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

God's Dice: A Dramatic Exploration of Quantum Metaphysics

Cory Tamler

Published Apr 30, 2009• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

I have already written one play, Not Eureka, which explores one way in which theatre can give a voice to science. While not a traditional "science history" play, Not Eureka concerns, and I hope illuminates, several scientific experiments of historical significance.In my current research, I have continued to explore ways to incorporate science into theatre. My project is similar to Not Eureka in that I am engaged in writing a new, full-length play (City Lights, Receding), based on research and scientific in focus. However, the project is not a repeat of my previous work. Instead of recounting and clarifying already fairly well-established scientific concepts, City Lights, Receding is philosophical, speculative, in nature.My focus as a History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) major is in the philosophy of quantum physics. I find this particular area of physical-philosophical inquiry both appealing and dramatic. My play explores, in a dramatic, speculative way, the philosophical problems presented by modern physics, and the conflict between the classical and modern worlds.I completed a graduate seminar in the philosophy of quantum mechanics in fall 2007. Since then, I have pursued research independently into the philosophy of quantum mechanics, identifying specific areas within the topic useful to the development of my script. I have focused on theories of interpretation such as GRW, many-worlds and many-minds theories. I have also been reading as many science-based plays as I can get my hands on.Fall 2008 began my writing period. By the beginning of spring semester 2009, I had a draft in reading-ready form; a seated reading through the Theatre Arts department, directed by Regina Connolly and featuring Charlie Brown (Verdenmacher), Parag S. Gohel (Armin), Mary Heyne (Marian), Lily Junker (Brody), and Joe McGranaghan (Albert Albert), was performed from April 9-11, 2009. Based on the reading and the response of audience and theatre/HPS faculty to it, I plan to revise the script with the goal of eventually pursuing full production opportunities.

Related papers

Quantum physics

Alastair I. M. Rae

‘God’, said Albert Einstein, ‘does not play dice’. This famous remark by the author of the theory of relativity was not intended as an analysis of the recreational habits of a supreme being but expressed his reaction to the new scientific ideas, developed in the first quarter of the twentieth century, which are now known as quantum physics. Before we can fully appreciate why one of the greatest scientists of modern times should have been led to make such a comment, we must first try to understand the context of scientific and philosophical thought that had become established by the end of the nineteenth century and what it was about the ‘new physics’ that presented such a radical challenge to this consensus. What is often thought of as the modern scientific age began in the sixteenth century, when Nicholas Copernicus proposed that the motion of the stars and planets should be described on the assumption that it is the sun, rather than the earth, which is the centre of the solar system. The opposition, not to say persecution, that this idea encountered from the establishment of that time is well known, but this was unable to prevent a revolution in thinking whose influence has continued to the present day. From that time on, the accepted test of scientific truth has increasingly been observation and experiment rather than religious or philosophical dogma.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Oct 7, 2004•0 citations

Quantum Schmuntum: Lights, Camera, Action!

Vlatko Vedral

Spring 2005, whilst sitting at my desk in the physics department at Leeds University, marking yet more exam papers, I was interrupted by a phone call. Interruptions were not such a surprise at the time, a few weeks previously I had published an article on quantum theory in the popular science magazine, New Scientist, and had since been inundated with all sorts of calls from the public. Most callers were very enthusiastic, clearly demonstrating a healthy appetite for more information on this fascinating topic, albeit occasionally one or two either hadn’t read the article, or perhaps had read into it a little too much. Comments ranging from ‘Can quantum mechanics help prevent my hair loss?’ to someone telling me that they had met their twin brother in a parallel Universe, were par for the course, and I was getting a couple of such questions each day. At Oxford we used to have a board for the most creative questions, especially the ones that clearly demonstrated the person had grasped some of the principles very well, but had then taken them to an extreme, and often, unbeknown to them, had violated several other physical laws on the way. Such questions served to remind us of the responsibility we had in communicating science – to make it clear and approachable but yet to be pragmatic. As a colleague of mine often said – sometimes working with a little physics can be more dangerous than working with none at all. ‘Hello Professor Vedral, my name is Jon Spooner, I’m a theatre director and I am putting together a play on quantum theory’, said the voice as I picked up the phone. ‘I am weaving elements of quantum theory into the play and we want you as a consultant to verify whether we are interpreting it accurately’. Totally stunned for at least a good couple of seconds, I asked myself, ‘This guy is doing what?’ Had I misheard? A play on quantum theory? Anyway it occurred to me that there might be an appetite for something like this, given how successful the production of Copenhagen, a play by Michael Freyn, had been a few years back.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Feb 8, 2018•0 citations

Does God play dice? A discussion of some interpretations of quantum mechanics

A. A. Ross-Bonney

Il Nuovo cimento della Società italiana di fisica. B/Il Nuovo cimento B•Nov 1, 1975•21 citations

Studying many-body physics through quantum coding theory

Beni Yoshida

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Physics, 2012.

