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

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Fundamental Sources of Unpredictabilitya

Murray Gell‐Mann

Published Jun 1, 1999• 3 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In discussing the fundamental sources of unpredictability, I shall concentrate on those indeterminacies that are definitely required by theory. Let me therefore begin \nby eliminating from consideration supposed indeterminacies stemming from doubts that some people may entertain about basic principles or from certain kinds of ignorance that I believe to be temporary and likely to be remedied in the relatively near future. I assume the following: \n1. Quantum mechanics is correct. The formulation and interpretation of quantum mechanics are still undergoing some necessary evolution, especially in order to accommodate quantum cosmology in a comfortable way, but the basic character of quantum mechanics has always been the same and we may suppose it will remain unchanged. \n2. The elementary particles and their interactions obey a definite dynamical law, discoverable by inquiring complex adaptive systems such as the human scientific enterprise. Although the process of discovery involves a sequence of \napproximate schemata, there is an endpoint to the process after a finite amount of research. (Of course, it can never be possible to prove that the resulting unified theory is perfect; one can only verify it in the usual way by comparing predictions to available observations.) Humans may already have found this unified quantum field theory in the form of superstring theory, which has, to begin with, no arbitrary parameters. (Of course, spontaneous symmetry \nbreaking may give rise to some parameters and even to a choice of solutions, with probabilities for the various alternatives. I will deal with that possibility further on.) This second assumption is equivalent to stating that there is no necessary fundamental unpredictability stemming from ignorance of the universal dynamical law. \n3. The density matrix (in the Schrödinger picture) of the universe near the beginning of its expansion is also knowable. It must in any case be comparatively simple and very far from equilibrium. The second law of thermodynamics and the other associated arrows of time are explained by these properties of the initial density matrix along with the fact that the universe is still very young—the interval of ten billion years is extremely short compared with the relaxation time from the special initial condition.

DOI
10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb10401.x

Related papers

Fundamental sources of unpredictability

Murray Gell‐Mann

Of course, spontaneous symmetry breaking may give rise to some parameters and even to a choice of solutions, with probabilities for the various alternatives. I shall deal with that possibility further on.) This second assumption is equivalent to stating that there is no necessary fundamental unpredictability stemming from ignorance of the universal dynamical law. 3) The density matrix (in the Schrsdinger picture) of the universe near the beginning of its expansion is also knowable. It must in any case be comparatively simple and very far from equilibrium. The second law of thermodynamics and the other associated arrows of time are explained by these properties of the initial density matrix along with the fact that the universe is still very young -- the interval of ten billion years is extremely short compared with the relaxation time from the special initial condition. Hartle and Hawking have proposed an ingenious pure state candidate for the density matrix, such that the wave fu

Complexity•Sep 1, 1997•24 citations

ћ, or, Quantum Theory

Tristan Hübsch, Djordje Minić

Every vertex of the magic cube of physics discussed so far introduced a major element in the development of physics and the whole of science. Mechanics introduced the basic concept of equations of motion, or time-evolution of a physical system given certain initial condition and the associated idea of determinism, even with its generalization in the form of chaos, the dependence of the outcomes of the temporal evolution on the initial conditions. These concepts taken for many particles, or elements of a physical system, led to the probabilistic description of many particle systems, in the realm of statistical physics and thermodynamics, whereby the averages over time of various observable quantities were related to the ensemble averages, that involve classical, so-called Kolmogorov, probability measures, at least for certain “equilibrium” situations. The second law of thermodynamics introduced the concept of entropy and its probabilistic increase, the first truly emergent, probabilistic law in physics (temperature and pressure, being other emergent quantities, apart from entropy, the measure of disorder of a statistical system). In the context of Newtonian gravity, one gets, at least in retrospect the geometric description of gravity in non-relativistic, Galilean spacetime. Galilean relativity, based on the asymmetric mixing of space and time, with the absolute, universal time, true for all observers, gets generalized in special theory of relativity to observer dependent space and observer dependent time, viewed as “slices” of a new concept of spacetime, with the new concept of causal structure, that distinguish timelike, null and spacelike events. This in turn is made into a full dynamical geometric structure of spacetime with a relativistic description of gravity stemming from curvature of spacetime, and a dynamical causal structure, tied to gravity. In our next story, the story of quantum theory, we will encounter fundamental, intrinsic probabilities, that can interfere, unlike the classical probabilities of statistical thermodynamics, and which are consistent with equations of motion of individual elements, and not, as in statistical thermodynamics, with temporal averages over the time evolution of many elements. This is the big new lesson of quantum theory, that transcends the lessons of classical spacetime physics.

