goal is to detect, as wellas possible, whether her communiques are being eaves-dropped upon. A technical result from a few years ago in-dicates that the maximal achievable sensitivity to eaves-dropping is a simple function of the Hilbert-space dimen-sion [76]. (In fact, a SIC furnishes a set of states thatsaturates this bound.) If we take the holographic prin-ciple to say that the maximal Hilbert-space dimensionof a phenomenon grows with the area that bounds it,then we have a relation between optimal “sensitivity tothe touch” and a boundary area. Indeed, sensitivity be-ing tied to boundary area is an appealing image: For theboundary is the only thing an agent can touch in the firstplace!

X. QUANTUM COSMOLOGY FROM THEINSIDE

Theodore Roosevelt’s decision to build the PanamaCanal shows that free will moves mountains, whichimplies, by general relativity, that even the curva-ture of space is not determined. The stage is stillbeing built while the show goes on.

— John Conway and Simon Kochen [55]

Let us, however, step back from that farthest edge fora moment and discuss cosmology as it is presently con-strued before taking a final leap!

Sometimes it is claimed that a point of view aboutquantum theory like QBism’s would make the enquiriesof quantum cosmology impossible. For instance, DavidDeutsch once wrote [144]:

The best physical reason for adopting the Ev-erett interpretation lies in quantum cosmol-ogy. There one tries to apply quantum the-ory to the universe as a whole, consideringthe universe as a dynamical object startingwith a big bang, evolving to form galaxies andso on. Then when one tries, for example bylooking in a textbook, to ask what the sym-bols in the quantum theory mean, how doesone use the wave function of the universe andthe other mathematical objects that quantum

33

FIG. 8: Quantum Cosmology from the Inside. The agentin Figure 1 can consider measurements on ever larger sys-tems. There is nothing in quantum mechanics to bar the sys-tems considered from being larger and larger, to the point ofeventually surrounding the agent. Pushed far enough, this isquantum cosmology! Why all this insistence on thinking that“an agent must be outside the system he measures” in the cos-mological context should mean “outside the physical universeitself”? It means outside the system of interest, and that isthe large-scale universe. Nor is there any issue of self-referenceat hand. One would be hard pressed to find a cosmologist whowants to include his beliefs about how the beats of his heartcorrelate with the sidereal cycles in his quantum-state assign-ment for the external universe. The symbol |Ψuniverse 〉 refersto the green boxes alone.

theory employs to describe reality? One readsthere, ‘The meaning of these mathematicalobjects is as follows: first consider an observeroutside the quantum system under consider-ation . . . .’ And immediately one has to stopshort. Postulating an outside observer is allvery well when we’re talking about a labora-tory: we can imagine an observer sitting out-side the experimental apparatus looking at it,but when the experimental apparatus—theobject being described by quantum theory—is the entire universe, it’s logically inconsis-tent to imagine an observer sitting outside it.Therefore the standard interpretation fails. Itfails completely to describe quantum cosmol-ogy. Even if we knew how to write down thetheory of quantum cosmology, which is quite

hard incidentally, we literally wouldn’t knowwhat the symbols meant under any interpre-tation other than the Everett interpretation.

But this is nonsense. It is not hard to imagine how tomeasure the universe as a whole: You simply live in it.

What are the typical observables and predictables ofcosmology? The Hubble constant, the cosmological con-stant, the degree of inhomogeneity of the cosmic mi-crowave background radiation, total baryon number inthis or that era of the universe, perhaps others. To doquantum cosmology is to ask how an application of quan-tum mechanics can be made with regard to these quan-tities. For the QBist quantum theory would be used asit always is: As a normative calculus of consistency forall probability assignments concerned. Quantum theoryadvises an agent to make all his probability assignmentsderivable from a single quantum state. Write it like thisif you wish—a big, fat wave function (it’s for the wholeuniverse after all):

|Ψuniverse 〉. (36)

Why not? We are swimming in this ocean called theuniverse, and we have to do physics from inside of it.But then all the rest of the universe is outside each ofus. This wave function represents an agent’s catalogueof beliefs for the relevant things outside.35

The only point here is that QBism has every bit asmuch right to do cosmology as any other interpretationof quantum mechanics. The only difference is that QBismdoes it from the inside.

More exciting is the possibility that once it does allthat (its own version of what the other interpretationsmight have done), its power may not be exhausted. For,noting how the Big Bang itself is a moment of creationwith some resemblance to every individual quantum mea-surement, one starts to wonder whether even it “mightbe on the inside.” Certainly QBism has creation goingon all the time and everywhere; quantum measurementis just about an agent hitching a ride and partaking inthat ubiquitous process.