•Jan 1, 2012•0 citations

Fundamental Physics, Existential Risks and Human Futures

Adrian Kent

Over the past 25 years, I have been involved in some intriguing developments in the foundations of physics, exploring the quantum reality problem, the relationship between quantum theory and gravity and the interplay between consciousness and physical laws. These investigations make it plausible that we will find physics beyond quantum theory, potentially including both new evolution laws and new types of measurement. There is also a significant chance they could have potentially transformative impact on information processing and on the development of and our future with AI.

quant-pharXiv:2604.26530•Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Apr 30, 2026•0 citations

From Physics to Philosophy

Stig Stenholm

The relation between Physics and Philosophy brings to mind the proverbial marriage of high drama; the parties do not approve of each other, but separated they cannot live. Philosophers find physicists shallow, and many physicists claim that they find philosophic speculations useless or worse. Mostly both display a lack of knowledge and understanding of the methods and goals of the other. A few researchers have tried to bridge this gap and explore the worlds of both parties. Michael Redhead has worked in this borderland, and when he retired from his chair in Cambridge, a symposium was arranged to honour him. The talks presented on this occasion are now published in a volume presenting much food for thought to both philosophers and physicists. The essays in this publication do not offer easy reading; not too many readers will have the preparation to penetrate the technical arguments offered. The authors are well acquainted with both philosophical argumentation and mathematical formalism, and, following the lead of Professor Redhead, they combine these in intricate and suggestive ways. Only a close reading can offer understanding of the points of view taken by the various authors. Browsing and mere reading defines the scenery, exploring it demands much more. Many of the nine essays included investigate the meaning of terms used loosely in physics contexts: locality, beables, symmetries and time in relativity. All essays utilize the mathematical structures of physics, but the approach is mainly philosophical; concepts like reality and metaphysics are applied. Some writings are more physical in their treatment of technical questions relating to modern quantum theory. Bohmian mechanics, localized quantum states and gauge symmetries are discussed in detail. It is, however, found that these present interpretational problems that are usually glossed over in purely physical treatments. For an old sceptic like myself, it is quite refreshing to find that many assertions, taken for granted in our textbooks, are indeed doubtful and offer conceptual or technical difficulties. This insight is what a philosophical analysis can offer the working physicist; future progress may well arise from such realizations. However, the results offered by philosophical analysis are usually found unsatisfactory; the hope that philosophy can suggest novel directions for the theory remains unfounded. Philosophers can learn that modern physics rests on a very shaky conceptual foundation. The theory has evolved by a combination of serendipity and opportunism. The beast that finally has emerged is neither well founded nor internally consistent. Its only merit is that it works. That offers the ultimate philosophical problem of modern physics. If the present book can help the philosopher to behold this challenging but overwhelming wilderness, then it serves a useful purpose indeed. But the prospective researcher has to learn to master the difficult language used by the natives, who are not always friendly. I enjoyed reading the book immensely, but the technical difficulty of the text made my understanding remain mostly superficial. I hope to have the time to return some of the essays, and look into the references and issues involved. The work is genuinely what it promises: a guide From Physics to Philosophy .

