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

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Top-down causation and quantum physics

George Ellis

Published Oct 23, 2018• 14 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The nature of emergence of complexity out of the underlying physics is a key issue in understanding the world around us (1). Genuine emergence can be claimed (2⇓–4) to depend on top-down causation, which enables higher emergent levels to direct the outcomes of causation at lower levels to fulfill higher-level causal requirements; for example, the needs of heart physiology at the systems level determine gene expression at the cellular level via gene regulatory networks (5) (Fig. 1). However, the idea of top-down causation has been denied by a number of commentators (e.g., refs. 6 and 7). The paper by Aharonov et al. (8) makes a strong contribution to this debate by giving quantum physics examples where top-down causation manifestly occurs. This physics result has strong implications for the philosophical debate about whether strong emergence is possible. Indeed, it gives specific examples where it occurs in a remarkably strong form. Fig. 1. Bottom-up and top-down causation from the quantum level up to the organism level and down again. Adapted with permission of Royal Society, from ref. 5; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Now, the word “causation” is regarded with suspicion by many philosophers of science, so to characterize what is happening one can perhaps rather use a number of different descriptions such as “whole–part constraint” or “top-down realization.” The key point remains the same, that higher levels can influence lower-level outcomes in many ways, and hence explain how strong emergence is possible. This occurs across science in general, and in physics in particular (3, 4). The latter point … [↵][1]1Email: george.ellis{at}uct.ac.za. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

DOI
10.1073/pnas.1816412115

Related papers

Quantum mechanics and consciousness: Thoughts on a causal correspondence theory

Ian J. Thompson

Which way does causation proceed? The pattern in the material world seems to be upward: particles to molecules to organisms to brains to mental processes. In contrast, the principles of quantum mechanics allow us to see a pattern of downward causation. These new ideas describe sets of multiple levels in which each level influences the levels below it through generation and selection. Top-down causation makes exciting sense of the world: we can find analogies in psychology, in the formation of our minds, in locating the source of consciousness, and even in the possible logic of belief in God.

•Jan 1, 2017•0 citations

Causation in Quantum Mechanics

Richard Healey

Abstract There is widespread agreement that quantum mechanics has something radical to teach us about causation. But opinions differ on what this is. Physicists have often taken the central lesson to be that many physical events occur spontaneously, so that a principle of causality is violated whenever an atom emits light, or a uranium nucleus decays, even though nothing that happened beforehand made this inevitable. Feynman urged philosophers to acknowledge that this implication of quantum mechanics undermines the view that causal determinism forms a precondition of scientific inquiry. But while some physicists have denied the implication, most philosophers since Reichenbach have accepted it with alacrity, and sought to develop accounts of causation equally applicable in an indeterministic or a deterministic world.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Jan 2, 2010•15 citations

Strong Emergence in Condensed Matter Physics

Barbara Drossel

This paper argues that the physics of condensed matter cannot be fully reduced to the supposedly fundamental quantum mechanical theory for all the atoms of which the system consists. In fact, there are many reasons to reject the idea that the world of physics is causally closed with everything being determined bottom-up by fundamental microscopic laws. This is illustrated by considering how condensed-matter theory is done in practice. It is never done by starting with a microscopic theory for the interaction of all the atoms of the system. Instead, approximations, plausible assumptions, intuitive models, and phenomenological theories are used to mathematically describe and explain the properties of systems that consist of a macroscopic number of particles. I argue that this is not merely a matter of convenience, but that there are fundamental and qualitative differences or even contradictions between the microscopic theory and the theory that is used in practice. The paper includes a list of arguments in favor of strong emergence and top-down causation within the realm of physics, and a response to several widespread objections against this view.

