Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 60 references

QBism on Locality and Nonlocality

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that QBism is a purely local interpretation of quantum mechanics: once probabilities and spacetime are treated as personal judgments, Bell inequality violations require no revision of relativistic locality.

desk verdict The clearest statement yet of QBism's locality claim, but the 'purely local' headline needs to be reconciled with the paper's own admission that quantum theory is causally neutral. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05368 v1 pith:L7RUEXIA submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph

John B. DeBrota , Christopher A. Fuchs , Rüdiger Schack This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords QBismlocalityBellinequalitiespersonalistspacetimeparameterindependenceoutcomeBayesianupdatingquantumfoundations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that QBism is a purely local interpretation of quantum mechanics. The authors show that when a QBist agent constrains her personal probabilities by relativistic locality, nothing in the quantum formalism — entanglement included — forces her to revise that belief. Bell inequality violations, they claim, arise only because the usual account assumes a third-person, 'God's eye' view in which both observers' outcomes coexist in a shared spacetime. Telling the Bell scenario from a single agent's first-person perspective makes the correlations a consequence of ordinary Bayesian updating, not of action at a distance.

What carries the argument

The paper's central machinery is the first-person causal diagram (its Figure 2), drawn from Alice's perspective. Bob's measurement setting and outcome are treated as events in Alice's future — experiences she will have upon taking actions such as asking Bob what he did. The diagram adds a single arrow from Alice's outcome a to Bob's outcome b, representing Bayesian updating, while retaining the parameter-independence constraints P(B|A)=P(B) and P(b|A)=P(b). These constraints alone define the no-signaling polytope and cannot yield the CHSH bound of 2, so the Bell inequalities never arise.

What would settle it

A concrete calculation that derives a Bell inequality (a bound below 4 for the CHSH expression) using only a single agent's personal probabilities subject to parameter independence and Bayesian conditioning — with no assumption of shared events — would falsify the paper's central claim; the paper contends PI alone cannot yield such a bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that outcome independence (OI) is not a locality condition at all once probabilities are personal. In the Bell scenario told from Alice's perspective, Bob's setting and outcome are originarily Alice's experiences, located in her future. Locality then requires only parameter independence — that Bob's setting and outcome be independent of Alice's free choice of measurement — which quantum mechanics satisfies. The violation of OI, which in Bell's framework is half of 'locality,' is just the ordinary fact that Alice updates her probabilities when she experiences an outcome. The observed violation of Bell inequalities therefore says nothing nonlocal; it merely reflects coherent Bayesian updating on Alice's part.

Load-bearing premise

The account collapses if one insists that all observers' outcomes are events in a single objective spacetime; the paper assumes, without proof, that the 'view from nowhere' can be rejected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QBism can claim locality in the same sense that relativity uses: a single agent's beliefs need never admit influences between spacelike-separated systems.
  • Bell's theorem stops being a trilemma; rejecting the 'view from nowhere' is a live, coherent escape route that preserves both locality and measurement independence.
  • Pienaar's spacetime fragmentation is treated as a feature, not a bug, and points toward an ontology without a block universe.
  • The quantum formalism is causally neutral: it can be paired with any causal structure, so future revisions to quantum theory and to relativity are logically independent.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the paper is right, loophole-free Bell tests are not tests of nature's nonlocality but tests of the coherence of a single agent's personal probability assignments — a shift that could reshape how experimental results are presented.
  • The paper's criterion of locality (parameter independence within one agent's probabilities) offers a concrete test for other interpretations: an interpretation is local exactly when it can be expressed as a single agent's probability assignments satisfying PI.
  • The causally neutral reading suggests quantum gravity should not be expected to quantize a background spacetime; instead, agent-indexed personalist spacetimes might be the fundamental objects, a program the authors only gesture at.
  • A future theory that fails to be causally neutral — e.g., one with superluminal Hamiltonian terms — would force QBism to concede nonlocality, so the claim is empirically hostage to the discovery of such terms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that QBism is, or can be, a local interpretation of quantum mechanics. After invoking Pienaar's result that QBist observers' outcomes cannot be embedded in a single spacetime, the authors claim that QBism must treat spacetime as personal, and that the Bell scenario must be told from a single agent's first-person perspective. From Alice's perspective, parameter independence constraints P(B|A)=P(B) and P(b|A)=P(b) are adopted as expressions of relativistic locality, while outcome independence fails only because Bob's outcome b can be correlated with Alice's already-experienced outcome a through ordinary Bayesian updating. The resulting causal diagram avoids the Bell/CHSH inequalities. Section 4 concedes that the quantum formalism is causally neutral and allows nonlocal Hamiltonians or future theories that violate locality; Section 5 sketches personalist spacetime and possible fragmented-world ontologies.