European Journal of Physics•Mar 1, 2000•0 citations
I have already written one play, Not Eureka, which explores one way in which theatre can give a voice to science. While not a traditional "science history" play, Not Eureka concerns, and I hope illuminates, several scientific experiments of historical significance.In my current research, I have continued to explore ways to incorporate science into theatre. My project is similar to Not Eureka in that I am engaged in writing a new, full-length play (City Lights, Receding), based on research and scientific in focus. However, the project is not a repeat of my previous work. Instead of recounting and clarifying already fairly well-established scientific concepts, City Lights, Receding is philosophical, speculative, in nature.My focus as a History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) major is in the philosophy of quantum physics. I find this particular area of physical-philosophical inquiry both appealing and dramatic. My play explores, in a dramatic, speculative way, the philosophical problems presented by modern physics, and the conflict between the classical and modern worlds.I completed a graduate seminar in the philosophy of quantum mechanics in fall 2007. Since then, I have pursued research independently into the philosophy of quantum mechanics, identifying specific areas within the topic useful to the development of my script. I have focused on theories of interpretation such as GRW, many-worlds and many-minds theories. I have also been reading as many science-based plays as I can get my hands on.Fall 2008 began my writing period. By the beginning of spring semester 2009, I had a draft in reading-ready form; a seated reading through the Theatre Arts department, directed by Regina Connolly and featuring Charlie Brown (Verdenmacher), Parag S. Gohel (Armin), Mary Heyne (Marian), Lily Junker (Brody), and Joe McGranaghan (Albert Albert), was performed from April 9-11, 2009. Based on the reading and the response of audience and theatre/HPS faculty to it, I plan to revise the script with the goal of eventually pursuing full production opportunities.
‘God’, said Albert Einstein, ‘does not play dice’. This famous remark by the author of the theory of relativity was not intended as an analysis of the recreational habits of a supreme being but expressed his reaction to the new scientific ideas, developed in the first quarter of the twentieth century, which are now known as quantum physics. Before we can fully appreciate why one of the greatest scientists of modern times should have been led to make such a comment, we must first try to understand the context of scientific and philosophical thought that had become established by the end of the nineteenth century and what it was about the ‘new physics’ that presented such a radical challenge to this consensus. What is often thought of as the modern scientific age began in the sixteenth century, when Nicholas Copernicus proposed that the motion of the stars and planets should be described on the assumption that it is the sun, rather than the earth, which is the centre of the solar system. The opposition, not to say persecution, that this idea encountered from the establishment of that time is well known, but this was unable to prevent a revolution in thinking whose influence has continued to the present day. From that time on, the accepted test of scientific truth has increasingly been observation and experiment rather than religious or philosophical dogma.
Spring 2005, whilst sitting at my desk in the physics department at Leeds University, marking yet more exam papers, I was interrupted by a phone call. Interruptions were not such a surprise at the time, a few weeks previously I had published an article on quantum theory in the popular science magazine, New Scientist, and had since been inundated with all sorts of calls from the public. Most callers were very enthusiastic, clearly demonstrating a healthy appetite for more information on this fascinating topic, albeit occasionally one or two either hadn’t read the article, or perhaps had read into it a little too much. Comments ranging from ‘Can quantum mechanics help prevent my hair loss?’ to someone telling me that they had met their twin brother in a parallel Universe, were par for the course, and I was getting a couple of such questions each day. At Oxford we used to have a board for the most creative questions, especially the ones that clearly demonstrated the person had grasped some of the principles very well, but had then taken them to an extreme, and often, unbeknown to them, had violated several other physical laws on the way. Such questions served to remind us of the responsibility we had in communicating science – to make it clear and approachable but yet to be pragmatic. As a colleague of mine often said – sometimes working with a little physics can be more dangerous than working with none at all. ‘Hello Professor Vedral, my name is Jon Spooner, I’m a theatre director and I am putting together a play on quantum theory’, said the voice as I picked up the phone. ‘I am weaving elements of quantum theory into the play and we want you as a consultant to verify whether we are interpreting it accurately’. Totally stunned for at least a good couple of seconds, I asked myself, ‘This guy is doing what?’ Had I misheard? A play on quantum theory? Anyway it occurred to me that there might be an appetite for something like this, given how successful the production of Copenhagen, a play by Michael Freyn, had been a few years back.
Over the past 25 years, I have been involved in some intriguing developments in the foundations of physics, exploring the quantum reality problem, the relationship between quantum theory and gravity and the interplay between consciousness and physical laws. These investigations make it plausible that we will find physics beyond quantum theory, potentially including both new evolution laws and new types of measurement. There is also a significant chance they could have potentially transformative impact on information processing and on the development of and our future with AI.
The relation between Physics and Philosophy brings to mind the proverbial marriage of high drama; the parties do not approve of each other, but separated they cannot live. Philosophers find physicists shallow, and many physicists claim that they find philosophic speculations useless or worse. Mostly both display a lack of knowledge and understanding of the methods and goals of the other. A few researchers have tried to bridge this gap and explore the worlds of both parties. Michael Redhead has worked in this borderland, and when he retired from his chair in Cambridge, a symposium was arranged to honour him. The talks presented on this occasion are now published in a volume presenting much food for thought to both philosophers and physicists. The essays in this publication do not offer easy reading; not too many readers will have the preparation to penetrate the technical arguments offered. The authors are well acquainted with both philosophical argumentation and mathematical formalism, and, following the lead of Professor Redhead, they combine these in intricate and suggestive ways. Only a close reading can offer understanding of the points of view taken by the various authors. Browsing and mere reading defines the scenery, exploring it demands much more. Many of the nine essays included investigate the meaning of terms used loosely in physics contexts: locality, beables, symmetries and time in relativity. All essays utilize the mathematical structures of physics, but the approach is mainly philosophical; concepts like reality and metaphysics are applied. Some writings are more physical in their treatment of technical questions relating to modern quantum theory. Bohmian mechanics, localized quantum states and gauge symmetries are discussed in detail. It is, however, found that these present interpretational problems that are usually glossed over in purely physical treatments. For an old sceptic like myself, it is quite refreshing to find that many assertions, taken for granted in our textbooks, are indeed doubtful and offer conceptual or technical difficulties. This insight is what a philosophical analysis can offer the working physicist; future progress may well arise from such realizations. However, the results offered by philosophical analysis are usually found unsatisfactory; the hope that philosophy can suggest novel directions for the theory remains unfounded. Philosophers can learn that modern physics rests on a very shaky conceptual foundation. The theory has evolved by a combination of serendipity and opportunism. The beast that finally has emerged is neither well founded nor internally consistent. Its only merit is that it works. That offers the ultimate philosophical problem of modern physics. If the present book can help the philosopher to behold this challenging but overwhelming wilderness, then it serves a useful purpose indeed. But the prospective researcher has to learn to master the difficult language used by the natives, who are not always friendly. I enjoyed reading the book immensely, but the technical difficulty of the text made my understanding remain mostly superficial. I hope to have the time to return some of the essays, and look into the references and issues involved. The work is genuinely what it promises: a guide From Physics to Philosophy .