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

Journal of consciousness exploration & research

Representation and the figure of the observer

Vitor Silva Tschoepke

Published Nov 8, 2018• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

The theoretical use of representation faces, among others, two types of inconsistencies, namely: a representation requires the figure of the agent to which it will be representative, which leads either to circularity or to infinite return; and the resulting one, which is the difficulty in reconciling a description, in representative terms, with other more fundamental scientific categories. The proposal of the present study for the solution of these problems was the identification of a referential process starting from the correlation between states of a physical system. It will present an inference about how the superposition of causal history moments of a system can result in a self-referential structure.

Related papers

Representation & the Figure of the Observer

Vitor Silva Tschoepke

The theoretical use of representation faces, among others, two types of inconsistencies, namely: a representation requires the figure of the agent to which it will be representative, which leads either to circularity or to infinite return; and the resulting one, which is the difficulty in reconciling a description, in representative terms, with other more fundamental scientific categories. The proposal of the present study for the solution of these problems was the identification of a referential process starting from the correlation between states of a physical system. It will present an inference about how the superposition of causal history moments of a system can result in a self-referential structure.

Journal of consciousness exploration & research•Nov 8, 2018•0 citations

Logic and Complementarity

T. Bergstein

From the preceding exposition it follows that the quantum statistical representation of an individual atomic system does not imply any renunciation regarding further knowledge about the system. On the contrary the statistical character of quantum physics directly reflects the fundamental non-causal appearance of quantal recordings, and through the discovery of the complementarity of quantal phenomena a complete but necessarily statistical description of the atom has been accomplished. Furthermore quantum physics has afforded a statistical description of macroscopic bodies through their representation as assemblies of huge numbers of identical atomic systems, and, apart from accounting in a more fundamental way for the properties already described in classical physics(the correspondence principle, p. 36), quantum statistics explains several macroscopic phenomena which cannot be understood within the conceptual frame of classical physics only. It must be maintained, however, that when observing the properties of individual atomic objects the macroscopic observational apparatus cannot be represented in terms of atomic constituents because this would destroy the unambiguity of the description. The observational apparatus fulfils its basic function of being the spacetime frame of reference for the quantal recordings precisely through its description in classical physics alone. However, when refraining from the analysis of individual quantal processes it is possible to apply quantum statistics to macroscopic phenomena, that is, the causality of classical physical phenomena can be interpreted in the quantum formalism as the statistical result of the interplay of enormous numbers of atomic processes. It is possible, then, to talk of statistical causality as a fundamental aspect of physical reality.

•Jan 1, 1972•0 citations

Representation and Perspective in Science

Bas C. van Fraassen

The world science describes tends to have a very strange look. We can’t see atoms or force fields, nor are they imaginable within visualizable categories, so neither can we even imagine what the world must be like according to recent physical theories. That tension, between what science depicts as reality and how things appear to us, though it is more striking now, has been with us since modern science began. It can be addressed, and perhaps alleviated by inquiring into how science represents nature. In general, representation is selective, theselection is of what is relevant to the purpose at hand, and success may even require distortion. From this point of view, the constraint on science, that it must ‘save the phenomena’, takes on a new form. The question to be faced is howthe perspectival character of the appearances (that is, contents of measurement outcomes) can be related to the hidden structure that the sciences postulate. In the competing interpretations of quantum mechanics we can see how certaintraditional ideals and constraints are left behind. Specifically, Carlo Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics offers a probative example of the freedom of scientific representation.

