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

NeuroQuantology

Matching the Unmatchable. Complexity Theory and Quantum Theory

Carlos Eduardo Maldonado

Published May 18, 2017• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

This is a philosophical paper. It claims that there is a gap to be filled in the relationship between complexity theory (CT) and quantum theory (QT). This gap concerns two very distinct understandings of time. The paper provides the ground for filling up such gap. Indeed, most works on complexity at large focus on the macroscopic world, leaving behind the importance of the microscopic world. This paper specifies what both worlds consist of, and argues that a solid account of the world, i.e. complexity, must necessarily take into account both dimensions of reality.

DOI
10.14704/nq.2017.15.3.1046

Related papers

Matching the Unmatchable. Complexity Theory and Quantum Theory

Carlos Eduardo Maldonado

This is a philosophical paper. It claims that there is a gap to be filled in the relationship between complexity theory (CT) and quantum theory (QT). This gap concerns two very distinct understandings of time. The paper provides the ground for filling up such gap. Indeed, most works on complexity at large focus on the macroscopic world, leaving behind the importance of the microscopic world. This paper specifies what both worlds consist of, and argues that a solid account of the world, i.e. complexity, must necessarily take into account both dimensions of reality.

arXiv:1611.07077•Nov 17, 2016•0 citations

Structure of the quantum world

Roger Penrose

Abstract Quantum theory provides a superb description of physical reality on a small scale, yet it contains many mysteries. Without doubt, it is hard to come to terms with the workings of this theory, and it is particularly difficult to make sense of the kind of ‘physical reality’—or lack of it—that it seems to imply for our world. Taken at its face value, the theory seems to lead to a philosophical standpoint that many (including myself) find deeply unsatisfying. At best, and taking its descriptions at their most literal, it provides us with a very strange view of the world indeed. At worst, and taking literally the proclamations of some of its most famous protagonists, it provides us with no view of the world at all.

•Aug 22, 1996•1 citation

On the Need for a Certain Physicality from Quantum Theory

Devin Hardy

Many attempts have been made at the unification of General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Theory (QT), but there is a fundamental error made with these attempts, as we will discuss. What is the point of such theories? Well, obviously to describe the physical world we live in. QT describes what happens on the tiny scale, and GR describes what happens to bodies on a large scale. The fundamental error in unifying the two subjects is that QT doesn’t provide the physical happenings for GR to work, or in other words, QT describes why the world is the way it is, but not how, and this does not philosophically suffice in GR. Must we simply give up, in that the subjects are two different entities? I think the answer is that we mustn't. I think that we should put one theory in terms of the basic mechanics of the other, perhaps by simplifying, or perhaps by taking the physical reality to be our guide. Do I believe QT describes the world? Accurately. Do I believe that QT is the physical truth? Of course not… it is simply a mathematical construct to provide a model that allows for us to predict future outcomes. I will begin very simplistic, but the goal for the first part of the paper is to Classically describe the physical mechanics of QT. I will stick with particles in their ground state, and hence no translational motion.

JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS•Mar 29, 2017•0 citations

The Quanturn Picture of the World

Lawrence Sklar

Abstract Quantum theory has presented scientists and philosophers of science with a series of perplexing questions. It seems to many that any attempt to comprehend a world described by quantum theory will require revision in our understanding of the nature of things far more radical than the revision in our understanding of the nature of space and time demanded by the theories of relativity. It has been claimed that to comprehend quantum theory we must revise our very understanding of such matters as the objective nature of reality and its independence from our perception of it, the nature of a complex system and its relation to its components, and the nature of causal and other kinds of determination in the world.

•Dec 17, 1992•0 citations

Quantum mechanics, objective reality, and the problem of consciousness

Ranjan Mukhopadhyay

The hard problem in consciousness is the problem of understanding how physical processes in the brain could give rise to subjective conscious experience. In this paper, I suggest that in order to understand the relationship between consciousness and the physical world, we need to probe deeply into the nature of physical reality. This leads us to quantum physics and to a second explanatory gap: that between quantum and classical reality. I will seek a philosophical framework that can address these two gaps simultaneously. Our analysis of quantum mechanics will naturally lead us to the notion of a hidden reality and to the postulate that consciousness is an integral component of this reality. The framework proposed in the paper provides the philosophical underpinnings for a theory of consciousness while satisfactorily resolving the interpretation problem in quantum mechanics without the need to alter its mathematical structure. I also discuss some implications for a scientific theory of consciousness.

arXiv:1804.03606•Journal of Consciousness Studies•Apr 10, 2018•3 citations

COMPLEXITY OF THE BIG AND SMALL

Andrea Cejnarová

It seems to be a priori impossible to formulate any general theory or model that encompasses all of the properties of complexity. So, one must make do with partial solutions. A possible approach we propose is to take inspiration from quantum theory, since there seems to be a strong analogy between complex systems and quantum systems. Although we do not propose any literal application of quantum mechanical formalism to complexity, we suggest that the language of quantum mechanics is already so well developed - and for a much wider spectrum of problems than most theories - that it can serve as a model for complexity theory. There are many problems common to both complex systems and quantum systems and we suggest that it might be useful to test the applicability of aspects of the “language” of quantum mechanics to a general complex system. What we suggest here is an interdisciplinary talk led between the natural sciences and philosophy, which we believe is the only way in which to deal with complexity “as such”.