Significance. If the claim were established, the paper would provide QBism with a positive account of locality rather than a mere denial of nonlocality, while connecting to recent Wigner's-friend no-go results. The manuscript has real strengths: it uses no free parameters or numerical fitting, the probability constraints in Section 3 are stated cleanly, it engages the Pienaar/Cavalcanti literature directly, and Section 4 honestly admits the conditions under which nonlocality could appear. The main deliverable, however, is a consistency argument: quantum mechanics can be used by an agent who adopts locality constraints. The stronger, unconditional claim that QBism is 'purely local' is not supported by the formal content and conflicts with Section 4.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The headline claim that QBism is 'a purely local interpretation of quantum mechanics' is undercut by Section 4, where the authors write that quantum theory 'doesn't force adherence' to locality, that 'causally neutral' might be a better term, and where two routes to genuine nonlocality are admitted, including nonlocal Hamiltonians within the same formalism. If 'local' means parameter independence alone, then locality is imposed as an agent's belief rather than derived from the formalism. If 'local' means that the formalism excludes nonlocal causal structure, Section 4 explicitly denies this. The abstract and the concluding statements should be revised to say that QBism is compatible with locality, or that it is causally neutral, rather than that it is purely local in an unconditional sense.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 2] The key constraints P(B|A)=P(B) and P(b|A)=P(b) are introduced as assumptions that Alice adopts 'because of the space-like separation' and 'her belief in relativistic locality.' They are not consequences of the quantum formalism, and the paper gives no argument that a QBist agent must adopt them. The demonstration is therefore conditional: if an agent already has locality beliefs, the quantum formalism can be made consistent with those beliefs. This is a legitimate consistency result, but it does not establish that QBism is local without qualification.
  3. [Section 3, paragraph on Alice's experiences] The load-bearing move is the relocation of Bob's setting and outcome into Alice's future experience, described as 'originarily experiences of Alice alone.' This is equivalent to rejecting the Absoluteness of Observed Events and the existence of a single shared spacetime containing both observers' outcomes. That rejection is a QBist premise, not a theorem derived in the paper. If one grants a single objective spacetime in which Bob's outcome is an event independent of Alice's later experience, the probabilistic constraints and the arrow from a to b do not have the stated status, and the local account does not go through. The paper should present this as an explicit premise rather than as something that follows from 'nothing in the formalism.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 4] The paper should choose between 'purely local' and 'causally neutral' and use the chosen term consistently; the current usage invites the equivocation identified in the major comments.
  2. [Section 3] The variables B and b are used both as labels for Bob's setting and outcome and as events in Alice's experience; a more explicit notation, such as B^A and b^A, would reduce ambiguity.
  3. [Figure 2] The caption states that arrows indicate statistical dependence; since the arrow from a to b arises from conditioning rather than causation, this should be explicitly flagged to prevent a causal reading of the diagram.
  4. [Section 2] The remark that Weyl's 1928 book is 'the first textbook ever on quantum mechanics' is historically questionable and could be softened or qualified.
  5. [Section 4] The slogan 'The quantum formalism doesn't know anything about space and time' is stronger than the paper's own formal claims; it should be clarified as referring to causal neutrality under agent-supplied spacetime constraints.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The 'purely local' claim rests on defining locality as parameter independence and assuming PI in Alice's beliefs; Section 4 then concedes the formalism is causally neutral.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, paragraphs after Fig. 1 and Fig. 2; echoed in the Abstract and Section 4.]
    "because of the space-like separation, she believes that neither Bob’s setting nor his outcome depends on her measurement choice, that is, P(B|A) =P(B) and P(b|A) =P(b). ... Instead, in QBism, PI is the meaningful notion of locality that remains once hidden variables are rejected in this way. ... When we bring quantum mechanics to our standard expectations of relativistic locality, constraining all processes to be properly local, nothing in the formalism, entanglement or otherwise, requires any revision to this assumption."

