I will discuss realism of classical and quantum theories, assessing the untenability of the object ontology, and proposing its substitution with the notion of system used in operational theories, notion that represents a theoretical connection between two events. Within operational theories the distinction between theory and objective reality is well defined: the theory provides the mathematical description of systems and events, and predicts the joint probability of the events; objective reality is identified with the collection of events that actually occurred. I then analyse some cases of realification of the theory – namely the fallacy of identifying theory with reality. In particular, the cases of the notion of causality and causal connection between events are analysed, emphasising their purely theoretical nature, contrarily to the widespread connotation of objectivity. I re-establish the role of causality in physics as a theorem of quantum theory, and hence also of classical theory (which is a restriction of quantum theory), showing how it represents a probabilistic generalisation of the same concept used in special relativity, and discussing why such notion may trivialise in the classical case. I end with a critique of David Albert’s Past Hypothesis about the nature of time, and of the resulting Block Universe vision of space-time, to reaffirm Reality of Time.
I will discuss realism of classical and quantum theories, assessing the untenability of the object ontology, and proposing its substitution with the notion of system used in operational theories, notion that represents a theoretical connection between two events. Within operational theories the distinction between theory and objective reality is well defined: the theory provides the mathematical description of systems and events, and predicts the joint probability of the events; objective reality is identified with the collection of events that actually occurred. I then analyse some cases of realification of the theory – namely the fallacy of identifying theory with reality. In particular, the cases of the notion of causality and causal connection between events are analysed, emphasising their purely theoretical nature, contrarily to the widespread connotation of objectivity. I re-establish the role of causality in physics as a theorem of quantum theory, and hence also of classical theory (which is a restriction of quantum theory), showing how it represents a probabilistic generalisation of the same concept used in special relativity, and discussing why such notion may trivialise in the classical case. I end with a critique of David Albert’s Past Hypothesis about the nature of time, and of the resulting Block Universe vision of space-time, to reaffirm Reality of Time.
Quantum theory describes our universe incredibly successfully. To our classically-inclined brains, however, it is a bizarre description that requires a reimagining of what fundamental reality, or “ontology”, could look like. This thesis examines different ontological features in light of the success of quantum theory, what it requires, and what it rules out. While these investigations are primarily foundational, they also have relevance to quantum information, quantum communication, and experiments on quantum systems. The way that quantum theory describes the state of a system is one of its most unintuitive features. It is natural, therefore, to ask whether a similarly strange description of states is required on an ontological level. This thesis proves that almost all quantum superposition states for d > 3 dimensions must be real—that is, present in the ontology in a well-defined sense. This is a strong requirement which prevents intuitive explanations of the many quantum phenomena which are based on superpositions. A new theorem is also presented showing that quantum theory is incompatible with macro-realist ontologies, where certain physical quantities must always have definite values. This improves on the Leggett-Garg argument, which also aims to prove incompatibility with macro-realism but contains loopholes. Variations on both of these results that are error-tolerant (and therefore amenable to experimentation) are presented, as well as numerous related theorems showing that the ontology of quantum states must be somewhat similar to the quantum states themselves in various specific ways. Extending these same methods to quantum communication, a simple proof is found showing that an exponential number of classical bits are required to communicate a linear number of qubits. That is, classical systems are exponentially bad at storing quantum data. Causal influences are another part of ontology where quantum theory demands a revision of our classical notions. This follows from the outcomes of Bell experiments, as rigorously shown in recent analyses. Here, the task of constructing a native quantum framework for reasoning about causal influences is tackled. This is done by first analysing the simple example of a common cause, from which a quantum version of Reichenbach’s principle is identified. This quantum principle relies on an identification of quantum conditional independence which can be defined in four ways, each naturally generalising a corresponding definition for classical conditional independence. Not only does this allow one to reason about common causes in a quantum experiments, but it can also be generalised to a full framework of quantum causal models (mirroring how classical causal models generalise Reichenbach’s principle). This new definition of quantum causal models is illustrated by examples and strengthened by it’s foundation on a robust quantum Reichenbach’s principle. An unusual, but surprisingly fruitful, setting for considering quantum ontology is found by considering time travel to the past. This provides a testbed for different ontological concepts in quantum theory and new ways to compare classical and quantum frameworks. It is especially useful for comparing computational properties. In particular, time travel introduces non-linearity to quantum theory, which brings (sometimes implicit) ontological assumptions to the fore while introducing strange new abilities. Here, a model for quantum time travel is presented which arguably has fewer objectionable features than previous attempts, while remaining similarly well-motivated. This model is discussed and compared with previous quantum models, as well as with the classical case. Together, these threads of investigation develop a better understanding of how quantum theory affects possible ontologies and how ontological prejudices influence quantum theory.
Causality has never gained the status of a 'law' or 'principle' in physics. Some recent literature has even popularized the false idea that causality is a notion that should be banned from theory. Such misconception relies on an alleged universality of the reversibility of the laws of physics, based either on the determinism of classical theory, or on the multiverse interpretation of quantum theory, in both cases motivated by mere interpretational requirements for realism of the theory. Here, I will show that a properly defined unambiguous notion of causality is a theorem of quantum theory, which is also a falsifiable proposition of the theory. Such a notion of causality appeared in the literature within the framework of operational probabilistic theories. It is a genuinely theoretical notion, corresponding to establishing a definite partial order among events, in the same way as we do by using the future causal cone on Minkowski space. The notion of causality is logically completely independent of the misidentified concept of 'determinism', and, being a consequence of quantum theory, is ubiquitous in physics. In addition, as classical theory can be regarded as a restriction of quantum theory, causality holds also in the classical case, although the determinism of the theory trivializes it. I then conclude by arguing that causality naturally establishes an arrow of time. This implies that the scenario of the 'block Universe' and the connected 'past hypothesis' are incompatible with causality, and thus with quantum theory: they are both doomed to remain mere interpretations and, as such, are not falsifiable, similar to the hypothesis of 'super-determinism'.This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Foundations of quantum mechanics and their impact on contemporary society'.