At the end of a long article it doesn’t hurt to speculate.We let William James and John Archibald Wheeler dothe work for us. First more sweepingly [145],

Our acts, our turning-places, where we seemto ourselves to make ourselves and grow, arethe parts of the world to which we are closest,

35 There is one issue with assigning a state vector |Ψuniverse 〉. Onedoesn’t even write down a pure quantum state for laser lightwhen its phase is unknown; a mixed state is more appropriate[67]. It is hard to imagine why one would write down a pure statefor the large-scale universe. Who would have beliefs that strictof it? Be that as it may, a pure state is certainly allowed in prin-ciple. Even people with the most unreasonable of initial beliefs(from an outsider’s perspective) want to gamble consistently.

34

the parts of which our knowledge is the mostintimate and complete. Why should we nottake them at their facevalue? Why may theynot be the actual turning-places and growing-places which they seem to be, of the world—why not the workshop of being, where wecatch fact in the making, so that nowhere maythe world grow in any other kind of way thanthis?

Irrational! we are told. How can new beingcome in local spots and patches which addthemselves or stay away at random, indepen-dently of the rest? There must be a reasonfor our acts, and where in the last resort canany reason be looked for save in the materialpressure or the logical compulsion of the totalnature of the world? There can be but onereal agent of growth, or seeming growth, any-where, and that agent is the integral worlditself. It may grow all-over, if growth therebe, but that single parts should grow per seis irrational.

But if one talks of rationality—and of rea-sons for things, and insists that they can’tjust come in spots, what kind of a reasoncan there ultimately be why anything shouldcome at all?

Then, more modernly [39],

Each elementary quantum phenomenon is anelementary act of “fact creation.” That isincontestable. But is that the only mecha-nism needed to create all that is? Is whattook place at the big bang the consequenceof billions upon billions of these elementaryprocesses, these elementary “acts of observer-participancy,” these quantum phenomena?Have we had the mechanism of creation be-fore our eyes all this time without recognizingthe truth? That is the larger question implicitin your comment [“Is the big bang here?”].

When cosmology hails from the inside, the world standsa chance of being anything it wants to be.

XI. THE FUTURE

It is difficult to escape asking a challenging ques-tion. Is the entirety of existence, rather than beingbuilt on particles or fields of force or multidimen-sional geometry, built upon billions upon billionsof elementary quantum phenomena, those elemen-tary acts of “observer-participancy,” those mostethereal of all the entities that have been forcedupon us by the progress of science?

— John Archibald Wheeler

Imagine our universe at a time when there were noagents about to use the laws of probability theory as anaid in their gambles—i.e., before the cruel creativity ofDarwinian selection had brought forth any such agents.Were there any quantum states in the universe then?We QBists say No. It’s not a matter of the quantumstate of the universe waiting until a qualified PhD stu-dent came along before having its first collapse, as JohnBell joked, but that there simply weren’t any quantumstates. Indeed, though we know little about elsewhereunder Heaven, here on Earth there weren’t any quantumstates until 1926 when Erwin Schrodinger wrote the firstone down. The reason is simple: The universe is made ofsomething else than ψ-flavored gelatin. But then, what ofthe Born rule? To this, in contrast, a QBist would say,“Aha, now there’s a sensible question.” For the Bornrule is among the set of relations an agent should striveto attain in his larger mesh of probability assignments.That normative rule indicates the character of the nat-ural world, a character that is present even when thereare no agents to make use of it. As Craig Callender onceparaphrased it, in QBism, it is the normative rule whichis nature’s whisper, not the specific terms within it.

Any of us can use quantum theory, but you can onlyuse it for yourself. By way of analogy, consider the single-celled organisms called Euglena. These are “flagellateprotists”—microbes with tails coming off of them. Thetail arose from evolutionary pressures, so that a Euglenacan move from environments where there are depletednutrients to environments where there’s an abundance ofnutrients. It’s a tool. Quantum mechanics is like theEuglena’s tail. It’s something we evolved in the 1920s,and since it’s been shown to be such a good tool, wekeep using it and we pass it on to our children. Thetail of a Euglena is a single-user tail. But we can lookat the tail and ask, “What might we learn about theenvironment by studying the tail’s structure?” We mightnotice the tail is not completely circular, and that mighttell us something about the viscosity of the medium theEuglena travels through. We might look at the ratioof the length of it to the width of it in various places,and that might tell us about features of the microbialenvironment. Likewise, quantum mechanics is a single-user theory, but by dissecting it, we can learn somethingabout the world that all of us are immersed in.

In this way, QBism is carrying out what Einstein calledthe program of the real [146]:

A basic conceptual distinction, which is anecessary prerequisite of scientific and pre-scientific thinking, is the distinction between“sense-impressions” (and the recollection ofsuch) on the one hand and mere ideas on theother. There is no such thing as a concep-tual definition of this distinction (aside fromcircular definitions, i.e., of such as make ahidden use of the object to be defined). Norcan it be maintained that at the base of thisdistinction there is a type of evidence, such