arXiv:1909.01134•Synthese Library/Synthese library•Jan 1, 2021•7 citations

The passage of time and top-down causation

Barbara Drossel

It is often claimed that the fundamental laws of physics are deterministic and time-symmetric and that therefore our experience of the passage of time is an illusion. This paper will critically discuss these claims and show that they are based on the misconception that the laws of physics are an exact and complete description of nature. I will argue that all supposedly fundamental deterministic and time-symmetric laws have their limitations and are supplemented by stochastic and irreversible elements. In fact, a deterministic description of a system is valid only as long as interactions with the rest of the world can be ignored. The most famous example is the quantum measurement process that occurs when a quantum system interacts with a macroscopic environment such as a measurement apparatus. This environment determines in a top-down way the possible outcomes of the measurement and their probabilities. I will argue that more generally the possible events that can occur in a system and their probabilities are the result of top-down influences from the wider context. In this way the microscopic level of a system is causally open to influences from the macroscopic environment. In conclusion, indeterminism and irreversibility are the result of a system being embedded in a wider context.

arXiv:2303.06352•The Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting•Jan 24, 2023•8 citations

Quantum theory and its interpretation

Alexander E. Wendt

Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 20, 2015•55 citations

Exploring Philosophical Implications of Quantum Decoherence

Elise M. Crull

Abstract Quantum decoherence is receiving a great deal of attention today not only in theoretical and experimental physics but also in branches of science as diverse as molecular biology, biochemistry, and even neuropsychology. It is no surprise that it is also beginning to appear in various philosophical debates concerning the fundamental structure of the world. The purpose of this article is primarily to acquaint non‐specialists with quantum decoherence and clarify related concepts, and secondly to sketch its possible implications – independent of particular interpretations of quantum mechanics – for broader philosophical debates. For example, decoherence shows that any method of parsing nature into levels or parts cannot be in principle but instead derives from our perception of the world as classical, a perception that is itself sustained by the process of decoherence.