•Jan 1, 2007•3 citations

The Unfaithful Cut: A Structural Diagnostic for Algebraically Closed Reductions

A. R. Wells

Many areas of physics rely on reduced descriptions, namely compact state-like objects intended to summarize complex underlying dynamics. In quantum theory, such reductions underpin state-based reasoning, effective dynamics in open systems, process-tensor formalisms, and causal modeling. However, persistent difficulties arise when these reduced objects are used to make counterfactual predictions under interventions, particularly in the presence of memory, correlations, or contextual effects. This work analyzes these difficulties at a structural level. Rather than proposing new dynamics or interpretations, it asks when a reduced description is capable, in principle, of supporting counterfactual reasoning under a specified class of physical interventions. The paper introduces a diagnostic criterion called faithfulness with respect to interventions and shows how many-to-one operational reductions can fail this criterion when they discard distinctions that later become causally relevant. The significance of this result is that it identifies a general failure mode of reduced modeling that cannot be repaired by improving equations of motion alone. The analysis clarifies why certain familiar problems recur across open quantum systems, quantum control, process-theoretic descriptions, and contextuality. Researchers who design, analyze, or rely on reduced models for prediction, control, or causal inference should find this framework useful for determining when such models are reliable and when additional structure is unavoidable. Abstract Modern quantum foundations increasingly recognize that instantaneous state descriptions are insufficient to account for contextuality, non-Markovian dynamics, and intervention-dependent behavior. Related advances extend the descriptive object to non-Markovian and multi-time process formalisms, yet typically retain the assumption that a suitably defined algebraic object can remain sufficient for prediction under interventions.In this work we identify and formalize a structural diagnostic underlying these phenomena, which we term the unfaithful cut. We consider many-to-one operational reductions from a space of admissible histories to reduced descriptions such as states, channels, or static multi-time process tensors. We introduce a criterion of faithfulness with respect to interventions, requiring that identical reduced descriptions permit identical sets of admissible future continuations under a specified class of physical interventions.We show that, under physically standard conditions, reductions that rely on algebraically closed descriptive objects—whether instantaneous states or static multi-time process tensors (Σ₁ descriptions)—can fail to be faithful: distinct underlying histories may map to the same reduced object yet support different counterfactual responses to later interventions. This failure is representational rather than dynamical and cannot, in general, be repaired by modifying equations of motion on the reduced space alone.We then characterize the minimal representational structure required to restore counterfactual semantics, formalized here as a trajectory-level admissibility geometry (Σ₂). In this framework, reduced descriptions are associated with structured families of admissible histories rather than single points, and memory effects or arrow-like directedness arise as geometric consequences of reduction rather than as fundamental dynamical postulates. Our results apply across state-based, process-theoretic, and causal-model frameworks and clarify the structural limits of algebraic reductions in open quantum systems and quantum control.

•Jan 6, 2026•0 citations

Subjective foundations of quantum mechanics

A.V. Kaminsky

It is shown that the self-referential model of the world (in such a model the world is an observer of itself) generates a quantum-like description of reality.

•Mar 28, 2025•0 citations

久那斗 Kunato Core Ver.5.0.0: Ontological Admission, Typed Representation Transport, and Effective-Structure Validation