    Locality is first identified with parameter independence (PI), and Alice’s PI conditions P(B|A)=P(B) and P(b|A)=P(b) are stipulated as her 'belief in relativistic locality' rather than derived from the quantum formalism. The conclusion that 'nothing in the formalism ... requires any revision to this assumption' therefore restates the input assumption as the output result: QBism is declared local because the assumed PI constraints are consistent, not because quantum theory entails them. Section 4 strengthens this reading by conceding that quantum theory 'doesn’t force adherence' to locality and that 'causally neutral' may be a better term, so the categorical 'purely local' claim is a definitional and interpretive choice rather than a theorem.

full rationale

The paper’s mathematical content is largely genuine: PI constraints alone do not entail the CHSH bound of 2, quantum correlations can violate outcome independence while satisfying parameter independence, and the engagement with Maudlin, Henson, and Musser is external and substantive. No parameters are fitted and no empirical prediction is renamed. The circularity concern is confined to the headline claim that QBism is 'a purely local interpretation': if 'locality' is defined as PI and PI is assumed as Alice’s belief, then the positive assertion that QBism is local is true by construction, not by derivation. The paper’s own Section 4 concession that 'causally neutral' may be a better term and that quantum theory does not force adherence to locality should be weighed in the verdict; it shows the abstract overstates what is established. The personalist-spacetime premise is supported by Pienaar’s external theorem and only historically by the authors’ own prior papers, so it is not a load-bearing self-citation. Overall, the partial circularity is definitional and terminological, not numerical or self-citational, supporting a score of 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a conceptual consistency argument within the QBism framework. It introduces no new free parameters or entities; it relies on QBism's core postulates: personalist probabilities, rejection of a view from nowhere and AOE, the identification of locality with parameter independence rather than outcome independence, and the claim that Bayesian updating carries no causal content. Standard probability calculus is used implicitly.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard probability calculus, including Bayes' rule.
    Used throughout Section 3 to update Alice's beliefs, for instance the claim that P(b|a) differs from P(b), and to impose P(B|A)=P(B) and P(b|A)=P(b).
  • domain assumption Quantum states, channels, and measurements are personal judgments of the user.
    Core QBism premise stated in Section 2; it licenses replacing Bell's objective probabilities with Alice's personal ones.
  • domain assumption There is no view from nowhere; the Absoluteness of Observed Events is rejected.
    Section 3: the experiment must be narrated from Alice's perspective because QBism does not assume a God's-eye view. This is the load-bearing premise the local account rests on.
  • domain assumption Locality should be identified with parameter independence, not outcome independence.
    Section 3: 'OI is not about locality at all'; parameter independence is 'the meaningful notion of locality that remains once hidden variables are rejected'. The conclusion depends on this definition.
  • domain assumption Bayesian updating on personal probabilities has no physical, causal, or nonlocal content.
    Used to interpret the arrow from a to b in Figure 2 as learning rather than influence; without it the dependence between outcomes would look nonlocal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QBism on Locality and Nonlocality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7RUEXIA

@misc{pith2026260805368,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QBism on Locality and Nonlocality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7RUEXIA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05368}
}
read the original abstract

