Talk:Quantum Bayesianism

Advertisement for non-notable concept

This page reads like a promotion of a non-notable quantum mechanical interpretation. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, it reads like an academic textbook, rather than a Wikipedia article. I don't feel intellectually equipped to tackle it, though.--Soulparadox 08:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --77.89.233.54 00:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not write this purely promotionally. I am not involved with its development at all. It have been developed for the last decade. Relative to other theories, it is new. What criteria is needed for speedy deletion and how does this article meet them.77.89.233.54 00:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakr (talk • contribs)

I know the principal quantum Bayesians (and consider myself a fellow traveler with reservations (depending on exactly what is meant by quantum Bayesianism). The article does not read at all like what they would have written to promote the position. It could certainly use improvement, and there are plenty of non-quantum-Bayesians who are familiar enough with the topic to help do the job if motivated. I would be willing to take a crack at it if it is not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorphismOfDoom (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't static, the version of the article where speedy deletion was requested is different to the current version. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fringe?

This article is tagged as pseudoscience, but my impression from a quick view of the references is that it is a serious attempt to interpret quantum mechanics, and therefore should be classed as philosophy of physics. In the Streater reference (which is very critical of the theory), John von Neumann is identified as the first quantum Bayesian. If so, that's enough to make it notable! The article is not yet balanced, but it could be with more material from the references. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it's not pseudoscience (it's not science, it's philosophy), I'm tagging it as a fringe theory (no significant following). Also note that this isn't a self description by von Neumann, it's someone saying he was after the fact in a book which is a collection of "lost causes" [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

True. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to ascertain how large the following is or whether von Neumann really counts as a Quantum Bayesian. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Referring to a notable physicist, post-humously, as an adherent to a, then, non-existent theory that he'd never heard of, much less interpreted, is pseudoscience; it's also an equivocating rhetorical tactic. Wikibearwithme (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Quote in the lead

The quote from Fuchs is way too long and using it like this borders on plagiarism. Could someone please summarise it? wctaiwan (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Referencing

Secondary sources should be used in preference to the primary sources. Also the referencing has turned into a complete mess; it needs some serious copy editing (in general too). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The article is being stuffed with primary sources to an excessive amount. I suggest they be trimmed back. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Editors who have been alerted to this article: Stuffing it with references is not the way to save it from being deleted. Yes, it helps to show notability, but you should cite references that the article has actually used, not every single discussion and reference of the subject matter. Ideally, you should use inline citations to back up the information, and have maybe a couple of recognised authoritative books as further reading and that's it. Please prune the reference list to leave only ones you used. wctaiwan (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Information is also being excessively cited such as here: [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that a number of individuals are being canvassed off wiki to edit this page (comments on ##not-physics on freenode by Jakr and lbovard indicate this). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The consensus to keep the article was already built.129.2.193.7 (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a talking about the article here, it's in a terrible state now and needs some serious work. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There's also major due weight issues with material without due weight being added WP:DUE. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Change title to QBism

"QBism" is a better name for the article. None of Fuchs, Mermin, or Schack use the term "Quantum Bayesian" anymore and the article as it stands is mainly about this interpretation. Fuchs points out in an interview that the term "Quantum Bayesianism" is in fact inappropriate because of how many kinds of Bayesianism there are:

"Quantum Bayesianism was too much of a mouthful, so I started calling it QBism. As soon as I started calling it QBism, people paid more attention to it! But my colleague David Mermin started complaining that QBism really shouldn’t be short for quantum Bayesianism because there are a lot of Bayesians out there who wouldn’t accept our conclusions. So he wanted to call it quantum Brunoism, for Bruno de Finetti. The trouble with that is that there are parts of the metaphysics of QBism that even de Finetti wouldn’t accept! But then I found the perfect B. The trouble is, it’s so ugly you wouldn’t want to show it off in public. It’s a term that comes from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He described his own philosophy as “bettabilitarianism.” It’s the philosophy that, as Louis Menand said, “the world is loose at the joints.” The best you can do is gamble on the consequences of your actions. [The portmanteau comes from bet and ability.] I think this fits it perfectly, but I don’t want to say that QBism stands for quantum bettabilitarianism, so I think it’s best to do what KFC did. It used to be Kentucky Fried Chicken; now it’s just KFC.".

