French on London and Bauer, and QBism

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.11544
• Title: French on London and Bauer, and QBism
• Author: Jacques L. Pienaar (Institute of Physics, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
• Classification: quant-ph (Quantum Physics), physics.hist-ph (History and Philosophy of Physics)
• Publication Date: October 14, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11544v1

Abstract

This paper compares two phenomenologically-inspired interpretations of quantum mechanics: the London-Bauer-French (LBF) interpretation as articulated by Steven French, and QBism. The author focuses particularly on the divergences between QBism and LBF identified in French's work, as well as French's claims that QBism may be incompatible with core phenomenological ideas. The principal finding is that QBism's compatibility with phenomenology is not as problematic as French suggests; specifically, it can be compatible with Zahavi's correlationism and Husserl's concept of intersubjectivity, both of which strongly influenced LBF. However, the author agrees with French's argument that QBism is incompatible with the concept of quantum measurement in LBF, and therefore also with Merleau-Ponty's views, since the latter are based on London & Bauer's analysis. The author explains why QBism's interpretation is preferable in this context.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Background

1. Need for phenomenological interpretation of the quantum measurement problem: London & Bauer's classical manuscript has been widely misunderstood by physicists as supporting a "consciousness causes collapse" interpretation, stemming from confusion about what the authors called the observer's "introspective characteristic capacity."
2. Plurality of phenomenological quantum interpretations: While London & Bauer's work may be the earliest serious attempt to use phenomenological tools to understand quantum theory, the question remains whether it is the only viable phenomenological approach.
3. Ambiguous relationship between QBism and phenomenology: Although QBism is not strictly a phenomenological interpretation, it shares many similarities with phenomenological thought, and its compatibility with phenomenology requires deeper investigation.

Research Motivation

1. Clarifying philosophical disputes: It is necessary to distinguish whether the divergences between QBism and LBF stem from conflicts with general phenomenological principles or only with specific LBF positions.
2. Assessing phenomenological compatibility: French claims that QBism creates tensions with core phenomenological concepts such as correlationism and intersubjectivity, which requires reassessment.
3. Comparing interpretive advantages: In quantum measurement theory, it is necessary to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of different phenomenologically-oriented interpretations.

Core Contributions

1. Clarified QBism's compatibility with phenomenology: Demonstrated that QBism is compatible with Zahavi's correlationism and Husserl's concept of intersubjectivity, refuting some of French's criticisms.
2. Identified hidden Cartesian dualism in LBF: Argued that the "internal-external" distinction in LBF actually reintroduces the subject-object separation it claims to avoid.
3. Defended QBism's extended mind thesis: Through analysis of the philosophy of measurement, refuted Merleau-Ponty's argument that quantum instruments cannot serve as extensions of the senses.
4. Provided new perspective on extended Wigner's friend experiments: Argued that QBism has advantages over LBF in handling no-go theorems.

Detailed Methodology

Comparative Analysis Framework

The paper employs a systematic comparative philosophical analysis method, focusing on three core points of contention:

1. The Introspection Problem

LBF Position:

• Observers possess "introspective characteristic capacity"
• Introspection is a "reflective act" in the phenomenological sense
• Capable of "tracking their own states"

QBism Position:

• Does not allow agents to assign quantum states to themselves
• Based on logical consistency: the subject assigning probabilities cannot be the object of that assignment
• Avoids self-referential paradoxes

2. The Nature of Measurement Instruments

LBF Position:

• Instruments must maintain a principled distinction from the observer
• Instruments are "classical" and unaffected by the observer's "scrutiny"
• Supports collective scientific perception and intersubjectivity

QBism Position:

• "Extended mind thesis": quantum measurement instruments are extensions of the agent's senses
• The body-world boundary is dynamically established through the process of measurement using instruments
• Measurement results are inherently personal

3. The Intersubjectivity Problem

LBF Approach:

• Establishes intersubjectivity through the objectivity of instruments
• Relies on Husserl's concept of intentional horizons
• Requires an "external" perspective to avoid solipsism

QBism Approach:

• Acknowledges the existence of "genuinely private" quantum events
• Achieves intersubjective coordination through shared worldly elements
• Does not require an "external" standpoint

Technical Innovations

1. Identification of hidden Cartesian separation: Reveals that LBF's "internal-external" distinction actually functionally performs the role of subject-object separation.
2. Application of philosophy of measurement: Introduces the "epistemological turn" in measurement science from the latter half of the 20th century to refute traditional measurement realism assumptions.
3. Integration of no-go theorems: Incorporates the latest extended Wigner's friend no-go theorems into the assessment of phenomenological quantum interpretations.