Based on a number of experimentally verified physical observations, it is argued that the standard principles of quantum mechanics should be applied to the Universe as a whole. Thus, a paradigm is proposed in which the entire Universe is represented by a pure state wavefunction contained in a factorisable Hilbert space of enormous dimension, and where this statevector is developed by successive applications of operators that correspond to unitary rotations and Hermitian tests. Moreover, because by definition the Universe contains everything, it is argued that these operators must be chosen self-referentially; the overall dynamics of the system is envisaged to be analogous to a gigantic, self-governing, quantum computation. The issue of how the Universe could choose these operators without requiring or referring to a fictitious external observer is addressed. The processes by which conventional physics might be recovered from this fundamental, mathematical and global description of reality are particularly investigated. Specifically, it is demonstrated that by considering the changing properties, separabilities and factorisations of both the state and the operators as the Universe proceeds though a sequence of discrete computations, familiar notions such as classical distinguishability, particle physics, space, time, special relativity and endo-physical experiments can all begin to emerge from the proposed picture. A pregeometric vision of cosmology is therefore discussed, with all of physics ultimately arising from the relationships occurring between the elements of the underlying mathematical structure.
Quantum Mechanics has taught us a lesson that goes well beyond a set of new physical laws. It has provided us with genuine “theorems of epistemology”. We now know that there are situations when the observation of the world cannot be considered as the mere reading of a reality pre-existing the observation, whereas there are circumstances where the knowledge of the whole do not corresponds to the knowledge of the parts (holism). We know that there are incompatible properties that are complementary. We know that there exist properties of the whole that are incompatible with any property of each part. The notion of “object” defined in terms of its “properties ” is in contrast with its mereologic connotation according to which objects can be composed to form new objects. The particle ontology as localizable unity is in contrast with the Malament theorem in quantum field theory. To the above add the fact that the two more general fundamental theories in physics – the quantum theory of fields and the general relativity of Einstein – are logically incompatible. In order to reconcile the logical coherence of the observations with their theoretical explanation we need a radical change of paradigm. The solution here proposed is to abandon the vision of the world as a “mechanism” and to substitute it with that of “algorithm”. This is the paradigm of the “universe as a huge computer” that have been latent within the community since Richard Feynman, and nowadays is resurrecting in physics, showing its full theoretical power. In the new algorithmic vision the “mechanics” becomes an emergent phenomenology. Without the need of physical primitive, the new “informational” program allows us to found physics on solid axiomatic grounds. The quantum theory of abstract systems along with the free quantum field theory are derived from information-theoretic axioms. The axioms of quantum theory all have an epistemological connotation, and pertain the possibility of falsifying the propositions of the theory. They reconnect holism with reductionism, probabilism and falsifiability, substituting the notion of “object” with that of “system” and of “event”, and logically implying the theorem of quantum theory without the need of using the abstract Hilbert-spaces toolkit. The free quantum field theory (Weyl, Dirac e Maxwell) is obtained by adding axioms of minimization of algorithmic complexity. The informational framework well separates the notions of “experiment”and “theory”: the theory connects input with output, the experiment being identified with the collection of input, output, and objective intermediate events. The objective reality (experiment) is made of “icons” with which we interact: the theory is the underlying algorithm. The paradigm describes the tapestry of reality as pure software, “software”. “Software without hardware”: the dematerialization of physics. “Reality without realism” means pure logical coherentism.
As far as classical physics is concerned, it is possible to trace causal relations between physical objects (i.e. particles in this case) back to intrinsic properties of these objects (such as their mass and charge). On this view, causal relations turn out to be internal instead of external relations, supervening on intrinsic properties of the relata (as proposed by Heil and Lowe). However, one can raise doubts about this view already in Newtonian mechanics. The decisive blow to this view comes from quantum physics, with Bell’s theorem proving that no dynamics based on local, intrinsic properties of quantum objects can yield the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, quantum entanglement by no means implies that we have to abandon an ontology of objects (i.e. substances such as particles) in favour of an ontology of structures (as claimed by French and Ladyman). Any of the known proposals for a quantum ontology of matter in space-time is committed to objects. However, on any of these proposals, what determines the dynamics of these objects are not local, intrinsic properties, but a global or holistic property instantiated by all the objects together – that is, a structure that takes all the objects in the universe as its relata. The view set out in this paper thus amounts to combining ontic structural realism with an ontology of objects that can be conceived as substances. This suggestion is illustrated by drawing on the ontology of quantum physics worked out by Bohm and Bell. 1.
The distinction between classical physics and quantum physics is traditionally analyzed based on concepts such as determinism, the continuous or discrete nature of variables, the non-commutativity of observables, and the superposition of states. This article proposes a more fundamental reinterpretation based on two complementary conceptual ingredients. The first is a minimal relational epistemology, developed from the author's previous work, in which space and time are not a priori frames but emerge from comparisons of movements between systems. The second is an analysis of the role played by the possibility—or impossibility—of defining independent events, a possibility that depends precisely on the prior construction of a spatio-temporal and causal structure. We show that the essential difference between classical physics and quantum physics lies in the rule of probability composition, and not in the features usually invoked. Quantum physics appears to be a coherent description of a physical regime prior to the establishment of the causal independence of events. The two conceptual ingredients are summarized in the form of axioms, broad enough to offer a new perspective on the usual notions of quantum physics, which we review here. Accompanying this text, another article presents more technical developments.