Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0709.4024

Shut up and calculate

Max Tegmark

Published Sep 25, 2007• 19 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

I advocate an extreme "shut-up-and-calculate" approach to physics, where our external physical reality is assumed to be purely mathematical. This brief essay motivates this "it's all just equations" assumption and discusses its implications.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0709.4024

Related papers

‘Shut up and calculate’: how Einstein lost the battle to explain quantum reality

Jim Baggott

Nature•Apr 25, 2024•19 citations

Shut up and calculate: Physics Meets Philosophy

M.J. van Vulpen

•Jan 18, 2011•0 citations

The Universe is not a Computer

K. B. Wharton

When we want to predict the future, we compute it from what we know about the present. Specifically, we take a mathematical representation of observed reality, plug it into some dynamical equations, and then map the time-evolved result back to real-world predictions. But while this computational process can tell us what we want to know, we have taken this procedure too literally, implicitly assuming that the universe must compute itself in the same manner. Physical theories that do not follow this computational framework are deemed illogical, right from the start. But this anthropocentric assumption has steered our physical models into an impossible corner, primarily because of quantum phenomena. Meanwhile, we have not been exploring other models in which the universe is not so limited. In fact, some of these alternate models already have a well-established importance, but are thought to be mathematical tricks without physical significance. This essay argues that only by dropping our assumption that the universe is a computer can we fully develop such models, explain quantum phenomena, and understand the workings of our universe. (This essay was awarded third prize in the 2012 FQXi essay contest; a new afterword compares and contrasts this essay with Robert Spekkens' first prize entry.)

arXiv:1211.7081•Nov 29, 2012•0 citations

The final version of a recent approach towards quantum foundation

Inge S. Helland

In several articles, this author has advocated an alternative approach towards quantum foundation based upon a set of postulates, and based upon the notions of theoretical variables and of accessible theoretical variables. It is shown in this article that this basis can be considerably simplified. In particular, the assumption that there exists an inaccessible variable $φ$ such that all the accessible ones can be seen as functions of $φ$, can be dropped. This assumption has been difficult to motivate in the previous articles. From this, I get a simple basis for the main Theorems.The essential assumption is that there in the given context exist two different maximal accessible variables, what Niels Bohr would have called two complementary variables. From this, the whole Hilbert space formalism may be derived. It is also discussed in some detail how this Hilbert space can be chosen. The resulting theory is a purely mathematical theory, but it leads to quantum mechanics by letting the variables be physical variables. Other applications of the main theory are also considered. The mathematical proofs are mostly deferred to the Appendix.

quant-pharXiv:2604.05675•Apr 8, 2026•0 citations

A Consciousness-Based Model of Reality: The Omega Equation

Jitendra777 J.B.S mandloi

This paper presents a conceptual framework unifying consciousness and physical reality through a single mathematical expression, termed the Omega Equation. The model proposes that reality is not purely external but emerges as a function of awareness (A), perception (P), and cognitive bias or meaning (M). The equation integrates a quantum mechanical phase factor e^{iS/\hbar} to connect subjective experience with physical evolution. The framework suggests that as cognitive bias approaches zero, experienced reality tends toward an undistorted, infinite state—analogous to enlightenment in philosophical traditions. This work offers a bridge between subjective experience and quantum theory, with potential implications for neuroscience, philosophy, and foundations of physics.

•Apr 15, 2026•0 citations

Why physics needs mathematics

Fritz Rohrlich

General Relativity and Gravitation•Sep 27, 2011•4 citations
When we want to predict the future, we compute it from what we know about the present. Specifically, we take a mathematical representation of observed reality, plug it into some dynamical equations, and then map the time-evolved result back to real-world predictions. But while this computational process can tell us what we want to know, we have taken this procedure too literally, implicitly assuming that the universe must compute itself in the same manner. Physical theories that do not follow this computational framework are deemed illogical, right from the start. But this anthropocentric assumption has steered our physical models into an impossible corner, primarily because of quantum phenomena. Meanwhile, we have not been exploring other models in which the universe is not so limited. In fact, some of these alternate models already have a well-established importance, but are thought to be mathematical tricks without physical significance. This essay argues that only by dropping our assumption that the universe is a computer can we fully develop such models, explain quantum phenomena, and understand the workings of our universe. (This essay was awarded third prize in the 2012 FQXi essay contest; a new afterword compares and contrasts this essay with Robert Spekkens' first prize entry.)
In several articles, this author has advocated an alternative approach towards quantum foundation based upon a set of postulates, and based upon the notions of theoretical variables and of accessible theoretical variables. It is shown in this article that this basis can be considerably simplified. In particular, the assumption that there exists an inaccessible variable φφφ such that all the accessible ones can be seen as functions of φφφ, can be dropped. This assumption has been difficult to motivate in the previous articles. From this, I get a simple basis for the main Theorems.The essential assumption is that there in the given context exist two different maximal accessible variables, what Niels Bohr would have called two complementary variables. From this, the whole Hilbert space formalism may be derived. It is also discussed in some detail how this Hilbert space can be chosen. The resulting theory is a purely mathematical theory, but it leads to quantum mechanics by letting the variables be physical variables. Other applications of the main theory are also considered. The mathematical proofs are mostly deferred to the Appendix.
This paper presents a conceptual framework unifying consciousness and physical reality through a single mathematical expression, termed the Omega Equation. The model proposes that reality is not purely external but emerges as a function of awareness (A), perception (P), and cognitive bias or meaning (M). The equation integrates a quantum mechanical phase factor e^{iS/\hbar} to connect subjective experience with physical evolution. The framework suggests that as cognitive bias approaches zero, experienced reality tends toward an undistorted, infinite state—analogous to enlightenment in philosophical traditions. This work offers a bridge between subjective experience and quantum theory, with potential implications for neuroscience, philosophy, and foundations of physics.