•Mar 1, 2005•1 citation
This is a philosophical paper. It claims that there is a gap to be filled in the relationship between complexity theory (CT) and quantum theory (QT). This gap concerns two very distinct understandings of time. The paper provides the ground for filling up such gap. Indeed, most works on complexity at large focus on the macroscopic world, leaving behind the importance of the microscopic world. This paper specifies what both worlds consist of, and argues that a solid account of the world, i.e. complexity, must necessarily take into account both dimensions of reality.
This is a philosophical paper. It claims that there is a gap to be filled in the relationship between complexity theory (CT) and quantum theory (QT). This gap concerns two very distinct understandings of time. The paper provides the ground for filling up such gap. Indeed, most works on complexity at large focus on the macroscopic world, leaving behind the importance of the microscopic world. This paper specifies what both worlds consist of, and argues that a solid account of the world, i.e. complexity, must necessarily take into account both dimensions of reality.
Abstract Quantum theory provides a superb description of physical reality on a small scale, yet it contains many mysteries. Without doubt, it is hard to come to terms with the workings of this theory, and it is particularly difficult to make sense of the kind of ‘physical reality’—or lack of it—that it seems to imply for our world. Taken at its face value, the theory seems to lead to a philosophical standpoint that many (including myself) find deeply unsatisfying. At best, and taking its descriptions at their most literal, it provides us with a very strange view of the world indeed. At worst, and taking literally the proclamations of some of its most famous protagonists, it provides us with no view of the world at all.
Many attempts have been made at the unification of General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Theory (QT), but there is a fundamental error made with these attempts, as we will discuss. What is the point of such theories? Well, obviously to describe the physical world we live in. QT describes what happens on the tiny scale, and GR describes what happens to bodies on a large scale. The fundamental error in unifying the two subjects is that QT doesn’t provide the physical happenings for GR to work, or in other words, QT describes why the world is the way it is, but not how, and this does not philosophically suffice in GR. Must we simply give up, in that the subjects are two different entities? I think the answer is that we mustn't. I think that we should put one theory in terms of the basic mechanics of the other, perhaps by simplifying, or perhaps by taking the physical reality to be our guide. Do I believe QT describes the world? Accurately. Do I believe that QT is the physical truth? Of course not… it is simply a mathematical construct to provide a model that allows for us to predict future outcomes. I will begin very simplistic, but the goal for the first part of the paper is to Classically describe the physical mechanics of QT. I will stick with particles in their ground state, and hence no translational motion.
Abstract Quantum theory has presented scientists and philosophers of science with a series of perplexing questions. It seems to many that any attempt to comprehend a world described by quantum theory will require revision in our understanding of the nature of things far more radical than the revision in our understanding of the nature of space and time demanded by the theories of relativity. It has been claimed that to comprehend quantum theory we must revise our very understanding of such matters as the objective nature of reality and its independence from our perception of it, the nature of a complex system and its relation to its components, and the nature of causal and other kinds of determination in the world.
The hard problem in consciousness is the problem of understanding how physical processes in the brain could give rise to subjective conscious experience. In this paper, I suggest that in order to understand the relationship between consciousness and the physical world, we need to probe deeply into the nature of physical reality. This leads us to quantum physics and to a second explanatory gap: that between quantum and classical reality. I will seek a philosophical framework that can address these two gaps simultaneously. Our analysis of quantum mechanics will naturally lead us to the notion of a hidden reality and to the postulate that consciousness is an integral component of this reality. The framework proposed in the paper provides the philosophical underpinnings for a theory of consciousness while satisfactorily resolving the interpretation problem in quantum mechanics without the need to alter its mathematical structure. I also discuss some implications for a scientific theory of consciousness.
It seems to be a priori impossible to formulate any general theory or model that encompasses all of the properties of complexity. So, one must make do with partial solutions. A possible approach we propose is to take inspiration from quantum theory, since there seems to be a strong analogy between complex systems and quantum systems. Although we do not propose any literal application of quantum mechanical formalism to complexity, we suggest that the language of quantum mechanics is already so well developed - and for a much wider spectrum of problems than most theories - that it can serve as a model for complexity theory. There are many problems common to both complex systems and quantum systems and we suggest that it might be useful to test the applicability of aspects of the “language” of quantum mechanics to a general complex system. What we suggest here is an interdisciplinary talk led between the natural sciences and philosophy, which we believe is the only way in which to deal with complexity “as such”.