Scheduler4861

Abstract We present Kunato Core Ver.5.0.0, a general framework for ontological admission, typed representation transport, empirical identifiability, effective-structure validation, and provenance-preserving epistemic state transition. The framework addresses a recurrent inferential problem across mathematical physics, statistical inference, inverse problems, effective theories, information theory, complex systems, quantum theory, and scientific realism: mathematical definability, empirical adequacy, model identification, and physical realization are distinct achievements and must not be silently promoted into one another. Kunato formalizes this separation through the constraint Formal(M) AND Emp(M; O) DOES NOT IMPLY Ontic(M). No representation receives automatic ontological privilege. Finite observation provides a first source of non-identification. Distinct formal models can agree exactly on a finite empirical record; in particular, uncountably many models can be constructed that coincide on any prescribed finite set of sample points. This establishes non-uniqueness within the relevant formal model class without promoting mathematical alternatives into claims about distinct physical causal histories. Finite measurement precision is treated through fibers of explicit resolution maps rather than by identifying metric neighborhoods with equivalence classes. The framework further distinguishes finite-dimensional state spaces from finite-state ontologies: finite-dimensional complex Hilbert spaces can contain a continuum of pure-state rays, whereas finite operational distinguishability requires additional assumptions such as a uniform positive separation scale on a compact state space. For stochastic observations, Kunato separates distributional identifiability, asymptotic inference, finite-sample discrimination, and zero-error identification. Positive overlap between competing observational laws prevents zero-error discrimination from the corresponding finite record. Increasing statistical evidence can therefore strengthen discrimination without automatically supplying an ontological realization warrant. Identification within a declared candidate class likewise remains conditional on that class and does not establish that physical reality belongs to it. The mathematical core is a typed property-transport calculus. Given a representation map Phi: X -> Y and a property P: X -> Z, P factors through Phi precisely when P is constant on every fiber of Phi. Equivalently, the kernel equivalence relation induced by Phi is contained in the kernel equivalence relation induced by P. This criterion separates state identification from property identification: a non-injective representation may fail to recover individual source states while still determining every property invariant on its fibers. Representation types, identified by their induced fiber equivalence relations, are organized by refinement within the complete lattice of equivalence relations on X. This provides a common mathematical structure for coarse-graining, quotient representations, projections, information loss, recoverability, and comparison of effective descriptions. Refinement is a partial order, so representations may also be incomparable. Effective structures consequently require property-specific transport warrants. Compression of a unitary parent operator, for example, need not preserve unitarity or normality. Conversely, non-normality alone does not entail a non-real spectrum, irreversibility, non-Markovianity, or absence of characteristic timescales. Observable symmetry, effective geometry, statistical regularity, entropy, information structure, temporal scales, and other representation-dependent properties cannot be transported automatically to a parent ontology. Kunato operationalizes these restrictions through methodological admission protocols. The Metric Admission Protocol regulates inference from effective metric structure to fundamental geometry. The Statistical-Invariant Admission Protocol separates existence of a mean from typicality, concentration, and self-averaging. The Timescale Admission Protocol distinguishes observed decay and hazard structure from claims about fundamental temporal dynamics. The Informational-Semantic Admission Protocol constrains inference from probability, entropy, information geometry, and semantic structure to latent ontology. The Criticality Admission Protocol separates phenomenological scaling from stronger claims of critical structure by requiring appropriately scoped diagnostics such as finite-size behavior, exponent stability, data collapse, robustness analysis, and negative controls. These protocols are methodological admission criteria rather than asserted laws of nature. Ontological admission is governed by differentiated semantic, fit, identification, scope, realization, revocation, and provenance warrants. These warrant types prevent empirical fit, interpretation, candidate-class identification, physical realization, and evidential history from being collapsed into an undifferentiated notion of support. Epistemic judgments are represented as contextual and versioned states, allowing changes in evidence, candidate classes, semantics, scope, and warrants to be reconstructed as explicit state transitions rather than hidden revisions. A central distinction is that UNRESOLVED is not REJECTED. Failure to establish an adequate promotion warrant blocks the requested inference but does not establish falsity or nonexistence. Rejection requires an independent refutation condition. Revocation acts on claims and accepted epistemic states while retaining their provenance; it does not imply any operation on authors or other persons. Self-application closes the framework. Continuum models, discrete models, cellular automata, XOR-based constructions, effective theories, quantum representations, and Kunato itself receive no exemption from the admission rules. Failure to identify a continuum ontology does not identify a discrete ontology, empirical adequacy of a constructive model does not establish its fundamental realization, and formal validity of Kunato does not confer physical ontological status on Kunato. The framework therefore entails neither a privileged fundamental model nor ontological nihilism. Not identified does not imply false, and not admitted does not imply nonexistent. Kunato Core Ver.5.0.0 provides a unified formal and computational vocabulary for ontological admission, finite-data non-identification, finite-record discrimination, inverse problems, coarse-graining, property factorization, representation refinement, effective dynamics, statistical invariants, temporal inference, information-theoretic interpretation, criticality assessment, model-class identification, provenance, epistemic-state revision, and scientific realism. Its objective is not to determine a preferred ontology by methodological fiat, but to make the inferential boundaries between representation, observation, identification, and physical realization explicit and auditable. The framework is summarized by four constraints: no hidden epistemic transition; no hidden ontological promotion; no untyped representational transport; and no self-exemption. Its terminal methodological principle is: no representation receives automatic ontological privilege.