35

as underlies, for example, the distinction be-tween red and blue. Yet, one needs this dis-tinction in order to be able to overcome solip-sism. Solution: we shall make use of this dis-tinction unconcerned with the reproach that,in doing so, we are guilty of the metaphysi-cal “original sin.” We regard the distinctionas a category which we use in order that wemight the better find our way in the world ofimmediate sensations. The “sense” and thejustification of this distinction lies simply inthis achievement. But this is only a first step.We represent the sense-impressions as condi-tioned by an “objective” and by a “subjec-tive” factor. For this conceptual distinctionthere also is no logical-philosophical justifica-tion. But if we reject it, we cannot escapesolipsism. It is also the presupposition of ev-ery kind of physical thinking. Here too, theonly justification lies in its usefulness. We arehere concerned with “categories” or schemesof thought, the selection of which is, in prin-ciple, entirely open to us and whose quali-fication can only be judged by the degree towhich its use contributes to making the total-ity of the contents of consciousness “intelligi-ble.” The above mentioned “objective factor”is the totality of such concepts and conceptualrelations as are thought of as independent ofexperience, viz., of perceptions. So long as wemove within the thus programmatically fixedsphere of thought we are thinking physically.Insofar as physical thinking justifies itself, inthe more than once indicated sense, by itsability to grasp experiences intellectually, weregard it as “knowledge of the real.”

After what has been said, the “real” inphysics is to be taken as a type of program,to which we are, however, not forced to clinga priori.

There is so much still to do with the physics of QBism,and this article has just started scratching the surface.Just one example: The technical problems with SICs aremanifest. For instance, there must be a reason a proofof their existence has been so recalcitrant. An optimistwould say it is because they reach so deeply into the coreof what the quantum is telling us! In any case, we do sus-pect that when we get the structure of SICs down pat,Eq. (20), though already so essential to QBism’s distilla-tion of quantum theory’s message, will seem like child’splay in comparison to the vistas the further knowledgewill open up.

But the technical also complements and motivates theconceptual. So far we have only given the faintest hint ofhow QBism should be mounted onto a larger empiricism.It will be noticed that QBism has been quite generousin treating agents as physical objects when needed. “I

contemplate you as an agent when discussing your expe-rience, but I contemplate you as a physical system beforeme when discussing my own.” Our solution to “Wigner’sfriend” is the great example of this. Precisely because ofthis, however, QBism knows that its story cannot end asa story of gambling agents—that is only where it starts.Agency, for sure, is not a derivable concept as the reduc-tionists and vicious abstractionists would have it, butQBism, like all of science, should strive for a Coperni-can principle whenever possible. We have learned so farfrom quantum theory that before an agent the world isreally malleable and ready through their intercourse togive birth. Why would it not be so for every two partsof the world? And this newly defined valence, quantumdimension, might it not be a measure of a system’s po-tential for creation when it comes into relationship withthose other parts?

In this article, we have focused on what QBism hasto say about small quantum systems. This is, in part,an example of QBism showing its ancestry in quan-tum information theory. But, as the science journalistJames Burke once said, the revolutionary ideal admits nohalf-measures: The lessons of QBism must apply morebroadly than qubits and qutrits. What does taking theprinciples of QBism on board mean for how one thinksabout special relativity [3]? What about the practiceof renormalization in statistical physics and field the-ory [147]? Or classical probability, information theoryand machine learning [148, 149]? The study of SICshas already changed the shape of the boundary betweenphysics and pure mathematics [95, 104, 106]. How farmust the changes go? What, we might even ask, do Jame-sian pragmatism, empiricism and radical metaphysicalpluralism mean for the nature of mathematical truth?

It is a large research program whose outline is just tak-ing shape. It hints of a world, a pluriverse, that consistsof an all-pervading “pure experience,” as William Jamescalled it.36 Expanding this notion, making it technical,and letting its insights tinker with spacetime itself is thebetter part of future work. Quantum states, QBism de-clares, are not the stuff of the world, but quantum mea-surement might be. Might a one-day future Shakespearewrite with honesty,

Our revels are now ended. These our actors,As I foretold you, were all spirits andAre melted into air, into thin air skip . . .We are such stuff as

quantum measurement is made on.

36 Aside from James’s originals [114, 117], further reading on thisconcept and related subjects can be found in Refs. [150–156].

36

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the FoundationalQuestions Institute Fund on the Physics of the Observer

(grant FQXi-RFP-1612), a donor advised fund at the Sil-icon Valley Community Foundation. Work reported inSection VII was supported in part by the U. S. Office ofNaval Research (Grant No. N00014-09-1-0247).

[1] C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, “Quantum-Bayesiancoherence,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 (2013) 1693,arXiv:0906.2187 [quant-ph].

[2] C. A. Fuchs, Coming of Age with QuantumInformation. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

[3] N. D. Mermin, “QBism as CBism: Solving theproblem of ‘the now’,” arXiv:1312.7825 [quant-ph].

[4] C. A. Fuchs, “My struggles with the block universe,”arXiv:1405.2390 [quant-ph].

[5] C. A. Fuchs, N. D. Mermin, and R. Schack, “Anintroduction to QBism with an application to thelocality of quantum mechanics,” Am. J. Phys. 82(2014) no. 8, 749–54, arXiv:1311.5253 [quant-ph].