Recently Pienaar (2026), building on work of Cavalcanti (2021), has shown that QBism cannot always assume distinct observers' quantum-measurement outcomes---say, of Wigner and his friend---are embedded in a single spacetime. This follows from QBism's rejection of the `Absoluteness of Observed Events' assumption in the Bong et al. no-go theorem. Thus, QBism has no choice but to treat the notion of spacetime every bit as personalistic as it treats quantum states and quantum measurement outcomes. In a way, this is not a surprise to QBists, as they have taken the notion of `personalist spacetimes' to be the ansatz most compatible with their other views since at least 2009. But it does enjoin us to finally make crystal clear the sense in which QBism is a purely local interpretation of quantum mechanics despite this new theorem and despite quantum theory's age-old violation of Bell's inequalities. With the extra clarity we also hope to poise QBism for a distinctly new way to approach issues at the interface of quantum theory and gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05368 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bell’s assumptions illustrated from a third-person perspective. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The probabilistic constraints on Alice’s beliefs as they arise in QBism under the assump [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The full experimental scenario with each agents’ personal causal diagram. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Does science need intersubjectivity? The problem of confirmation in orthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics

    Adlam, E. “Does science need intersubjectivity? The problem of confirmation in orthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics”.Synthese200(2022), p. 522 (cit. on p. 6)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Why does the wavefunction 'collapse' in relational approaches to quantum mechanics?

    Adlam, E.Why does the wavefunction ‘collapse’ in relational approaches to quantum mechan- ics?2026. arXiv:2604.12094(cit. on p. 6)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox

    Bell, J. S. “On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox”.Physics Physique Fizika1(1964), pp. 195–200 (cit. on p. 2)

    work page 1964

  4. [4]

    Berkovitz, J.Action at a Distance in Quantum Mechanics. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (eds.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Spring 2007 Edition). 2007.url:https: //plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/qm-action-distance/(cit. on p. 1)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    A Phenomenological Ontology for Physics: Merleau-Ponty and QBism

    Bitbol, M. “A Phenomenological Ontology for Physics: Merleau-Ponty and QBism”.Phe- nomenological Approaches to Physics. Ed. by H. A. Wiltsche and P. Berghofer. Cham, Switzer- land: Springer, 2020, pp. 227–242 (cit. on p. 3)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2026, forthcoming (cit

    Bitbol, M.First-Person Physics: Quantum Mechanics from a Contemporary Phenomenolog- ical Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2026, forthcoming (cit. on p. 3)

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    QBism: An Eco-Phenomenology of Quantum Physics

    Bitbol, M. and L. de La Tremblaye. “QBism: An Eco-Phenomenology of Quantum Physics”. Phenomenology and QBism: New Approaches to Quantum Mechanics. Ed. by P. Berghofer and H. A. Wiltsche. New York: Routledge, 2023, pp. 215–266 (cit. on p. 3)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox

    Bong, K.-W., A. Utreras-Alarc´ on, F. Ghafari, Y.-C. Liang, N. Tischler, E. G. Cavalcanti, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wiseman. “A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox”. Nature Physics16(12) (2020), pp. 1199–1205 (cit. on p. 2)

    work page 2020

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    The View from a Wigner Bubble

    Cavalcanti, E. G. “The View from a Wigner Bubble”.Foundations of Physics51(2) (2021), p. 39 (cit. on p. 2)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories

    Clauser, J. F., M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt. “Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories”.Physical Review Letters23(15) (1969), pp. 880–884 (cit. on p. 9)

    1969

  3. [11]

    No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power

    Colbeck, R. and R. Renner. “No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power”.Nature Communications2(1) (2011), p. 411 (cit. on p. 10)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Born’s rule as a quantum extension of Bayesian coherence