•Aug 19, 2026•0 citations
The theoretical use of representation faces, among others, two types of inconsistencies, namely: a representation requires the figure of the agent to which it will be representative, which leads either to circularity or to infinite return; and the resulting one, which is the difficulty in reconciling a description, in representative terms, with other more fundamental scientific categories. The proposal of the present study for the solution of these problems was the identification of a referential process starting from the correlation between states of a physical system. It will present an inference about how the superposition of causal history moments of a system can result in a self-referential structure.
The theoretical use of representation faces, among others, two types of inconsistencies, namely: a representation requires the figure of the agent to which it will be representative, which leads either to circularity or to infinite return; and the resulting one, which is the difficulty in reconciling a description, in representative terms, with other more fundamental scientific categories. The proposal of the present study for the solution of these problems was the identification of a referential process starting from the correlation between states of a physical system. It will present an inference about how the superposition of causal history moments of a system can result in a self-referential structure.
From the preceding exposition it follows that the quantum statistical representation of an individual atomic system does not imply any renunciation regarding further knowledge about the system. On the contrary the statistical character of quantum physics directly reflects the fundamental non-causal appearance of quantal recordings, and through the discovery of the complementarity of quantal phenomena a complete but necessarily statistical description of the atom has been accomplished. Furthermore quantum physics has afforded a statistical description of macroscopic bodies through their representation as assemblies of huge numbers of identical atomic systems, and, apart from accounting in a more fundamental way for the properties already described in classical physics(the correspondence principle, p. 36), quantum statistics explains several macroscopic phenomena which cannot be understood within the conceptual frame of classical physics only. It must be maintained, however, that when observing the properties of individual atomic objects the macroscopic observational apparatus cannot be represented in terms of atomic constituents because this would destroy the unambiguity of the description. The observational apparatus fulfils its basic function of being the spacetime frame of reference for the quantal recordings precisely through its description in classical physics alone. However, when refraining from the analysis of individual quantal processes it is possible to apply quantum statistics to macroscopic phenomena, that is, the causality of classical physical phenomena can be interpreted in the quantum formalism as the statistical result of the interplay of enormous numbers of atomic processes. It is possible, then, to talk of statistical causality as a fundamental aspect of physical reality.
The world science describes tends to have a very strange look. We can’t see atoms or force fields, nor are they imaginable within visualizable categories, so neither can we even imagine what the world must be like according to recent physical theories. That tension, between what science depicts as reality and how things appear to us, though it is more striking now, has been with us since modern science began. It can be addressed, and perhaps alleviated by inquiring into how science represents nature. In general, representation is selective, theselection is of what is relevant to the purpose at hand, and success may even require distortion. From this point of view, the constraint on science, that it must ‘save the phenomena’, takes on a new form. The question to be faced is howthe perspectival character of the appearances (that is, contents of measurement outcomes) can be related to the hidden structure that the sciences postulate. In the competing interpretations of quantum mechanics we can see how certaintraditional ideals and constraints are left behind. Specifically, Carlo Rovelli’s Relational Quantum Mechanics offers a probative example of the freedom of scientific representation.
