Abstract An intricate quantum statistical effect guides us to a deterministic, non-causal quantum universe with a given fixed initial and final state density matrix. A concept is developed on how and where something like macroscopic physics can emerge. However, the concept does not allow philosophically crucial free will decisions. The quantum world and its conjugate evolve independently, and one can replace fixed final states on each side just with a common matching one. This change allows for external manipulations done in the quantum world and its conjugate, which do not otherwise alter the basic quantum dynamics. In a big bang/big crunch universe, the expanding part can be attributed to the quantum world and the contracting one to the conjugate one. The obtained bi-linear picture has several noteworthy consequences.
Abstract An intricate quantum statistical effect guides us to a deterministic, non-causal quantum universe with a given fixed initial and final state density matrix. A concept is developed on how and where something like macroscopic physics can emerge. However, the concept does not allow philosophically crucial free will decisions. The quantum world and its conjugate evolve independently, and one can replace fixed final states on each side just with a common matching one. This change allows for external manipulations done in the quantum world and its conjugate, which do not otherwise alter the basic quantum dynamics. In a big bang/big crunch universe, the expanding part can be attributed to the quantum world and the contracting one to the conjugate one. The obtained bi-linear picture has several noteworthy consequences.
An intricate quantum statistical effect guides us to a deterministic, non-causal quantum universe with given fixed initial and final state density matrix. A concept is developed on how and where something like macroscopic physics can emerge. The concept does not allow to incorporate philosophically indispensable free will decisions. If the quantum world and its conjugate evolve independently one can replace both fixed final states by a matching common one. This allows for external manipulations done in the quantum world and its conjugate which do not otherwise alter the basic structure. In a big bang / big crunch universe the expanding part can be attributed to the quantum world and the contracting part to the conjugate one. The obtained bi-linear picture has a number of beautiful and exciting consequences.
In classical physics there is, in accordance with common sense, an objective world ‘out there’. That world evolves in a clear and deterministic way, being governed by precisely formulated mathematical equations. This is as true for the theories of Maxwell and Einstein as it is for the original Newtonian scheme. Physical reality is taken to exist independently of ourselves; and exactly how the classical world ‘is’ is not affected by how we might choose to look at it. Moreover, our bodies and our brains are themselves to be part of that world. They, also, are viewed as evolving according to the same precise and deterministic classical equations. All our actions are to be fixed by these equations - no matter how we might feel that our conscious wills may be influencing how we behave. Such a picture appears to lie at the background of most serious 1 philosophical arguments concerned with the nature of reality, of our conscious perceptions, and of our apparent free will. Some people might have an uncomfortable feeling that there should also be a role for quantum theory - that fundamental but disturbing scheme of things which, in the first quarter of this century, arose out of observations of subtle discrepancies between the actual behaviour of the world and the descriptions of classical physics. To many, the term ‘quantum theory’ evokes merely some vague concept of an ‘uncertainty principle’, which, at the level of particles, atoms or molecules, forbids precision in our descriptions and yields merely probabilistic behaviour. Actually, quantum descriptions are very precise, as we shall see, although radically different from the familiar classical ones. Moreover, we shall find, despite a common view to the contrary, that probabilities do not arise at the minute quantum level of particles, atoms, or molecules - those evolve deterministically - but, seemingly, via some mysterious larger-scale action connected with the emergence of a classical world that we can consciously perceive. We must try to understand this, and how quantum theory forces us to change our view of physical reality.
It is argued that the meaning of spacetime singularities, such as Big Bang cosmological or black hole ones, is nothing else than indicating that the physical world behaves in the causal or predictable way not to be the truly basic manifestation. But rather, this is only an emergent phenomena arising through that unknown fundamental laws, underlying the behavior of the physical world in the way without being in nature understood in term of the predictability, are no longer revealed significantly and thus hidden appropriately. If the causally physical world is emergent rather than being fundamental, what is the nature of the physical world? and how could the physical world behaving in the causal or predictable way be emerged from? In this paper, we would like to answer these two questions based on studying the behavior of an absolutely physical entity. Moreover, we show that the quantum world can be understood as an intermediate stage, in which physical effects originated fundamentally from are taken into account, between the fundamental and emergent pictures.
