Rüdiger Schack: Participatory realism 

amazing as all Qbist talks

The QandA feels a tad unfair. Schack should have been accompanied with someone who was better versed in the implication of his theory to philosophy. (not a QBism supporter but would love to hear a clear attractive argument for it... ??? After several papers, articles, and presentations just like this one, I still am at a loss.)

I like that Rudiger Schack is trying to help people understand the various interpretations of quantum mechanics by categorizing the interpretations according to their perspectives. My thinking about quantum mechanics is different. Historically the various interpretations of quantum mechanics began with physicists trying to explain the results of some particle 2 slit experiments. 1 way some physicists tried to explain these results was by assuming the existence of quantum superpositions. This assumption and its implications have since received much popular attention. But there is a huge problem with this assumption which no 1 seems to mention. Quantum superpositions have never been observed. I think they have never been observed, not because they are unobservable, but because they do not exist. Resultantly, I think all the implications of this assumption, which include wave function collapse, and quantum entanglement, which also have never been observed, also do not exist. In my video, “Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica”, I logically explains the results of particle 2 slit experiments using a very simple field theory. In my video, “Quantum Mechanics Intervention”, I debunk more of the illogic in quantum mechanics. And most importantly, I have invented a unifying physics theory, matter theory, which makes all the current professionally used physics theories obsolete. Imagine having to learn only 1 simple, logical physics theory that better explains more observables than all the other current professionally used physics theories combined. I am seeking funding before I publish. You can find my videos using the search keywords: matter theory marostica.

It is incoherent to state that the wavefunction is completely subjective (depicting the subject's beliefs) and the Born rule is about the world, and at the same time endorse the Born rule. In other words, if QM is just about the subject's beliefs; I can't see how it could be empirically successful.

so, quantum woowoo is not some new-age bullshit after all ;)

so, if the world is made out of anything, it's beliefs?

I don't want to judge about the theory itself, but the presentation, in my opinion, is not very good. The style is a bit monotonic and the explanations are just not clear enough. In many places needed to stop the video and repeat passages multiple times in order to understand them.

The problem here is that we won’t admit that we are not the universal observer or even that one exists. Therefore we have no explanation that can tie it all together. The universe can in fact be whatever it really is, even if we cannot observe it. But that is the rub isn’t it, pleased to meet you, hope you guess my game. Any theory that refuses to postulate the existence of observers from a higher dimension (the ancient Mesopotamians called them watchers) is ignoring human experience while still claiming that everyone’s experience is real. Come to the conclusion that God exists and His will is shaping reality and His agents interacting with it. We are spirits as surely as we are conglomerations of matter, and that word “spirit” refers to objects and places within the real objective universe that are every bit as real as the “physical” universe. In fact if, as we have so amazingly discovered in the halls of quantum theory, we do affect the universe isn’t it impossible to avoid a discussion of human morals. We can be part of making the world a better place and how can that be less valuable than worrying about the chance of the world being a better place.