[6] N. D. Mermin, “Why QBism is not the Copenhageninterpretation and what John Bell might have thoughtof it,” in Quantum [Un]Speakables II. Springer-Verlag,2016. arXiv:1409.2454 [quant-ph].

[7] B. C. Stacey, “Von Neumann was not a QuantumBayesian,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A 374 (2016)20150235, arXiv:1412.2409 [physics.hist-ph].

[8] H. C. von Baeyer, QBism: The Future of QuantumPhysics. Harvard University Press, 2016.

[9] R. Healey, “Quantum-Bayesian and pragmatist viewsof quantum theory,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy, E. N. Zalta, ed., p. N/A. MetaphysicsResearch Lab, Stanford University, Winter 2016 ed.,2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/

win2016/entries/quantum-bayesian/.[10] C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, “Quantum

probabilities as Bayesian probabilities,” Phys. Rev. A65 (2002) 022305, arXiv:quant-ph/0106133.

[11] C. A. Fuchs, “Quantum mechanics as quantuminformation (and only a little more),” in QuantumTheory: Reconsideration of Foundations,A. Khrennikov, ed., p. 463. Vaxjo University Press,2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0205039.

[12] C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, “Unknown quantum statesand operations, a Bayesian view,” in QuantumEstimation Theory, M. G. A. Paris and J. Rehacek,eds., p. 151. Springer-Verlag, 2004.arXiv:quant-ph/0404156.

[13] C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, “Subjectiveprobability and quantum certainty,” Stud. Hist. Phil.Mod. Phys. 38 (2007) 255, arXiv:quant-ph/0608190.

[14] R. P. Feynman, F. B. Morinigo, and W. G. Wagner,The Feynman Lectures on Gravitation. WestviewPress, Boulder, CO, 2003.

[15] N. Gisin, “Why Bohmian mechanics? One andtwo-time position measurements, Bell inequalities,philosophy and physics,” arXiv:1509.00767

[quant-ph].[16] C. M. Caves and R. Schack, “Properties of the

frequency operator do not imply the quantumprobability postulate,” Ann. Phys. 315 (2005) no. 1,123–46, arXiv:quant-ph/0409144.

[17] A. Kent, “Does it make sense to speak of self-locatinguncertainty in the universal wave function? Remarkson Sebens and Carroll,” Found. Phys. 45 (2014) no. 2,211–17, arXiv:1408.1944.

[18] R. E. Kastner, “‘Einselection’ of pointer observables:The new H-theorem?,” Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys.48 (2014) 56–58, arXiv:1406.4126 [quant-ph].

[19] E. Adlam, “The problem of confirmation in theEverett interpretation,” Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys.47 (2014) 21–32.

[20] L. Jansson, “Everettian quantum mechanics andphysical probability: Against the principle of ‘statesupervenience’,” Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 53(2016) 45–53.

[21] S. Saunders, “What is probability?,” in Quo VadisQuantum Mechanics?, p. 209. Springer, 2005.arXiv:quant-ph/0409144.

[22] D. Wallace, “A formal proof of the Born rule fromdecision theoretic assumptions,” arXiv:0906.2718

[quant-ph].[23] H. Price, “Decisions, decisions, decisions: Can Savage

salvage Everettian probability?,” in Many Worlds?Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality, p. 369. OxfordUniversity Press, 2010. arXiv:0802.1390 [quant-ph].

[24] A. Kent, “One World versus Many: The inadequacy ofEverettian accounts of evolution, probability, andscientific confirmation,” in Many Worlds? Everett,Quantum Theory and Reality, p. 307. OxfordUniversity Press, 2010. arXiv:0905.0624 [quant-ph].

[25] J. B. Hartle, “Quantum mechanics of individualsystems,” Am. J. Phys. 36 (1968) 704.

[26] R. W. Spekkens, “Evidence for the epistemic view ofquantum states: a toy theory,” Phys. Rev. A 75 (2007)032110.

[27] C. A. Fuchs, “QBism, the perimeter of QuantumBayesianism,” arXiv:1003.5209 [quant-ph].

[28] I. J. Good, “46656 varieties of Bayesians,” in GoodThinking: The Foundations of Probability and ItsApplications, p. 20. University of Minnesota Press,1983.

[29] L. Menand, The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideasin America. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2001.

[30] J. M. Bernardo and A. F. M. Smith, Bayesian Theory.Wiley, 1994.

[31] D. V. Lindley, Understanding Uncertainty. Wiley,2006.

[32] B. de Finetti, Theory of Probability. Wiley, 1990.

[33] R. von Mises, “Uber die gegenwartage Krise derMechanik,” Die Naturwissenschaften 10 (1922) no. 25,n.p. Translated in M. Stoltzner, “ViennaIndeterminism II: From Exner’s Synthesis to Frankand von Mises,” in Logical Empiricism. Historical andContemporary Perspectives, edited by P. Parrini, W.Salmon, and M. Salmon, (University of PittsburghPress, 2003), p. 194.