CRC Press eBooks•Jun 4, 2026•0 citations

Chance and time : cutting the Gordian Knot

Amit Hagar

One of the recurrent problems in the foundations of physics is to explain why we rarely observe certain phenomena that are allowed by our theories and laws. In thermodynamics, for example, the spontaneous approach towards equilibrium is ubiquitous yet the time-reversal-invariant laws that presumably govern thermal behaviour in the microscopic level equally allow spontaneous approach away from equilibrium to occur. Why are the former processes frequently observed while the latter are almost never reported? Another example comes from quantum mechanics where the formalism, if considered complete and universally applicable, predicts the existence of macroscopic superpositions—monstrous Schrodinger cats—and these are never observed: while electrons and atoms enjoy the cloudiness of waves, macroscopic objects are always localized to definite positions. A well-known explanatory framework due to Ludwig Boltzmann traces the rarity of " abnormal" thermodynamic phenomena to the scarcity of the initial conditions that lead to it. After all, physical laws are no more than algorithms and these are expected to generate different results according to different initial conditions, hence Boltzmann's insight that violations of thermodynamic laws are possible but highly improbable. Yet Boltzmann introduces probabilities into this explanatory scheme, and since the latter is couched in terms of classical mechanics, these probabilities must be interpreted as a result of ignorance of the exact state the system is in. Quantum mechanics has taught us otherwise. Here the attempts to explain why we never observe macroscopic superpositions have led to different interpretations of the formalism and to different solutions to the quantum measurement problem. These solutions introduce additional interpretations to the meaning of probability over and above ignorance of the definite state of the physical system: quantum probabilities may result from pure chance. Notwithstanding the success of the Boltzmannian framework in explaining the thermodynamic arrow in time it leaves us with a foundational puzzle: how can ignorance play a role in scientific explanation of objective reality? In turns out that two opposing solutions to the quantum measurement problem in which probabilities arise from the stochastic character of the underlying dynamics may scratch this explanatory itch. By offering a dynamical justification to the probabilities employed in classical statistical mechanics these two interpretations complete the Boltzmannian explanatory scheme and allow us to exorcize ignorance from scientific explanations of unobserved phenomena. In this thesis I argue that the puzzle of the thermodynamic arrow in time is closely related to the problem of interpreting quantum mechanics, i.e., to the measurement problem. We may solve one by fiat and thus solve the other, but it seems unwise to try solving them independently. I substantiate this claim by presenting two possible interpretations to non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Differing as they do on the meaning of the probabilities they introduce into the otherwise deterministic dynamics, these interpretations offer alternative explanatory schemes to the standard Boltzmannian statistical mechanical explanation of thermodynamic approach to equilibrium. I then show how notwithstanding their current empirical equivalence, the two approaches diverge at the continental divide between scientific realism and anti-realism.

•Jan 1, 2009•1 citation

Sources of predictability

James B. Hartle

Sources of predictability in the basic laws of physics are described in the most general theoretical context -- the quantum theory of the universe as a whole. (To appear in the Proceedings of the conference on Fundamental Sources of Unpredictability held at the Santa Fe Institute, March 28 to 30, 1996 to be published by Complexity.)

Complexity•Sep 1, 1997•2 citations

Sources of Predictability

James B. Hartle

Sources of predictability in the basic laws of physics are described in the most general theoretical context -- the quantum theory of the universe as a whole. (To appear in the Proceedings of the conference on Fundamental Sources of Unpredictability held at the Santa Fe Institute, March 28 to 30, 1996 to be published by Complexity.)

arXiv:gr-qc/9701027•Jan 13, 1997•0 citations

The Universal Arrow of Time II: Quantum mechanics case

Oleg Kupervasser

This paper is a natural continuation of our previous paper arXiv:1011.4173 . We illustrated earlier that in classical Hamilton mechanics, for overwhelming majority of real chaotic macroscopic systems, alignment of their thermodynamic time arrows occurs because of their low interaction. This fact and impossibility to observe entropy decrease at introspection explain the second law of thermodynamics. The situation in quantum mechanics is even a little bit easier: all closed systems of finite volume are periodic or nearly periodic. The proof in quantum mechanics is in many respects similar to the proof in classical Hamilton mechanics - it also uses small interaction between subsystems and impossibility to observe entropy decrease at introspection. However, there are special cases which were not found in the classical mechanics. In these cases one microstate corresponds to a set of possible macrostates (more precisely, their quantum superposition). Consideration of this property with use of decoherence theory and taking into account thermodynamic time arrows will introduce new outcomes in quantum mechanics. It allows to resolve basic paradoxes of quantum mechanics: (a) to explain the paradox of wave packet reduction at measurements when an observer is included in the system (introspection) (paradox of the Schrodinger cat); (b) to explain unobservability of superposition of macroscopic states by an external observer in real experiments (paradox of Wigner's friend); (c) to prove full equivalence of multi-world and Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics; (d) to explain deviations from the exponential law at decay of particles and pass from one energy level to another (paradox of a kettle which will never begin to boil).

