Rudiger Schack - Can Two QBists Experience One Thing? QBism's Take on Wigner's Friend

From March 2019. See  Christopher A. Fuchs on the Day QBism Shot Itself in the Foot which was the same year.

 

My comments:

7:41 A consistency requirement would be connected to more than just one individual's knowledge though. I'm sure there is a better one, I just don't know what it is! 😀 [8:31 But it's connected with how the reference measurement is established [14:11 Oh, he says as much himself! [18:23 and confirms it explicitly! ]]]

25:59 Regularities one expects are always conditioned on some context. I expect the apple to fall, but not if it's on a shelf, for example. So ultimately our expectations are conditioned by our abilities to prepare experimental conditions. When our expectations are not met the most likely reasons are that the [experimental] conditions were not in fact met, or there were [experimental] conditions that we thought were universal but which turned out not to be, and these are novelties. I have the feeling that this can be shown to be consistent with Popper's falsifiability criterion for scientific knowledge: universal laws are those things that happen just because there is no particular reason why anything else should happen. The second law of thermodynamics is perhaps the best example.
 
59:42 [I made a comment on this, regarding the nature of the many particular things other than mass, but YouTube deleted it because it had a link to Popper talking about exactly this.] Newton's Law of Gravitation was derived from what Newton called "Inductive Reasoning" (Isaac Newton: "In [experimental] philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena and afterwards rendered general by induction": Principia, Book 3, General Scholium, at p. 392 in Volume 2 of Andrew Motte's English translation published 1729.) The law does not tell you the conditions under which this "particular aspect of things" (i.e. gravitational mass) is observed, nor even the phenomena that represent it because observations of these things are "theory laden" in Popper's terminology, and the growth of knowledge proceeds by conjectures and refutations, so we are continually testing existing knowledge against new experience. But that does not tell us how to proceed in the case when observations apparently contradict our theories: we have to make a choice about what is in error: theory or observation, and it is not always clear. It would be nice of the consistency requirement could help with this.


Subscribe to Philosophy Overdose.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Steven Johnson - So You Think You Know How to Take Derivatives?

Hitachi HD44780U LCD Display Fonts

Welsh Republic Podcast Talking With Kars Collective on Armenia Azerbaijan Conflict