37

[34] E. P. Wigner, “Remarks on the mind-body question,”in Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Essays ofEugene P. Wigner, p. 171. Ox Bow Press, 1979.

[35] D. Z. Albert, Quantum Mechanics and Experience.Harvard University Press, 1994.

[36] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, QuantumComputation and Quantum Information. CambridgeUniversity Press, 2000.

[37] M. S. Leifer, “Conditional density operators and thesubjectivity of quantum operations,” in Foundations ofProbability and Physics – 4, G. Adenier et al., eds.,p. 438. American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY,2007.

[38] W. Pauli, Writings on Physics and Philosophy.Springer-Verlag, 1994. Edited by C. P. Enz and K. vonMeyenn.

[39] J. A. Wheeler, “Bohr, Einstein, and the strange lessonof the quantum,” in Mind in Nature: Nobel ConferenceXVII, Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter,Minnesota, R. Q. Elvee, ed., pp. 1–23. Harper & Row,San Francisco, CA, 1982. With discussions pp. 23–30,88–89, 112–113, and 148–149.

[40] E. T. Jaynes, Probability Theory: The Logic ofScience. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

[41] A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods.Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995.

[42] H. Goldstein, Classical Mechanics. Pearson EducationIndia, 1965.

[43] C. M. Caves and C. A. Fuchs, “Quantum information:How much information in a state vector?,” Ann. IsraelPhys. Soc. 12 (1996) 226–57.

[44] E. P. Wigner, Group Theory and Its Application to theQuantum Mechanics of Atomic Spectra. Elsevier, 2012.

[45] E. P. Wigner, “The probability of the existence of aself-reproducing unit,” in The Logic of PersonalKnowledge: Essays Presented to Michael Polanyi onhis Seventieth Birthday, pp. 231–38. Routledge &Kegan Paul, London, 1961.

[46] N. Gisin, “Quantum nonlocality: How does nature doit?,” Science 326 (2009) 1357.

[47] D. Z. Albert and R. Galchen, “A quantum threat tospecial relativity,” Sci. Am. 300 (2009) no. 3, 32.

[48] T. Norsen, “Bell locality and the nonlocal character ofnature,” Found. Phys. Lett. 19 (2006) 633.

[49] T. Maudlin, “What Bell did,” J. Phys. A 47 (2014)424010.

[50] A. Einstein, “Quanten-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit,”Dialectica 2 (1948) 320. Passage translated in D.Howard, “Einstein on Locality and Separability,” Stud.Hist. Phil. Sci. Pt. A, 16 (1985).

[51] A. Fine, The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and theQuantum Theory. University of Chicago Press,second ed., 1996.

[52] N. Harrigan and R. W. Spekkens, “Einstein,incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantumstates,” Found. Phys. 40 (2010) no. 2, 125–57,arXiv:0706.2661 [quant-ph].

[53] A. Einstein, “Autobiographical notes,” in AlbertEinstein: Philosopher-Scientist, P. A. Schilpp, ed.Tudor Publishing Co., New York, 1949.

[54] A. Stairs, “Quantum logic, realism, andvalue-definiteness,” Phil. Sci. 50 (1983) 578.

[55] J. Conway and S. Kochen, “The free will theorem,”Found. Phys. 36 (2006) 1441,

arXiv:quant-ph/0604079.[56] J. Conway and S. Kochen, “The strong free will

theorem,” Not. AMS 56 (2009) 226, arXiv:0807.3286.[57] A. Cabello, J. M. Estebaranz, and G. Garcıa-Alcaine,

“Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem: A proof with 18vectors,” Phys. Lett. A 212 (1996) 183.

[58] H. Primas, “Beyond Baconian quantum physics,” inKohti uutta todellisuuskasitysta. Juhlakirja professoriLaurikaisen 75-vuotispaivana (Towards a NewConception of Reality. Anniversary Publication toProfessor Laurikainen’s 75th Birthday), U. Ketvel, ed.,p. 100. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, 1990.

[59] C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, “Unknownquantum states: the quantum de Finettirepresentation,” J. Math. Phys. 43 (2002) 4537,arXiv:quant-ph/0104088.

[60] R. Schack, T. A. Brun, and C. M. Caves, “QuantumBayes rule,” Phys. Rev. A 64 (2001) 014305,arXiv:quant-ph/0008113.

[61] C. A. Fuchs, R. Schack, and P. F. Scudo, “De Finettirepresentation theorem for quantum-processtomography,” Phys. Rev. A 69 (2004) no. 6, 062305,arXiv:quant-ph/0307198.

[62] H. K. Lo, H. F. Chau, and M. Ardehali, “Efficientquantum key distribution scheme and a proof of itsunconditional security,” J. Crypto. 18 (2005) 133–65.

[63] R. Renner, “Symmetry of large physical systemsimplies independence of subsystems,” Nature Phys. 3(2007) 645–49.

[64] R. Renner, “Security of quantum key distribution,”Int. J. Quant. Inf. 6 (2008) 1–127.