"QBism" is the generally accepted term in the community as well, for example, von Baeyer's book contains the name in the title and there are presently at least 8 articles on arXiv.org written by people not associated with its development which contain the term in their titles. Patchworld (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can use Arxiv, and you also rewrote the article from a promotionaltone. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you undid my page move. Quantum Bayesianism is an appropriate name for the article, so it’s fine to just leave it at that. However, you also rolled back all of my changes to the article, which I think is going too far. Prior to my changes, there were not many secondary or tertiary sources and several passages contained factual errors. All of my edits were backed up with references and actually represent the interpretation. The version you have restored is severely lacking and missing essential details of the position which I had added. My changes do not only reflect arXiv postings, but, in fact, mostly peer-reviewed articles and news articles. I suspect some phrases were a bit promotional or unencyclopedic as you say, but certainly not all of my contributions were inappropriate. In particular, the community responses to QBism are sufficiently numerous and documented in my revisions that I do not believe WP:FRINGE is violated by my changes. I will work to rephrase statements in a more encyclopedic tone and say more about media coverage of QBism, but I think it is most appropriate to build upon the changes I’ve already made since March 2nd. Patchworld (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the anon who RVed the page to Patchworld's version. I believe that Patchworld's version, which included a clear summary of critiques and criticisms, as well as a decent sense of the media coverage of QBism, was much more in keeping with WP:FRINGE than the mess that had been here before. (While the older and more general term "Quantum Bayesianism" may be more appropriate for a page title, "QBism" is used in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article to refer to the specific Fuchs--Mermin--Schack version.) 2600:1000:B014:2C87:348A:226E:E890:5F34 (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Attempted Peacemaking: I think the path to a better article will involve 1) Patchworld's restraining the promotional or triumphalist air their version had, exemplified by the cubist painting, or making the article too long, but equally 2) KATMAKROFAN's restraining their militant deletionism, which can be very discouraging to a new editor trying to improve an article on which they have both expertise and opinions, and needing help in writing encyclopedically. The main thrust of the WP:FRINGE guideline does not apply here because QBism is not pseudoscience. Rather it's an interpretation, which everyone in the field admits explains the same facts as other standard interpretations, but in a way that seems compellingly but unprovably beautiful to a few people (I am not one of them, personally finding many-worlds and decoherence theory more beautiful). The multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics are not a sign of unfinished science, like continental drift or the solar neutrino problem, but rather a healthy part of the process of fitting our intuitions and concepts to nature, different blind men's descriptions of a beast stranger than any elephant. Like the multiple explanations of thermodynamic irreversibility, they will probably ultimately be seen as complementary, not one right and the others wrong. Already QBism has stimulated research, e.g. in SIC-POVM's, that one doesn't have to be a QBist to appreciate, and it has been commented on to a noteworthy degree in the popular press. A Wikipedia article is the place to explain QBism, a task Patchworld seems well-qualified to participate in, but not to advocate it.CharlesHBennett (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with CharlesHBennett, Patchworld, and the anonymous user who reverted the article to Patchworld's version, that Patchworld's version is not in violation of WP:FRINGE. I also agree that there were some passages in Patchworld's version that came off as a bit promotional, although to me, "triumphalist" seems too strong. Although some passages may have read a bit like academic writing, I think in general the article in Patchworld's version was fairly encyclopedic in the range of aspects of Quantum Bayesianism/QBism it covered. Regarding titling the article QBism versus Quantum Bayesianism, either could be appropriate---Quantum Bayesianism refers primarily to views that are the direct and recent precursor of what is now called QBism. Perhaps for now leaving all content under Quantum Bayesianism is best since under that title, the article is part of the Physics project. I will shortly put up a version of the article based on Patchworld's, but toning down promotional aspects, both in wording and also in putting the cubist painting with quote from David Mermin in the caption, to the "reception and reactions", tightening some prose, making some language less like an academic article, and providing clearer and perhaps more accurate language about some things, e.g. Bohr's views on the quantum state. In general I think this version, based on patchworld's, provides a better basis for an article that will give readers a good idea of what this approach to interpreting quantum mechanics, which is as notable as any interpretation currently under discussion, is about. There are still things that could be improved and I will undertake to make further improvements. Hopefully others with knowledge of the subject area will help as well. MorphismOfDoom (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Hi, can something be done about the Referencing on this article as the way it is you end up with the inline cites as double small and causes accessibility problems because of the small size of the text. Regards. Keith D (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

See the previous version. Is it better there? Over 100 of my edits were just rolled back by KATMAKROFAN. --Patchworld (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

No that version also has the same problem and several more such as violation of heading capitalisation and ordering of footing sections. Keith D (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It's been ages since I've had to deal with the intricacies of MediaWiki markup (and that was mostly on a corporate intranet wiki), but from poking around, it looks like the font size in the references is set by the reflist template: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Reflist#Font_size ... So I don't think it should have changed? But software is strange. (Maybe the single-column versus double-column thing has an effect on the font size?) 2600:1000:B079:595F:E805:3F0:64CF:F5AA (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's because someone used both reflist and refbegin/refend? Would that apply the font-size reduction percentage twice? 2600:1000:B019:10C:C453:6420:6C77:9C00 (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct the problem is the use of {{Reflist}} after {{Refbegin}} as both templates reduce the font size, thus the second template reduces the already reduced size from the first template. You have to keep them separate but that means restructuring the section into two lists. Keith D (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that is helpful -- thank you! 2600:1000:B02C:74EB:50A5:C285:F616:967 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

probability-1

Three times this article refers to "probability-1" without defining that term or linking to any article that defines it. That should be remedied. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've tried to fix it up. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by suggestions

There's too much packed in the WP:Lead. Give a basic definition and summary of the most critical points, but leave the extensive details for the body of the article.

Reduce the WP:Overcite. There are piles of 3 or more refs everywhere. In most cases one good ref is all you need to support something. Alsee (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is there no mentioning of quantum filtering theory and works on conditional expectations in von Neumann algebras?

These works go back as far back as 1960s (see Takesaki) and 1980s (see Belavkin) and completely pre-date QBism, and I can see nothing new in what QBism is attempting to offer. 93.138.249.181 (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)