Many areas of physics rely on reduced descriptions, namely compact state-like objects intended to summarize complex underlying dynamics. In quantum theory, such reductions underpin state-based reasoning, effective dynamics in open systems, process-tensor formalisms, and causal modeling. However, persistent difficulties arise when these reduced objects are used to make counterfactual predictions under interventions, particularly in the presence of memory, correlations, or contextual effects. This work analyzes these difficulties at a structural level. Rather than proposing new dynamics or interpretations, it asks when a reduced description is capable, in principle, of supporting counterfactual reasoning under a specified class of physical interventions. The paper introduces a diagnostic criterion called faithfulness with respect to interventions and shows how many-to-one operational reductions can fail this criterion when they discard distinctions that later become causally relevant. The significance of this result is that it identifies a general failure mode of reduced modeling that cannot be repaired by improving equations of motion alone. The analysis clarifies why certain familiar problems recur across open quantum systems, quantum control, process-theoretic descriptions, and contextuality. Researchers who design, analyze, or rely on reduced models for prediction, control, or causal inference should find this framework useful for determining when such models are reliable and when additional structure is unavoidable. Abstract Modern quantum foundations increasingly recognize that instantaneous state descriptions are insufficient to account for contextuality, non-Markovian dynamics, and intervention-dependent behavior. Related advances extend the descriptive object to non-Markovian and multi-time process formalisms, yet typically retain the assumption that a suitably defined algebraic object can remain sufficient for prediction under interventions.In this work we identify and formalize a structural diagnostic underlying these phenomena, which we term the unfaithful cut. We consider many-to-one operational reductions from a space of admissible histories to reduced descriptions such as states, channels, or static multi-time process tensors. We introduce a criterion of faithfulness with respect to interventions, requiring that identical reduced descriptions permit identical sets of admissible future continuations under a specified class of physical interventions.We show that, under physically standard conditions, reductions that rely on algebraically closed descriptive objects—whether instantaneous states or static multi-time process tensors (Σ₁ descriptions)—can fail to be faithful: distinct underlying histories may map to the same reduced object yet support different counterfactual responses to later interventions. This failure is representational rather than dynamical and cannot, in general, be repaired by modifying equations of motion on the reduced space alone.We then characterize the minimal representational structure required to restore counterfactual semantics, formalized here as a trajectory-level admissibility geometry (Σ₂). In this framework, reduced descriptions are associated with structured families of admissible histories rather than single points, and memory effects or arrow-like directedness arise as geometric consequences of reduction rather than as fundamental dynamical postulates. Our results apply across state-based, process-theoretic, and causal-model frameworks and clarify the structural limits of algebraic reductions in open quantum systems and quantum control.
Abstract We present Kunato Core Ver.5.0.0, a general framework for ontological admission, typed representation transport, empirical identifiability, effective-structure validation, and provenance-preserving epistemic state transition. The framework addresses a recurrent inferential problem across mathematical physics, statistical inference, inverse problems, effective theories, information theory, complex systems, quantum theory, and scientific realism: mathematical definability, empirical adequacy, model identification, and physical realization are distinct achievements and must not be silently promoted into one another. Kunato formalizes this separation through the constraint Formal(M) AND Emp(M; O) DOES NOT IMPLY Ontic(M). No representation receives automatic ontological privilege. Finite observation provides a first source of non-identification. Distinct formal models can agree exactly on a finite empirical record; in particular, uncountably many models can be constructed that coincide on any prescribed finite set of sample points. This establishes non-uniqueness within the relevant formal model class without promoting mathematical alternatives into claims about distinct physical causal histories. Finite measurement precision is treated through fibers of explicit resolution maps rather than by identifying metric neighborhoods with equivalence classes. The framework further distinguishes finite-dimensional state spaces from finite-state ontologies: finite-dimensional complex Hilbert spaces can contain a continuum of pure-state rays, whereas finite operational distinguishability requires additional assumptions such as a uniform positive separation scale on a compact state space. For stochastic observations, Kunato separates distributional identifiability, asymptotic inference, finite-sample discrimination, and zero-error identification. Positive overlap between competing observational laws prevents zero-error discrimination from the corresponding finite record. Increasing statistical evidence can therefore strengthen discrimination without automatically supplying an ontological realization warrant. Identification within a declared candidate class likewise