[65] A. C. Doherty, P. A. Parrilo, and F. M. Spedalieri,“Detecting multipartite entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A71 (2005) 032333.

[66] S. J. van Enk, N. Lutkenhaus, and H. J. Kimble,“Experimental procedures for entanglementverification,” Phys. Rev. A 75 (2007) 052318.

[67] S. J. van Enk and C. A. Fuchs, “Quantum state of anideal propagating laser field,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(2002) 027902//1–4, arXiv:quant-ph/0104036.

[68] S. J. van Enk and C. A. Fuchs, “Quantum state of apropagating laser field,” Quant. Info. Comp. 2 (2002)151–65.

[69] C. Ferrie and J. Emerson, “Framed Hilbert space:hanging the quasi-probability pictures of quantumtheory,” New J. Phys. 11 (2009) 063040.

[70] W. K. Wootters, “Quantum mechanics withoutprobability amplitudes,” Found. Phys. 16 (1986) 391.

[71] D. M. Appleby, H. B. Dang, and C. A. Fuchs,“Symmetric informationally-complete quantum statesas analogues to orthonormal bases and minimumuncertainty states,” Entropy 16 (2007) no. 3, 1484–92,arXiv:0707.2071 [quant-ph].

[72] G. Zauner, Quantum Designs – Foundations of aNon-Commutative Theory of Designs. PhD thesis,University of Vienna, 1999.

[73] C. M. Caves, “Symmetric informationally completePOVMs.” Posted at http://info.phys.unm.edu/

~caves/reports/infopovm.pdf, 1999.[74] J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M.

Caves, “Symmetric informationally complete quantummeasurements,” J. Math. Phys. 45 (2004) 2171.

[75] A. J. Scott and M. Grassl, “SIC-POVMs: A newcomputer study,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 51

38

(2009) 042203, arXiv:0910.5784 [quant-ph].[76] C. A. Fuchs and M. Sasaki, “Squeezing quantum

information through a classical channel: measuring the‘quantumness’ of a set of quantum states,” Quant.Info. Comp. 3 (2003) 377, arXiv:quant-ph/0302092.

[77] A. J. Scott, “Tight informationally complete quantummeasurements,” J. Phys. A 39 (2006) 13507.

[78] W. K. Wootters and D. M. Sussman, “Discrete phasespace and minimum-uncertainty states,”arXiv:0704.1277 [quant-ph].

[79] H. Zhu, “Quasiprobability representations of quantummechanics with minimal negativity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117 (2016) no. 12, 120404, arXiv:1604.06974[quant-ph].

[80] D. M. Appleby, C. A. Fuchs, and H. Zhu, “Grouptheoretic, Lie algebraic and Jordan algebraicformulations of the SIC existence problem,” QuantumInformation & Computation 15 (2015) no. 1–2, 61–94,arXiv:1312.0555 [quant-ph].

[81] A. Ling, S. K. Pang, A. Lamas-Linares, andC. Kurtsiefer, “Experimental polarization statetomography using optimal polarimeters,” Phys. Rev. A74 (2006) 022309.

[82] Z. E. D. Medendorp, F. A. Torres-Ruiz, L. K. Shalm,C. A. Fuchs, and A. M. Steinberg, “Characterizing aqutrit directly with symmetric informationallycomplete (SIC) POVMs,” in Quantum Electronics andLaser Science Conference. Optical Society of America,2010.

[83] N. Bent, H. Qassim, A. A. Tahir, D. Sych, G. Leuchs,L. L. Sanchez-Soto, E. Karimi, and R. W. Boyd,“Experimental realization of quantum tomography ofphotonic qudits via symmetric informationallycomplete positive operator-valued measures,” Phys.Rev. X 5 (2015) no. 4, 041006.

[84] G. Bacciagaluppi and E. Crull, “Heisenberg (andSchrodinger, and Pauli) on hidden variables,” Stud.Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 40 (2009) 374.

[85] J. Bub, “Quantum probabilities as degrees of belief,”Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 38 (2007) 232.

[86] R. Jozsa, “Illustrating the concept of quantuminformation,” IBM J. Res. Dev. 48 (2004) 79.

[87] D. M. Appleby, A. Ericsson, and C. A. Fuchs,“Properties of QBist state spaces,” Found. Phys. 41(2011) no. 3, 564–79, arXiv:0910.2750 [quant-ph].

[88] C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, “A Quantum-Bayesianroute to quantum-state space,” Found. Phys. 41(2011) no. 3, 345–56, arXiv:0912.4252 [quant-ph].

[89] D. M. Appleby, S. T. Flammia, and C. A. Fuchs, “TheLie algebraic significance of symmetric informationallycomplete measurements,” J. Math. Phys. 52 (2011)022202, arXiv:1001.0004 [quant-ph].

[90] M. Appleby, C. A. Fuchs, B. C. Stacey, and H. Zhu,“Introducing the qplex: A novel arena for quantumtheory,” arXiv:1612.03234 [quant-ph].

