Every vertex of the magic cube of physics discussed so far introduced a major element in the development of physics and the whole of science. Mechanics introduced the basic concept of equations of motion, or time-evolution of a physical system given certain initial condition and the associated idea of determinism, even with its generalization in the form of chaos, the dependence of the outcomes of the temporal evolution on the initial conditions. These concepts taken for many particles, or elements of a physical system, led to the probabilistic description of many particle systems, in the realm of statistical physics and thermodynamics, whereby the averages over time of various observable quantities were related to the ensemble averages, that involve classical, so-called Kolmogorov, probability measures, at least for certain “equilibrium” situations. The second law of thermodynamics introduced the concept of entropy and its probabilistic increase, the first truly emergent, probabilistic law in physics (temperature and pressure, being other emergent quantities, apart from entropy, the measure of disorder of a statistical system). In the context of Newtonian gravity, one gets, at least in retrospect the geometric description of gravity in non-relativistic, Galilean spacetime. Galilean relativity, based on the asymmetric mixing of space and time, with the absolute, universal time, true for all observers, gets generalized in special theory of relativity to observer dependent space and observer dependent time, viewed as “slices” of a new concept of spacetime, with the new concept of causal structure, that distinguish timelike, null and spacelike events. This in turn is made into a full dynamical geometric structure of spacetime with a relativistic description of gravity stemming from curvature of spacetime, and a dynamical causal structure, tied to gravity. In our next story, the story of quantum theory, we will encounter fundamental, intrinsic probabilities, that can interfere, unlike the classical probabilities of statistical thermodynamics, and which are consistent with equations of motion of individual elements, and not, as in statistical thermodynamics, with temporal averages over the time evolution of many elements. This is the big new lesson of quantum theory, that transcends the lessons of classical spacetime physics.
Every vertex of the magic cube of physics discussed so far introduced a major element in the development of physics and the whole of science. Mechanics introduced the basic concept of equations of motion, or time-evolution of a physical system given certain initial condition and the associated idea of determinism, even with its generalization in the form of chaos, the dependence of the outcomes of the temporal evolution on the initial conditions. These concepts taken for many particles, or elements of a physical system, led to the probabilistic description of many particle systems, in the realm of statistical physics and thermodynamics, whereby the averages over time of various observable quantities were related to the ensemble averages, that involve classical, so-called Kolmogorov, probability measures, at least for certain “equilibrium” situations. The second law of thermodynamics introduced the concept of entropy and its probabilistic increase, the first truly emergent, probabilistic law in physics (temperature and pressure, being other emergent quantities, apart from entropy, the measure of disorder of a statistical system). In the context of Newtonian gravity, one gets, at least in retrospect the geometric description of gravity in non-relativistic, Galilean spacetime. Galilean relativity, based on the asymmetric mixing of space and time, with the absolute, universal time, true for all observers, gets generalized in special theory of relativity to observer dependent space and observer dependent time, viewed as “slices” of a new concept of spacetime, with the new concept of causal structure, that distinguish timelike, null and spacelike events. This in turn is made into a full dynamical geometric structure of spacetime with a relativistic description of gravity stemming from curvature of spacetime, and a dynamical causal structure, tied to gravity. In our next story, the story of quantum theory, we will encounter fundamental, intrinsic probabilities, that can interfere, unlike the classical probabilities of statistical thermodynamics, and which are consistent with equations of motion of individual elements, and not, as in statistical thermodynamics, with temporal averages over the time evolution of many elements. This is the big new lesson of quantum theory, that transcends the lessons of classical spacetime physics.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
1124 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 45, NUMBER 9 I n the twentieth century, the quest for deeper understanding of the laws of nature has largely revolved around the development of two great theories: namely, general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity is, of course, Einstein’s theory according to which gravitation results from the curvature of space and time; the mathematical framework is that of Riemannian geometry. While previously spacetime was understood as a fixed arena, given ab initio, in which physics unfolds, in general relativity spacetime evolves dynamically, according to the Einstein equations. Part of the problem of physics, according to this theory, is to determine, given the initial conditions as input, how spacetime will develop in the future. The influence of general relativity in twentiethcentury mathematics has been clear enough. Learning that Riemannian geometry is so central in physics gave a big boost to its growth as a mathematical subject; it developed into one of the most fruitful branches of mathematics, with applications in many other areas. While in physics general relativity is used to understand the behavior of astronomical bodies and the universe as a whole, quantum mechanics is used primarily to understand atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles. Quantum theory has had a much more complex history than general relativity, and in some sense most of its influence on mathematics belongs to the twenty-first century. The quantum theory of particles—which is more commonly called nonrelativistic quantum mechanics—was put in its modern form by 1925 and has greatly influenced the development of functional analysis, and other areas. But the deeper part of quantum theory is the quantum theory of fields, which arises when one tries to combine quantum mechanics with special relativity (the precursor of general relativity, in which the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame but spacetime is still flat and given ab initio). This much more difficult theory, developed from the late 1920s to the present, encompasses most of what we know of the laws of physics, except gravity. In its seventy years there have been many milestones, ranging from the theory of “antimatter”, which emerged around 1930, to a more precise description of atoms, which quantum field theory provided by 1950, to the “standard model of particle physics” (governing the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions), which emerged by the early 1970s, to new predictions in our own time that one hopes to test in present and future accelerators. Quantum field theory is a very rich subject for mathematics as well as physics. But its development in the last seventy years has been mainly by physicists, and it is still largely out of reach as a rigorous mathematical theory despite important efforts in constructive field theory. So most of its impact on mathematics has not yet been felt. Yet in many active areas of mathematics, problems are Edward Witten is professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study. His e-mail address is witten@ias.edu.