arXiv:1106.6160•Jun 30, 2011•3 citations
In discussing the fundamental sources of unpredictability, I shall concentrate on those indeterminacies that are definitely required by theory. Let me therefore begin \nby eliminating from consideration supposed indeterminacies stemming from doubts that some people may entertain about basic principles or from certain kinds of ignorance that I believe to be temporary and likely to be remedied in the relatively near future. I assume the following: \n1. Quantum mechanics is correct. The formulation and interpretation of quantum mechanics are still undergoing some necessary evolution, especially in order to accommodate quantum cosmology in a comfortable way, but the basic character of quantum mechanics has always been the same and we may suppose it will remain unchanged. \n2. The elementary particles and their interactions obey a definite dynamical law, discoverable by inquiring complex adaptive systems such as the human scientific enterprise. Although the process of discovery involves a sequence of \napproximate schemata, there is an endpoint to the process after a finite amount of research. (Of course, it can never be possible to prove that the resulting unified theory is perfect; one can only verify it in the usual way by comparing predictions to available observations.) Humans may already have found this unified quantum field theory in the form of superstring theory, which has, to begin with, no arbitrary parameters. (Of course, spontaneous symmetry \nbreaking may give rise to some parameters and even to a choice of solutions, with probabilities for the various alternatives. I will deal with that possibility further on.) This second assumption is equivalent to stating that there is no necessary fundamental unpredictability stemming from ignorance of the universal dynamical law. \n3. The density matrix (in the Schrödinger picture) of the universe near the beginning of its expansion is also knowable. It must in any case be comparatively simple and very far from equilibrium. The second law of thermodynamics and the other associated arrows of time are explained by these properties of the initial density matrix along with the fact that the universe is still very young—the interval of ten billion years is extremely short compared with the relaxation time from the special initial condition.
Of course, spontaneous symmetry breaking may give rise to some parameters and even to a choice of solutions, with probabilities for the various alternatives. I shall deal with that possibility further on.) This second assumption is equivalent to stating that there is no necessary fundamental unpredictability stemming from ignorance of the universal dynamical law. 3) The density matrix (in the Schrsdinger picture) of the universe near the beginning of its expansion is also knowable. It must in any case be comparatively simple and very far from equilibrium. The second law of thermodynamics and the other associated arrows of time are explained by these properties of the initial density matrix along with the fact that the universe is still very young -- the interval of ten billion years is extremely short compared with the relaxation time from the special initial condition. Hartle and Hawking have proposed an ingenious pure state candidate for the density matrix, such that the wave fu
Every vertex of the magic cube of physics discussed so far introduced a major element in the development of physics and the whole of science. Mechanics introduced the basic concept of equations of motion, or time-evolution of a physical system given certain initial condition and the associated idea of determinism, even with its generalization in the form of chaos, the dependence of the outcomes of the temporal evolution on the initial conditions. These concepts taken for many particles, or elements of a physical system, led to the probabilistic description of many particle systems, in the realm of statistical physics and thermodynamics, whereby the averages over time of various observable quantities were related to the ensemble averages, that involve classical, so-called Kolmogorov, probability measures, at least for certain “equilibrium” situations. The second law of thermodynamics introduced the concept of entropy and its probabilistic increase, the first truly emergent, probabilistic law in physics (temperature and pressure, being other emergent quantities, apart from entropy, the measure of disorder of a statistical system). In the context of Newtonian gravity, one gets, at least in retrospect the geometric description of gravity in non-relativistic, Galilean spacetime. Galilean relativity, based on the asymmetric mixing of space and time, with the absolute, universal time, true for all observers, gets generalized in special theory of relativity to observer dependent space and observer dependent time, viewed as “slices” of a new concept of spacetime, with the new concept of causal structure, that distinguish timelike, null and spacelike events. This in turn is made into a full dynamical geometric structure of spacetime with a relativistic description of gravity stemming from curvature of spacetime, and a dynamical causal structure, tied to gravity. In our next story, the story of quantum theory, we will encounter fundamental, intrinsic probabilities, that can interfere, unlike the classical probabilities of statistical thermodynamics, and which are consistent with equations of motion of individual elements, and not, as in statistical thermodynamics, with temporal averages over the time evolution of many elements. This is the big new lesson of quantum theory, that transcends the lessons of classical spacetime physics.