[91] E. C. G. Stueckelberg, “Quantum theory in realHilbert space,” Helv. Phys. Acta 33 (1960) 727.

[92] S. L. Adler, Quaternionic Quantum Mechanics andQuantum Fields. Oxford University Press, 1995.

[93] M. Khatirinejad, Regular Structures of Lines inComplex Space. PhD thesis, Simon Fraser University,2008.

[94] G. Chiribella, A. Cabello, and M. Kleinmann, “Theobserver observed: a Bayesian route to the

reconstruction of quantum theory.”http://fqxi.org/grants/large/awardees/view/__

details/2016/chiribella, 2016.[95] D. M. Appleby, S. Flammia, G. McConnell, and

J. Yard, “Generating ray class fields of real quadraticfields via complex equiangular lines,”arXiv:1604.06098 [math.NT].

[96] B. C. Stacey, “Sporadic SICs and the normed divisionalgebras,” arXiv:1605.01426 [quant-ph].

[97] J. Bernstein, “Max Born and the quantum theory,”Am. J. Phys. 73 (2005) 999–1008.

[98] W. A. Fedak and J. J. Prentis, “The 1925 Born andJordan paper ‘on quantum mechanics’,” Am. J. Phys.77 (2009) 128–39.

[99] E. Scholz, “Weyl entering the ‘new’ quantummechanics discourse,” in HQ-1: Conference on theHistory of Quantum Physics, C. Joas, C. Lehner, andJ. Renn, eds., pp. 249–67. Max Planck Institute for theHistory of Science, 2008. http://www.mpiwg-berlin.

mpg.de/Preprints/P350.PDF#page=262.[100] H. Weyl, The Theory of Groups and Quantum

Mechanics. Dover, 1927.[101] J. Schwinger, Quantum Kinematics and Dynamics.

1970.[102] H. Zhu, Quantum State Estimation and Symmetric

Informationally Complete POMs. PhD thesis, NationalUniversity of Singapore, 2012. https:

//scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/35247.[103] A. Szymusiak and W. S lomczynski, “Informational

power of the Hoggar symmetric informationallycomplete positive operator-valued measure,” Phys.Rev. A 94 (2016) 012122, arXiv:1512.01735[quant-ph].

[104] B. C. Stacey, “Geometric and information-theoreticproperties of the Hoggar lines,” arXiv:1609.03075

[quant-ph].[105] B. C. Stacey, “SIC-POVMs and compatibility among

quantum states,” Mathematics 4 (2016) no. 2, 36,arXiv:1404.3774 [quant-ph].

[106] I. Bengtsson, “The number behind the simplestSIC-POVM,” arXiv:1611.09087 [quant-ph].

[107] N. Schappacher, “On the history of Hilbert’s twelfthproblem: A comedy of errors,” in Materiaux pourlhistoire des mathematiques au XXe siecle, p. 243. Soc.Math. France, Paris,, 1998.

[108] J. C. Baez and H. Joyce, “Ubiquitous octonions.”PLUS MAGAZINE, https://plus.maths.org/content/ubiquitous-octonions,2005.

[109] M. Viazovska, “The sphere packing problem indimension 8,” arXiv:1603.04246 [math.NT].

[110] T. Norsen, “Quantum solipsism and non-locality.”http://www.ijqf.org/wps/wp-content/uploads/

2014/12/Norsen-Bell-paper.pdf, 2014.[111] R. Rorty, Philosophical Papers, Volume 1: Objectivity,

Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge University Press,1991.

[112] J. Dupre, The Disorder of Things: MetaphysicalFoundations of the Disunity of Science. HarvardUniversity Press, 1993.

[113] N. Cartwright, The Dappled World: A Study of theBoundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press,1999.

[114] W. James, A Pluralistic Universe. University of

39

Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NB, 1996.[115] J. Wahl, The Pluralist Philosophies of England and

America. Open Court, London, 1925. Translated by F.Rothwell.

[116] W. James, Some Problems of Philosophy. Longmans,Green, and Co., London, 1940.

[117] W. James, Essays in Radical Empiricism. Universityof Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NB, 1996.

[118] W. James, “The dilemma of determinism,” in TheWill to Believe and Other Essays in PopularPhilosophy; Human Immortality—Both Books Boundas One, p. 145. Dover, 1884.

[119] H. S. Thayer, Meaning and Action: A Critical Historyof Pragmatism. Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis,second ed., 1981.

[120] W. James, “On some Hegelisms,” in The Will toBelieve and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy;Human Immortality—Both Books Bound as One,p. 263. Dover, 1882.

[121] W. James, “Is life worth living?,” in The Will toBelieve and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy;Human Immortality—Both Books Bound as One,p. 32. Dover, 1884.

[122] R. P. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law. MITPress, 1965.

[123] W. James, “Abstractionism and ‘relativismus’,” in TheMeaning of Truth, p. 246. Prometheus Books,Amherst, NY, 1997.

[124] H. C. von Baeyer, Petite Lecons de Physique dans lesJardins de Paris. Dunod, Paris, 2009.