    DeBrota, J. B., C. A. Fuchs, J. L. Pienaar, and B. C. Stacey. “Born’s rule as a quantum extension of Bayesian coherence”.Physical Review A104(2021), p. 022207 (cit. on p. 6)

    2021

  5. [13]

    QBism’s account of quantum dynamics and decoherence

    DeBrota, J. B., C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack. “QBism’s account of quantum dynamics and decoherence”.Physical Review A110(5) (2024), p. 052205 (cit. on pp. 3, 6, 13). 14

    2024

  6. [14]

    A Heptalemma for Quantum Mechanics

    DeBrota, J. B. and C. List. “A Heptalemma for Quantum Mechanics”.Foundations of Physics 56(2026), p. 24 (cit. on pp. 8, 13)

    2026

  7. [15]

    DeBrota, J. B. and B. C. Stacey.F AQBism. 2018. arXiv:1810.13401(cit. on pp. 5, 9)

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?

    Einstein, A., B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”Physical Review47(10) (1935), pp. 777–780 (cit. on p. 4)

    1935

  9. [17]

    The Development of the Space-Time View of Quantum Electrodynamics

    Feynman, R. P. “The Development of the Space-Time View of Quantum Electrodynamics”. Science153(3737) (1966). Nobel Lecture, delivered 11 December 1965, pp. 699–708 (cit. on p. 11)

    1966

  10. [18]

    Frisch, M.Causation in Physics. In E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (eds.),The Stanford En- cyclopedia of Philosophy(Winter 2025 Edition). 2025.url:https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/win2025/entries/causation-physics/(cit. on p. 1)

    2025

  11. [19]

    A.Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information (and only a little more)

    Fuchs, C. A.Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Information (and only a little more). 2002. arXiv:quant-ph/0205039(cit. on pp. 5, 9)

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A.QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism

    Fuchs, C. A.QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism. 2010. arXiv:1003.5209(cit. on pp. 3, 4)

    2010 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A.Interview with a Quantum Bayesian

    Fuchs, C. A.Interview with a Quantum Bayesian. 2012. arXiv:1207.2141(cit. on p. 3)

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A.My Struggles with the Block Universe: Selected Correspondence, January 2001 – May 2011

    Fuchs, C. A.My Struggles with the Block Universe: Selected Correspondence, January 2001 – May 2011. 2014. arXiv:1405.2390(cit. on pp. 3, 5)

    2001 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Notwithstanding Bohr, the Reasons for QBism

    Fuchs, C. A. “Notwithstanding Bohr, the Reasons for QBism”.Mind and Matter15(2) (2017), p. 245 (cit. on p. 3)

    2017

  16. [24]

    On Participatory Realism

    Fuchs, C. A. “On Participatory Realism”.Information and Interaction: Eddington, Wheeler, and the Limits of Knowledge. Ed. by I. T. Durham and D. Rickles. Dordrecht: Springer, 2017, pp. 113–134 (cit. on p. 3)

    2017

  17. [25]

    QBism, Where Next?

    Fuchs, C. A. “QBism, Where Next?”Phenomenology and QBism: New Approaches to Quan- tum Mechanics. Ed. by P. Berghofer and H. A. Wiltsche. New York: Routledge, 2023, pp. 78– 143 (cit. on pp. 2–4)

    2023

  18. [26]

    A.The Birth of QBism

    Fuchs, C. A.The Birth of QBism. Ed. by B. C. Stacey. Singapore: World Scientific, 2026, forthcoming (cit. on p. 3)

    2026

  19. [27]

    An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics

    Fuchs, C. A., N. D. Mermin, and R. Schack. “An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics”.American Journal of Physics82(2014), pp. 749–754 (cit. on pp. 3, 5, 8)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Bayesian Conditioning, the Reflection Principle, and Quan- tum Decoherence

    Fuchs, C. A. and R. Schack. “Bayesian Conditioning, the Reflection Principle, and Quan- tum Decoherence”.Probability in Physics. Ed. by Y. Ben-Menahem and M. Hemmo. Berlin: Springer, 2012, p. 233 (cit. on p. 13)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Quantum-Bayesian coherence