remains conditional on that class and does not establish that physical reality belongs to it. The mathematical core is a typed property-transport calculus. Given a representation map Phi: X -> Y and a property P: X -> Z, P factors through Phi precisely when P is constant on every fiber of Phi. Equivalently, the kernel equivalence relation induced by Phi is contained in the kernel equivalence relation induced by P. This criterion separates state identification from property identification: a non-injective representation may fail to recover individual source states while still determining every property invariant on its fibers. Representation types, identified by their induced fiber equivalence relations, are organized by refinement within the complete lattice of equivalence relations on X. This provides a common mathematical structure for coarse-graining, quotient representations, projections, information loss, recoverability, and comparison of effective descriptions. Refinement is a partial order, so representations may also be incomparable. Effective structures consequently require property-specific transport warrants. Compression of a unitary parent operator, for example, need not preserve unitarity or normality. Conversely, non-normality alone does not entail a non-real spectrum, irreversibility, non-Markovianity, or absence of characteristic timescales. Observable symmetry, effective geometry, statistical regularity, entropy, information structure, temporal scales, and other representation-dependent properties cannot be transported automatically to a parent ontology. Kunato operationalizes these restrictions through methodological admission protocols. The Metric Admission Protocol regulates inference from effective metric structure to fundamental geometry. The Statistical-Invariant Admission Protocol separates existence of a mean from typicality, concentration, and self-averaging. The Timescale Admission Protocol distinguishes observed decay and hazard structure from claims about fundamental temporal dynamics. The Informational-Semantic Admission Protocol constrains inference from probability, entropy, information geometry, and semantic structure to latent ontology. The Criticality Admission Protocol separates phenomenological scaling from stronger claims of critical structure by requiring appropriately scoped diagnostics such as finite-size behavior, exponent stability, data collapse, robustness analysis, and negative controls. These protocols are methodological admission criteria rather than asserted laws of nature. Ontological admission is governed by differentiated semantic, fit, identification, scope, realization, revocation, and provenance warrants. These warrant types prevent empirical fit, interpretation, candidate-class identification, physical realization, and evidential history from being collapsed into an undifferentiated notion of support. Epistemic judgments are represented as contextual and versioned states, allowing changes in evidence, candidate classes, semantics, scope, and warrants to be reconstructed as explicit state transitions rather than hidden revisions. A central distinction is that UNRESOLVED is not REJECTED. Failure to establish an adequate promotion warrant blocks the requested inference but does not establish falsity or nonexistence. Rejection requires an independent refutation condition. Revocation acts on claims and accepted epistemic states while retaining their provenance; it does not imply any operation on authors or other persons. Self-application closes the framework. Continuum models, discrete models, cellular automata, XOR-based constructions, effective theories, quantum representations, and Kunato itself receive no exemption from the admission rules. Failure to identify a continuum ontology does not identify a discrete ontology, empirical adequacy of a constructive model does not establish its fundamental realization, and formal validity of Kunato does not confer physical ontological status on Kunato. The framework therefore entails neither a privileged fundamental model nor ontological nihilism. Not identified does not imply false, and not admitted does not imply nonexistent. Kunato Core Ver.5.0.0 provides a unified formal and computational vocabulary for ontological admission, finite-data non-identification, finite-record discrimination, inverse problems, coarse-graining, property factorization, representation refinement, effective dynamics, statistical invariants, temporal inference, information-theoretic interpretation, criticality assessment, model-class identification, provenance, epistemic-state revision, and scientific realism. Its objective is not to determine a preferred ontology by methodological fiat, but to make the inferential boundaries between representation, observation, identification, and physical realization explicit and auditable. The framework is summarized by four constraints: no hidden epistemic transition; no hidden ontological promotion; no untyped representational transport; and no self-exemption. Its terminal methodological principle is: no representation receives automatic ontological privilege.