I was talking about the Bayesian interpretation of probability. An interpretation, not a category of person. Quantum mechanics without hidden variables uses the frequentist interpretation of probability.
Sometimes in life we use probability in ways that are frequentist. Other times we use probability in ways that are Bayesian. This should not be alarming.
Fair enough. The idea of calling QM ‘frequentist’ really stretches the reason for using that term under anything but an explicit collapse interpretation. Maybe it would be more of a third way -
Frequentism would be that the world is itself stochastic.
Fractionism would be that the world takes both paths and we will find ourselves in one.
This phrasing suggests that Bayesians can’t accept quantum mechanics except via hidden variables. This is not the case.
Taboo the word Bayesian.
I was talking about the Bayesian interpretation of probability. An interpretation, not a category of person. Quantum mechanics without hidden variables uses the frequentist interpretation of probability.
Sometimes in life we use probability in ways that are frequentist. Other times we use probability in ways that are Bayesian. This should not be alarming.
Fair enough. The idea of calling QM ‘frequentist’ really stretches the reason for using that term under anything but an explicit collapse interpretation. Maybe it would be more of a third way -
Frequentism would be that the world is itself stochastic.
Fractionism would be that the world takes both paths and we will find ourselves in one.
Bayes gets to keep its definition.