    Fuchs, C. A. and R. Schack. “Quantum-Bayesian coherence”.Reviews of Modern Physics85 (4) (2013), pp. 1693–1715 (cit. on p. 2). 15

    2013

  22. [30]

    QBism: Quantum Theory as a Hero’s Handbook

    Fuchs, C. A. and B. C. Stacey. “QBism: Quantum Theory as a Hero’s Handbook”.Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course 197—Foundations of Quantum Physics. Ed. by E. M. Rasel, W. P. Schleich, and S. W¨ olk. Bologna, Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2018, pp. ...

    2018

  23. [31]

    Fuchs, C. A. and B. C. Stacey.QBism, Polishing Some Points. 2025. arXiv:2512 . 14122 (cit. on p. 4)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Gefter, A.Enaction for QBists. 2024. arXiv:2411.04230(cit. on p. 3)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Physicists Disagree Wildly on What Quantum Mechanics Says about Reality, Nature Survey Shows

    Gibney, E. “Physicists Disagree Wildly on What Quantum Mechanics Says about Reality, Nature Survey Shows”.Nature643(2025), pp. 1175–1179 (cit. on p. 2)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Pho- tons

    Giustina, M. et al. “Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Pho- tons”.Physical Review Letters115(2015), p. 250401 (cit. on p. 2)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Pragmatism’s Conception of Truth

    James, W.Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. See Lecture VI, “Pragmatism’s Conception of Truth.” Reprinted inThe Works of William James, Harvard University Press, 1975. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907 (cit. on p. 13)

    1975

  28. [36]

    On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments

    Jarrett, J. P. “On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments”. Noˆ us18(4) (1984), pp. 569–589 (cit. on p. 9)

    1984

  29. [37]

    Making Sense of Quantum Theory

    Kastner, R. E.Why “Making Sense of Quantum Theory” by Denying That It Describes the World Does Not Really Work. Blog post,Transactional Interpretation. 2018.url:https: //transactionalinterpretation.org/2018/09/22/why- making- sense- of- quantum- theory- by- denying- that- theo...

    2018

  30. [38]

    What Bell Did

    Maudlin, T. “What Bell Did”.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical47(42) (2014), p. 424010 (cit. on pp. 2, 4)

    2014

  31. [39]

    D.QBism as CBism: Solving the Problem of “the Now”’

    Mermin, N. D.QBism as CBism: Solving the Problem of “the Now”’. 2013. arXiv:1312.7825 (cit. on pp. 3, 6, 7)

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Physics: QBism puts the scientist back into science

    Mermin, N. D. “Physics: QBism puts the scientist back into science”.Nature507(2014), pp. 421–423 (cit. on pp. 3, 6)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Making better sense of quantum mechanics

    Mermin, N. D. “Making better sense of quantum mechanics”.Reports on Progress in Physics 82(2019), p. 012002 (cit. on p. 2)

    2019

  34. [42]

    New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015 (cit

    Musser, G.Spooky Action at a Distance: The Phenomenon That Reimagines Space and Time—and What It Means for Black Holes, the Big Bang, and Theories of Everything. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015 (cit. on p. 2)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Lessons of Bell’s Theorem: Nonlocality, Yes; Action at a Distance, Not Necessarily

    Myrvold, W. C. “Lessons of Bell’s Theorem: Nonlocality, Yes; Action at a Distance, Not Necessarily”.Quantum Nonlocality and Reality: 50 Years of Bell’s Theorem. Ed. by M. Bell and S. Gao. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016, pp. 238–260 (cit. on p. 2)

    2016

  36. [44]

    New York: Oxford University Press, 1986 (cit

    Nagel, T.The View from Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986 (cit. on p. 3). 16

    1986

  37. [45]

