The (Quantum) Revolution That Should Have Been – and Still Could Be
Paul Raymond-Robichaud argues that quantum mechanics could have triggered a scientific revolution comparable to relativity, but was held back by philosophical conservatism and institutional inertia. He explores how alternative interpretations of quantum theory might still enable a deeper understanding of reality, and calls for a renewed openness to foundational questions in physics.
Background
- Paul Raymond-Robichaud is a research fellow at the Conjecture Institute, a think tank focused on AI safety and governance. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics and works on formal AI alignment.
- The article argues that a minority interpretation of quantum mechanics called QBism (Quantum Bayesianism) was unfairly sidelined by mainstream physics due to philosophical bias. QBism treats quantum states as personal beliefs about possible measurement outcomes, not as objective reality.
- It claims that if QBism had been widely accepted decades ago, progress in quantum computing and AI alignment would be further along, because the theory avoids the conceptual paradoxes that plague "realist" interpretations.
- This is a niche argument within the AI safety community about whether foundational physics concepts matter for building safe advanced AI systems.