# Is Quantum Mechanics Self-Interpreting?

## TL;DR

This paper critiques the claim that quantum mechanics requires no interpretation by analyzing the arguments of Fuchs and Peres, emphasizing the importance of interpretational work and clarifying misconceptions about QBism.

## Contribution

The paper clarifies the distinction between quantum mechanics and QBism, arguing that QBism is not a physical theory and highlighting the importance of interpretation in quantum physics.

## Key findings

- Fuchs and Peres conflate QM with QBism, an interpretational framework.
- QBism is about agents' beliefs, not physical phenomena.
- Arguments against non-standard interpretations are fragile.

## Abstract

Fuchs and Peres (2000) claimed that standard Quantum Mechanics needs no interpretation. In this essay, I show the flaws of the arguments presented in support to this thesis. Specifically, it will be claimed that the authors conflate QM with Quantum Bayesianism (QBism) - the most prominent subjective formulation of quantum theory; thus, they endorse a specific interpretation of the quantum formalism. Secondly, I will explain the main reasons for which QBism should not be considered a physical theory, being it concerned exclusively with agents' beliefs and silent about the physics of the quantum regime. Consequently, the solutions to the quantum puzzles provided by this approach cannot be satisfactory from a physical perspective. In the third place, I evaluate Fuchs and Peres arguments contra the non-standard interpretations of QM, showing again the fragility of their claims. Finally, it will be stressed the importance of the interpretational work in the context of quantum theory.