In a physical theory we typically describe a system in terms of its state . We specify the relevant physical quantities or variables and then use dynamical laws to find the time evolution of these variables to predict their values in the future. For example, in classical particle mechanics, the state of a system is specified by the positions and velocities (or, equivalently for us, the momenta) of all of the particles in the system (that is, r ( t ) and v ( t ) for each particle). Newton's second law, F = ma , then determines the time evolution of the variables, or of the state, of the system. For electrodynamics, the state variables are the electric and magnetic fields, E and B , and Maxwell's equations govern the time evolution of these. In classical physics (including relativity here), the state variables that are the central entities of the dynamical equations (typically the positions and momenta of the particles) are also the directly observable physical quantities. That is, the state itself is specified in terms of the observables of the theory. The essential features of the classical world view (as modified by relativity) are that the present state of a system in principle determines its future state (as in the flight of a baseball under the influence of gravity) and that the agency responsible for this event-by-event causal structure must propagate from the cause to the effect at some rate no greater than the speed of light.
Causal set theory starts out from a central result in general relativity according to which the causal structure determines, up to a so-called ‘conformal factor’, the geometry of a relativistic spacetime. Space and time, it seems, must be part and parcel of the ontology of any physical theory, of any theory with a credible claim to being a physical theory, that is. After all, physics is the science of the fundamental constitution of the material bodies, their motion in space and time, and indeed of space and time themselves. There are two areas in physics in which space or spacetime may emerge from something qualitatively rather different: wave function monism in quantum mechanics and quantum theories of gravity. The former case concerns a particular interpretative issue in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The severity and the characteristics of the disappearance of spacetime differ from one approach to quantum gravity to another.
This paper establishes the structural inevitability of quantum-theoretical description within the framework of Causal Update Cosmology (CUC I–IX). Rather than deriving quantum-mechanical equations or advocating a specific interpretation of quantum theory, the present work adopts an exclusion-based structural approach. Starting from the completed formulation of CUC and the concept of the central regime, it demonstrates that classical deterministic description is structurally impossible in causal update systems that have not yet reached or cannot maintain the central regime. Below the central regime, causal path competition remains immature, history indistinguishability is unsaturated, and self-averaging does not operate. Under these conditions, states cannot be uniquely defined, deterministic temporal evolution cannot be constructed, and observation cannot be treated as a passive readout. These failures are not due to epistemic limitations or insufficient information, but follow directly from the causal update structure itself. The paper shows that while probabilistic description becomes unavoidable once determinism is excluded, classical probability theory is insufficient, because probability in such systems is intrinsically coupled to the update process and competing causal histories are structurally non-independent. As a result, quantum-theoretical description emerges as the minimal and only consistent remaining framework. Observation is reinterpreted as an irreversible causal update rather than a measurement of a pre-existing state. This provides a structural resolution of the measurement problem and explains why quantum systems consistently appear on the initial side of the central regime upon observation: not because they are fundamentally incapable of reaching the central regime, but because observational updates disrupt the conditions required to maintain it in systems with limited causal redundancy. Classical description, determinism, and decoherence are shown to arise only as derived and conditional features once the central regime is reached and stably maintained. In this sense, classical theory is not fundamental but emergent. The conclusions of this paper are structurally symmetric to those obtained in the analysis of relativistic inevitability within CUC. Just as relativistic spacetime structure is unavoidable in central-regime–admitting systems, quantum theory is unavoidable below the central regime. Both are thus positioned as necessary descriptive frameworks selected by causal structure, rather than as exceptional postulates. This work represents a key step in extending Causal Update Cosmology beyond relativistic structure to the foundations of quantum theory, and sets the stage for a unified structural treatment of gravity and spacetime curvature in future studies. Note on AI Use This work also explores the broader question of whether new physical theories can emerge through collaboration with AI systems. ChatGPT (OpenAI) was used extensively in the generation and structuring of theoretical ideas and manuscript text, beyond simple editing or polishing. All numerical experiments and scientific validation were performed by the human author.
The absence of a common mathematical structure underlying quantum theory and relativistic physics remains a central obstacle to unification. While relativity is formulated in terms of spacetime geometry and covariance, quantum theory is intrinsically probabilistic, relying on amplitudes, uncertainty, and statistical interpretation. Existing unification programs typically attempt to quantize geometry or to geometrize quantum fields, but the probabilistic structure itself is rarely treated as a fundamental geometric object. In this paper, we propose a unified description of relativistic and quantum dynamics based on probabilistic geometry. Probability densities are taken as primary variables and are endowed with an intrinsic information–geometric structure defined by the Fisher–Rao metric. Within this framework, physical motion is described as the covariant evolution of probability distributions on a statistical manifold rather than as trajectories in a preassigned phase space or Hilbert space. The central result is a unified probabilistic–geometric field equation in which the relativistic d’Alembertian acting on the probability density is coupled to the scalar curvature of the associated information manifold. In an appropriate nonrelativistic limit, this equation reproduces the quantum potential as a curvature term, establishing a direct correspondence between quantum effects and informational geometry. Relativistic covariance is preserved throughout, allowing quantum and relativistic structures to appear as different regimes of a single probabilistic equation. The proposed framework does not introduce new particles, interactions, or quantization postulates. Instead, it provides a structural unification in which quantum and relativistic features emerge from the geometry of probability itself.