Philosophy Compass•Sep 1, 2013•12 citations
The nature of emergence of complexity out of the underlying physics is a key issue in understanding the world around us (1). Genuine emergence can be claimed (2⇓–4) to depend on top-down causation, which enables higher emergent levels to direct the outcomes of causation at lower levels to fulfill higher-level causal requirements; for example, the needs of heart physiology at the systems level determine gene expression at the cellular level via gene regulatory networks (5) (Fig. 1). However, the idea of top-down causation has been denied by a number of commentators (e.g., refs. 6 and 7). The paper by Aharonov et al. (8) makes a strong contribution to this debate by giving quantum physics examples where top-down causation manifestly occurs. This physics result has strong implications for the philosophical debate about whether strong emergence is possible. Indeed, it gives specific examples where it occurs in a remarkably strong form.
Fig. 1.
Bottom-up and top-down causation from the quantum level up to the organism level and down again. Adapted with permission of Royal Society, from ref. 5; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Now, the word “causation” is regarded with suspicion by many philosophers of science, so to characterize what is happening one can perhaps rather use a number of different descriptions such as “whole–part constraint” or “top-down realization.” The key point remains the same, that higher levels can influence lower-level outcomes in many ways, and hence explain how strong emergence is possible. This occurs across science in general, and in physics in particular (3, 4). The latter point …
↵1Email: george.ellis{at}uct.ac.za.
Which way does causation proceed? The pattern in the material world seems to be upward: particles to molecules to organisms to brains to mental processes. In contrast, the principles of quantum mechanics allow us to see a pattern of downward causation. These new ideas describe sets of multiple levels in which each level influences the levels below it through generation and selection. Top-down causation makes exciting sense of the world: we can find analogies in psychology, in the formation of our minds, in locating the source of consciousness, and even in the possible logic of belief in God.
Abstract There is widespread agreement that quantum mechanics has something radical to teach us about causation. But opinions differ on what this is. Physicists have often taken the central lesson to be that many physical events occur spontaneously, so that a principle of causality is violated whenever an atom emits light, or a uranium nucleus decays, even though nothing that happened beforehand made this inevitable. Feynman urged philosophers to acknowledge that this implication of quantum mechanics undermines the view that causal determinism forms a precondition of scientific inquiry. But while some physicists have denied the implication, most philosophers since Reichenbach have accepted it with alacrity, and sought to develop accounts of causation equally applicable in an indeterministic or a deterministic world.
This paper argues that the physics of condensed matter cannot be fully reduced to the supposedly fundamental quantum mechanical theory for all the atoms of which the system consists. In fact, there are many reasons to reject the idea that the world of physics is causally closed with everything being determined bottom-up by fundamental microscopic laws. This is illustrated by considering how condensed-matter theory is done in practice. It is never done by starting with a microscopic theory for the interaction of all the atoms of the system. Instead, approximations, plausible assumptions, intuitive models, and phenomenological theories are used to mathematically describe and explain the properties of systems that consist of a macroscopic number of particles. I argue that this is not merely a matter of convenience, but that there are fundamental and qualitative differences or even contradictions between the microscopic theory and the theory that is used in practice. The paper includes a list of arguments in favor of strong emergence and top-down causation within the realm of physics, and a response to several widespread objections against this view.
It is often claimed that the fundamental laws of physics are deterministic and time-symmetric and that therefore our experience of the passage of time is an illusion. This paper will critically discuss these claims and show that they are based on the misconception that the laws of physics are an exact and complete description of nature. I will argue that all supposedly fundamental deterministic and time-symmetric laws have their limitations and are supplemented by stochastic and irreversible elements. In fact, a deterministic description of a system is valid only as long as interactions with the rest of the world can be ignored. The most famous example is the quantum measurement process that occurs when a quantum system interacts with a macroscopic environment such as a measurement apparatus. This environment determines in a top-down way the possible outcomes of the measurement and their probabilities. I will argue that more generally the possible events that can occur in a system and their probabilities are the result of top-down influences from the wider context. In this way the microscopic level of a system is causally open to influences from the macroscopic environment. In conclusion, indeterminism and irreversibility are the result of a system being embedded in a wider context.
Introduction Chapter 1 dealt with one of the deepest mysteries in modern science: how to explain consciousness. This Part deals with another mystery: how to make sense of quantum mechanics. Both involve a problem of reconciliation with the classical worldview, which is one hint that the two mysteries might be related. A second is that, unlike classical physics, which makes no reference to or allowance for consciousness, quantum theory raises the issue of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world in a very direct way. These hints do not necessarily mean there is a connection between the two mysteries, but by the end of this Part I hope to have shown why it would be natural to look for one. My more immediate aim here is to give the social scientific reader an introductory understanding of the experimental findings of quantum theory, its key concepts, and the debates about its interpretation. The discussion assumes no prior knowledge of quantum physics and makes no use of mathematics. Quantum theory without equations might seem like an oxymoron, and certainly reading this Part will not enable anyone to use quantum theory. But to a perhaps surprising degree it is possible to understand quantum theory without being able to use it. Its findings can be communicated in ordinary language, and the same goes for its main concepts and interpretive debates. One consequence of this has been the emergence of a virtual cottage industry of books on quantum theory for a lay audience. Most are written by physicists, and many are quite good. However, it is not just popular treatments that do without equations: much of the professional philosophical literature does as well. (I draw on both kinds of literature below.) Philosophers of physics are trained to understand the math, of course, which is necessary for a full appreciation of the issues.
Abstract Quantum decoherence is receiving a great deal of attention today not only in theoretical and experimental physics but also in branches of science as diverse as molecular biology, biochemistry, and even neuropsychology. It is no surprise that it is also beginning to appear in various philosophical debates concerning the fundamental structure of the world. The purpose of this article is primarily to acquaint non‐specialists with quantum decoherence and clarify related concepts, and secondly to sketch its possible implications – independent of particular interpretations of quantum mechanics – for broader philosophical debates. For example, decoherence shows that any method of parsing nature into levels or parts cannot be in principle but instead derives from our perception of the world as classical, a perception that is itself sustained by the process of decoherence.