[125] L. Hardy, “Quantum theory from five reasonableaxioms,” arXiv:quant-ph/0101012.

[126] L. Hardy, “Why quantum theory?,” in Non-localityand Modality, T. Placek and J. Butterfield, eds., p. 61.Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2002.

[127] B. Dakic and C. Brukner, “Quantum theory andbeyond: Is entanglement special?,” in Deep Beauty:Understanding the Quantum World throughMathematical Innovation, H. Halvorson, ed.,pp. 365–92. Cambridge University Press, 2011.arXiv:0911.0695 [quant-ph].

[128] C. A. Fuchs, “On the quantumness of a Hilbert space,”Quant. Info. Comp. 4 (2004) 467,arXiv:quant-ph/0404122.

[129] N. Brunner, S. Pironio, A. Acin, N. Gisin, A. A.Methot, and V. Scarani, “Testing the Hilbert spacedimension,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 210503.

[130] S. Wehner, M. Christandl, and A. C. Doherty, “Lowerbound on the dimension of a quantum system givenmeasured data,” Phys. Rev. A 78 (2008) 062112.

[131] M. M. Wolf and D. Perez-Garcia, “Assessingdimensions from evolution,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102(2009) 190504.

[132] R. Blume-Kohout, C. M. Caves, and I. H. Deutsch,“Climbing mount scalable: physical-resourcerequirements for a scalable quantum computer,”Found. Phys. 32 (2002) 1641.

[133] N. J. Cerf, M. Bourennane, A. Karlsson, and N. Gisin,“Security of quantum key distribution using d-levelsystems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 127902.

[134] G. T. Horowitz and J. Maldacena, “The black holefinal state,” J. High Energy Phys. 2004 (2004) no. 2,008.

[135] D. Gottesman and J. Preskill, “Comment on ‘the black

hole final state’,” J. High Energy Phys. 2004 (2004)no. 3, 026.

[136] S. Prawer and A. D. Greentree, “Diamond forquantum computing,” Science 320 (2008) 1601.

[137] I. Ojima, “Nature vs. science,” Acta Inst. Phil. Aesth.10 (1992) 55.

[138] M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and theQuantum-to-Classical Transition. Springer-Verlag,2007.

[139] M. Schlosshauer and K. Camilleri, “Niels Bohr asphilosopher of experiment: Does decoherence theorychallenge Bohr’s doctrine of classical concepts?,” Stud.Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 49 (2015) 73–83.

[140] H. Barnum, “Quantum knowledge, quantum belief,quantum reality. Notes of a QBist fellow traveler,”arXiv:1003.4555 [quant-ph].

[141] J. Kofler, Quantum Violation of Macroscopic Realismand the Transition to Classical Physics. PhD thesis,University of Vienna, 2008. arXiv:0812.0238

[quant-ph].[142] R. Haag, “Some people and some problems met in half

a century of commitment to mathematical physics,”Eur. Phys. J. H 35 (2010) 263–307.

[143] J. Bekenstein, “Bekenstein bound,” Scholarpedia 3(2008) no. 10, 7374. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Bekenstein_bound.

[144] P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown, eds., The Ghost inthe Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of QuantumPhysics. Cambridge University Press, 1986.

[145] W. James, Pragmatism, a New Name for Some OldWays of Thinking: Popular Lectures on Philosophy.Longmans, Green and Co., New York, 1922.

[146] A. Einstein, “Remarks concerning the essays broughttogether in this co-operative volume,” in AlbertEinstein: Philosopher-Scientist, P. A. Schilpp, ed.,pp. 665–88. Tudor Publishing Co., New York, 1949.

[147] J. B. DeBrota, “A quantum information geometricapproach to renormalization,” arXiv:1609.09440

[quant-ph].[148] C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, “Bayesian conditioning,

the reflection principle, and quantum decoherence,” inProbability in Physics, pp. 233–47. Springer, 2012.arXiv:1103.5950 [quant-ph].

[149] B. C. Stacey, Multiscale Structure in Eco-EvolutionaryDynamics. PhD thesis, Brandeis University, 2016.arXiv:1509.02958 [q-bio.PE].

[150] D. C. Lamberth, William James and the Metaphysicsof Experience. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

[151] E. Taylor and R. H. Wozniak, Pure Experience: TheResponse to William James. Thoemmes Press, Bristol,UK, 1996.

[152] J. Wild, The Radical Empiricism of William James.Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1969.

[153] S. Gieser, The Innermost Kernel: Depth Psychologyand Quantum Physics. Wolfgang Pauli’s Dialogue withC. G. Jung. Springer, 2005.

[154] B. Russell, The Analysis of Mind. Arc Manor,Rockville, MD, 2008.

[155] E. C. Banks, Ernst Mach’s World Elements: A Studyin Natural Philosophy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003.

[156] M. Heidelberger, Nature from Within: Gustav TheodorFechner and His Psychophysical Worldview. Universityof Pittsburgh Press, 2004.