    Bell Locality and the Nonlocal Character of Nature

    Norsen, T. “Bell Locality and the Nonlocal Character of Nature”.Foundations of Physics Letters19(2006), p. 633 (cit. on p. 4)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Wigner’s Diamond and the Quantum Fragmentation of Space-time

    Pienaar, J. L. “Wigner’s Diamond and the Quantum Fragmentation of Space-time”.Foun- dations of Physics56(2026), p. 20 (cit. on pp. 2, 3, 12, 13)

    2026

  39. [47]

    Quantum Nonlocality as an Axiom

    Popescu, S. and D. Rohrlich. “Quantum Nonlocality as an Axiom”.Foundations of Physics 24(3) (1994), pp. 379–385 (cit. on p. 10)

    1994

  40. [48]

    Oxford University Press, 2019 (cit

    Scarani, V.Bell Nonlocality. Oxford University Press, 2019 (cit. on p. 2)

    2019

  41. [49]

    A QBist Reads Merleau-Ponty

    Schack, R. “A QBist Reads Merleau-Ponty”.Phenomenology and QBism: New Approaches to Quantum Mechanics. Ed. by P. Berghofer and H. A. Wiltsche. New York: Routledge, 2023, pp. 144–153 (cit. on p. 3)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Recorded conference lecture, Information Theoretic Foundations for Physics

    Schack, R.Agency, Causal Structure and Locality in QBism. Recorded conference lecture, Information Theoretic Foundations for Physics. Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. May 11, 2015.url:https://pirsa.org/15050074(cit. on p. 5)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Y ¯ ıng, and M

    Schmid, D., Y. Y ¯ ıng, and M. S. Leifer.A Review and Analysis of Six Extended Wigner’s Friend Arguments. 2023. arXiv:2308.16220(cit. on p. 2)

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Copenhagenish Interpretations of Quantum Me- chanics

    Schmid, D., Y. Y ¯ ıng, and M. S. Leifer. “Copenhagenish Interpretations of Quantum Me- chanics”.Quantum Physics and Cosmology: The Mysteries of the Infinitely Small and the Infinitely Large. Ed. by H. Zwirn. London: Wiley-ISTE, 2025, pp. 133–170 (cit. on p. 2)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Events and Processes in the Quantum World

    Shimony, A. “Events and Processes in the Quantum World”.Quantum Concepts in Space and Time. Ed. by R. Penrose and C. J. Isham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 182–203 (cit. on p. 9)

    1986

  46. [54]

    C.Ideas Abandoned en Route to QBism

    Stacey, B. C.Ideas Abandoned en Route to QBism. 2019. arXiv:1911.07386(cit. on p. 5)

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012 (cit

    Wallace, D.The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the Everett Interpreta- tion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012 (cit. on p. 8)

    2012

  48. [56]

    Reprint edition

    Weyl, H.The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics. Reprint edition. Dover, 1950 (cit. on p. 4)

    1950

  49. [57]

    Law without Law

    Wheeler, J. A. “Law without Law”.Quantum Theory and Measurement. Ed. by J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek. Princeton University Press, 1983, pp. 182–213 (cit. on p. 14)

    1983

  50. [58]

    Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation

    Wheeler, J. A. and R. P. Feynman. “Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation”.Reviews of Modern Physics17(1945), p. 157 (cit. on p. 2)

    1945

  51. [59]

    Classical Electrodynamics in Terms of Direct Interparticle Action

    Wheeler, J. A. and R. P. Feynman. “Classical Electrodynamics in Terms of Direct Interparticle Action”.Reviews of Modern Physics21(1949), p. 425 (cit. on p. 2)

    1949

  52. [60]

    The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum cor- relations: causal explanations of Bell-inequality violations require fine-tuning

    Wood, C. J. and R. W. Spekkens. “The lesson of causal discovery algorithms for quantum cor- relations: causal explanations of Bell-inequality violations require fine-tuning”.New Journal of Physics17(2015), p. 033002 (cit. on p. 2). 17

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.