One of the recurrent problems in the foundations of physics is to explain why we rarely observe certain phenomena that are allowed by our theories and laws. In thermodynamics, for example, the spontaneous approach towards equilibrium is ubiquitous yet the time-reversal-invariant laws that presumably govern thermal behaviour in the microscopic level equally allow spontaneous approach away from equilibrium to occur. Why are the former processes frequently observed while the latter are almost never reported? Another example comes from quantum mechanics where the formalism, if considered complete and universally applicable, predicts the existence of macroscopic superpositions—monstrous Schrodinger cats—and these are never observed: while electrons and atoms enjoy the cloudiness of waves, macroscopic objects are always localized to definite positions. A well-known explanatory framework due to Ludwig Boltzmann traces the rarity of " abnormal" thermodynamic phenomena to the scarcity of the initial conditions that lead to it. After all, physical laws are no more than algorithms and these are expected to generate different results according to different initial conditions, hence Boltzmann's insight that violations of thermodynamic laws are possible but highly improbable. Yet Boltzmann introduces probabilities into this explanatory scheme, and since the latter is couched in terms of classical mechanics, these probabilities must be interpreted as a result of ignorance of the exact state the system is in. Quantum mechanics has taught us otherwise. Here the attempts to explain why we never observe macroscopic superpositions have led to different interpretations of the formalism and to different solutions to the quantum measurement problem. These solutions introduce additional interpretations to the meaning of probability over and above ignorance of the definite state of the physical system: quantum probabilities may result from pure chance. Notwithstanding the success of the Boltzmannian framework in explaining the thermodynamic arrow in time it leaves us with a foundational puzzle: how can ignorance play a role in scientific explanation of objective reality? In turns out that two opposing solutions to the quantum measurement problem in which probabilities arise from the stochastic character of the underlying dynamics may scratch this explanatory itch. By offering a dynamical justification to the probabilities employed in classical statistical mechanics these two interpretations complete the Boltzmannian explanatory scheme and allow us to exorcize ignorance from scientific explanations of unobserved phenomena. In this thesis I argue that the puzzle of the thermodynamic arrow in time is closely related to the problem of interpreting quantum mechanics, i.e., to the measurement problem. We may solve one by fiat and thus solve the other, but it seems unwise to try solving them independently. I substantiate this claim by presenting two possible interpretations to non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Differing as they do on the meaning of the probabilities they introduce into the otherwise deterministic dynamics, these interpretations offer alternative explanatory schemes to the standard Boltzmannian statistical mechanical explanation of thermodynamic approach to equilibrium. I then show how notwithstanding their current empirical equivalence, the two approaches diverge at the continental divide between scientific realism and anti-realism.
This paper is a natural continuation of our previous paper arXiv:1011.4173 . We illustrated earlier that in classical Hamilton mechanics, for overwhelming majority of real chaotic macroscopic systems, alignment of their thermodynamic time arrows occurs because of their low interaction. This fact and impossibility to observe entropy decrease at introspection explain the second law of thermodynamics. The situation in quantum mechanics is even a little bit easier: all closed systems of finite volume are periodic or nearly periodic. The proof in quantum mechanics is in many respects similar to the proof in classical Hamilton mechanics - it also uses small interaction between subsystems and impossibility to observe entropy decrease at introspection. However, there are special cases which were not found in the classical mechanics. In these cases one microstate corresponds to a set of possible macrostates (more precisely, their quantum superposition). Consideration of this property with use of decoherence theory and taking into account thermodynamic time arrows will introduce new outcomes in quantum mechanics. It allows to resolve basic paradoxes of quantum mechanics: (a) to explain the paradox of wave packet reduction at measurements when an observer is included in the system (introspection) (paradox of the Schrodinger cat); (b) to explain unobservability of superposition of macroscopic states by an external observer in real experiments (paradox of Wigner's friend); (c) to prove full equivalence of multi-world and Copenhagen interpretations of quantum mechanics; (d) to explain deviations from the exponential law at decay of particles and pass from one energy level to another (paradox of a kettle which will never begin to boil).