Quantum physics consists of a formal core that is universally agreed upon (basically being a piece of mathematics with suggestive names for concepts matching related concepts of experimental culture) and an interpretational halo (trying to make this relation more precise) that remains highly disputed even after more than 90 years of modern quantum physics. The latter is the subject of the interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Part II), where many interpretations coexist and compete for the attention of those interested in what quantum physics really means. In this chapter, an axiomatic introduction to the undisputed formal core of quantum physics is given. The axioms described present nonrelativistic quantum statistical mechanics in the Schrödinger picture. The relativistic case is outside the scope of these axioms, as it must be treated by quantum field theory; see Chapter 7. As in any axiomatic setting (necessary for a formal discipline), there are a number of different but equivalent sets of axioms or postulates that can be used to define formal quantum physics. Since they are equivalent, their choice is a matter of convenience. The choice presented here is a formulation featuring three aspects: It emphasises the similarity of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, gives most direct access to statistical mechanics, and is free from allusions to measurement. The reason for the first is that this similarity serves as a guide to meaning. From the axiomatic setting for quantum mechanics presented below, classical mechanics (in the Koopman setting discussed in Section 7.10) is obtained by simply restricting the operators to be diagonal, so that all operations happen pointwise on the diagonal elements. Thus, multiplication is commutative, and one can identify operators and functions. In particular, the density operator degenerates into a probability density. Therefore, the quantum case appears as a generalization of the classical case allowing for noncommutativity, so that both q-observables and the density operator are (usually infinite-dimensional) operators. The reason for the second is that statistical mechanics is the main tool for applications of quantum physics to the macroscopic systems we are familiar with. The reason for the third is that realistic measurements constitute a complex process involving macroscopic detectors, hence should be explained by quantum statistical mechanics rather than be part of the axiomatic foundations themselves. (This is in marked contrast to other foundations, and distinguishes the present system of axioms.)
Modern physics faces a constellation of foundational puzzles: the Big Bang singularity, time's arrow, dark matter and dark energy, the cosmological constant problem, fine-tuning, quantum measurement, and quantum gravity unification. This Perspective proposes a unified resolution grounded in complexity-driven selection from diverse quantum paths. Prior to the Big Bang, reality comprises a pre-temporal quantum substrate (lacking classical time coordinate but governed by unitary quantum evolution), evolving reversibly across multiple trajectories—including opposing time arrows. The Big Bang marks an emergence threshold (λ) where decoherence locks spacetime parameters, yielding our classical universe as a "survivor" of local emergence rather than a closed totality. Dark matter and dark energy represent unevolved quantum paths—residuals exerting gravitational influence without full manifestation. This framework reframes cosmology as the study of layered emergence, dissolving "why" questions into "when/how" selection dynamics, with testable predictions in CMB perturbations, quantum decoherence experiments, and gravitational wave observations. By shifting from reductionism to emergentism, it suggests a universal pattern: threshold-gated emergence from diverse substrates, applicable from the cosmos to consciousness.
The letter submitted is an executive summary of our previous paper. To solve the Einstein Podolsky Rosen “paradox” the two boundary quantum mechanics is taken as self consistent interpretation of quantum dynamics. The difficulty with this interpretation is to reconcile it with classical physics. To avoid macroscopic backward causation two “corresponding transition rules” are formulated which specify needed properties of macroscopic observations and manipulations. The apparent classical causal decision tree requires to understand the classically unchosen options. They are taken to occur with an “incomplete knowledge” of the boundary states typically in macroscopic considerations. The precise boundary conditions with given phases then select the actual measured path and this selection is mistaken to happen at the time of measurement. The apparent time direction of the decision tree originates in an assumed relative proximity to the initial state. Only the far away final state allows for classically distinct options to be selected from. Cosmologically the picture could correspond to a big bang initial and a hugely extended final state scenario. It is speculated that it might also hold for a big bang/big crunch world. If this would be the case the Born probability postulate could find a natural explanation if we coexist in the expanding and the correlated CPT conjugate contracting world.