Experimental Setup

Objects of Analysis

• Primary literature: French's (2023, 2024) exposition of LBF
• Comparative theories: Core literature of QBism (Fuchs, Schack, et al.)
• Phenomenological foundations: Relevant works by Husserl, Zahavi, Merleau-Ponty, and Gurwitsch

Evaluation Criteria

1. Phenomenological consistency: Degree of compatibility with core phenomenological concepts
2. Logical coherence: Internal logical consistency of the theory
3. Empirical applicability: Ability to handle concrete quantum phenomena
4. Philosophical reasonableness: Avoidance of unnecessary metaphysical commitments

Experimental Results

Main Findings

1. Resolution of the Introspection Dispute

• Result: QBism can consistently maintain that agents possess introspective capacity without assigning physical states to themselves
• Key insight: London & Bauer's "state tracking" does not require constructing a mathematical model and differs from physicists' understanding of "state assignment"

2. Exposure of Cartesian Separation in LBF

• Finding: LBF's dual state assignment (entangled state vs. collapsed state) actually reintroduces the distinction between natural objects and phenomenological objects
• Problem: The physical meaning of the collapsed state is ambiguous and would be falsified in the Baumann-Brukner experiment

3. Defense of the Extended Mind Thesis

• Argument: Merleau-Ponty's objection is based on outdated philosophical assumptions about measurement
• Evidence: Modern measurement science has abandoned the traditional realist concept of "true values" and adopted Bayesian uncertainty methods

4. Reassessment of Intersubjectivity

• Finding: QBism's concept of private events does not hinder intersubjective coordination
• Advantage: QBism handles extended Wigner's friend no-go theorems better than LBF

Case Analysis

The Baumann-Brukner Experiment

This experiment demonstrates the problem with LBF's dual state assignment:

• Wigner measures the friend on a superposition basis
• Communicates the measurement result to the friend while maintaining the superposition state
• The friend is forced to reject their own "collapsed" state assignment
• Demonstrates the incompatibility of "internal" and "external" state assignments

Related Work

Phenomenological Quantum Interpretation Tradition

1. London & Bauer (1939): Earliest serious attempt at phenomenological quantum interpretation
2. Merleau-Ponty (1950s): Quantum phenomenological analysis based on London & Bauer
3. French (2024): Systematic exposition of modern LBF interpretation

QBism Development Timeline

1. Early quantum Bayesianism: Work by Caves, Fuchs, and Schack
2. Mature QBism: Stable interpretation by Fuchs & Schack (2009-)
3. Phenomenological connections: Recent dialogue between QBism and phenomenology

Development of Philosophy of Measurement

1. Traditional realism: Measurement reveals independently existing "true values"
2. Epistemological turn: Late 20th-century critique of traditional assumptions
3. Modern standards: Bayesian methods in GUM and VIM

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. QBism's compatibility with phenomenology is underestimated: QBism can be compatible with Zahavi's correlationism and Husserl's intersubjectivity; French's criticisms are overly harsh.
2. LBF contains hidden conceptual problems: Its dual state assignment strategy actually reintroduces Cartesian dualism, violating the basic spirit of phenomenology.
3. The extended mind thesis has philosophical merit: Merleau-Ponty's objections are based on outdated philosophical assumptions about measurement; modern measurement science supports QBism's position.
4. Phenomenological interpretation of quantum measurement requires reconsideration: Traditional concepts of intersubjectivity may need adjustment based on the special characteristics of quantum theory.

Limitations

1. Incompleteness of phenomenological interpretation: QBism's phenomenological interpretation is still developing and lacks authoritative unified exposition.
2. Complexity of technical details: Technical assumptions in extended Wigner's friend experiments may affect philosophical conclusions.
3. Challenges in interdisciplinary dialogue: Inherent difficulties exist in translating concepts between physics and phenomenology.

Future Directions

1. Develop comprehensive phenomenological QBism: More systematic phenomenological interpretive frameworks are needed.
2. Explore alternative correlationist interpretations: Seek other ways to connect Zahavi's correlationist concepts with quantum formalism.
3. Deepen phenomenology of measurement: Re-examine the phenomenological significance of quantum measurement in light of modern developments in measurement science.

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Depth and precision of analysis: The author systematically deconstructs French's three main criticisms and provides detailed counterarguments.
2. Interdisciplinary integration capacity: Successfully integrates insights from quantum physics, phenomenology, and philosophy of measurement.
3. Contribution to conceptual clarification: Effectively distinguishes different levels of philosophical dispute and clarifies numerous conceptual confusions.
4. Logical rigor of argumentation: Each argument is well-supported with clear logical chains.

Weaknesses

1. Possibly overly harsh criticism of LBF: The author's accusation of "Cartesian separation" in LBF may require more nuanced argumentation.
2. Possible exaggeration of QBism's advantages: QBism's solution to the intersubjectivity problem may not be as complete as the author claims.
3. Balance between technical and philosophical: In some places, technical details may obscure the clarity of philosophical arguments.

Impact

1. Contribution to quantum foundations: Provides new perspectives and argumentative tools for philosophical debates in quantum interpretation.
2. Advancement of phenomenology: Deepens the dialogue between phenomenology and modern physics.
3. Methodological exemplar: Demonstrates how to conduct rigorous comparative philosophical analysis.

Applicable Contexts

1. Quantum foundations research: Provides philosophical reference for scholars studying quantum measurement problems.
2. Philosophy of science teaching: Can serve as a case study in phenomenological philosophy of science.
3. Promotion of interdisciplinary dialogue: Provides a bridge for dialogue between physicists and philosophers.

References

The paper contains 27 important references, covering:

• Phenomenological classics: Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Zahavi, et al.
• Quantum foundations: London & Bauer, Fuchs, Schack, et al.
• Philosophy of measurement: Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, et al.
• Contemporary debates: Recent work on Wigner's friend by Baumann & Brukner, Schmid, et al.

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality philosophical analysis paper that makes important contributions to the intersection of quantum foundations and phenomenology. The author demonstrates deep interdisciplinary expertise and rigorous argumentative ability, providing new perspectives and insights for related debates.