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

Quantum Knowledge Systems Agents, Measurement and International Responsibility: New Conceptual Objects for the Convergent Pact on Quantum Technologies

Oleg Curbatov

Published Jun 1, 2026• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

The paper entitled “From the Quantum Act to a Convergent Pact for Quantum Technologies for the Future”* by Oleg Curbatov aims to draw attention to and open discussion on the introduction of new conceptual objects such as “quantum knowledge systems” and “quantum rationality agents,”which constitute original characteristics of the functioning of quantum devices. In the first part, these concepts have already been presented within the framework of various consultations relating to the development of future normative instruments, notably within the European Commission in the context of the future Quantum Act, as well as before several bodies of the United Nations system, including UNESCO, UNCTAD, and ECOSOC. Quantum physics has demonstrated that the act of measurement directly intervenes in the observed phenomenon. This property suggests that the acquisition of information forms an integral part of the physical process itself. From this perspective, the emergence of “quantum knowledge systems” modifies their properties at the very moment they are observed or appropriated by observers or their digital analogues (AI-Digital-Systems). This results in a process of knowledge transformation that may be described through three complementary levels: 1. The potential state of non-local knowledge, corresponding to a set of probabilistic possibilities and constituting the prerequisite for the emergence of non-local knowledge systems;2. The act of transformation, associated with observation, measurement, and information transfer during the interaction between the observer and the non-local knowledge system;3. Local knowledge, corresponding to the observed outcome, that is, knowledge that has become localized and actualized following the observation process.These “quantum knowledge systems” possess specific properties that may be associated with different forms of rationality (including quantum rationality) and with the behaviors that derive from them. They therefore invite a distinction between several regimes of legal responsibility and normative governance depending on the state of the knowledge system under consideration. Before the act of measurement, when knowledge remains in a potential, non-local, and probabilistic state, the issues primarily concern the conditions for protecting systems and governing the informational possibilities that may be generated. After the act of measurement, when knowledge becomes localized, observable, and appropriable by identified actors, legal responsibilities emerge that are more directly linked to the emergence, use, dissemination, ownership, traceability, and effects produced by these “knowledge systems.”In this respect, the act of measurement could be recognized as a legal act of responsibility in its own right with regard to the quantum knowledge conversion systems that it triggers, insofar as it simultaneously modifies the state of the knowledge system, the information accessible to actors, and the effects that may result from it.Such an approach would open the way to a new reflection on the liability regimes applicable to quantum technologies, not only according to their uses or outcomes, but also according to the transformations of 'quantum knowledge systems” produced during the act of measurement itself. From this perspective, the act of measurement appears as an act of knowledge governance. It constitutes the point of transition between different states of a knowledge system and could, as such, be recognized as a generating event of legal responsibility. Responsibility would therefore not relate solely to the effects produced by quantum technology, but also to the processes of conversion of quantum knowledge systems that it initiates, transforms, and renders legally accountable. This distinction leads to the consideration that each form of “quantum knowledge system” may fall under specific normative frameworks, both at the national and international levels, depending on its degree of design and protection, in accordance with the “Quantum-Safe-by-Design” principle, its implementation, its state of localization, and its appropriation by different actors. Would this idea of now considering the quantum domain in terms of states and knowledge systems change the framework for the development of normative instruments? Indeed, if quantum physics distinguishes different states before and after the act of measurement, it may be relevant to examine whether the knowledge systems associated with these states should likewise be subject to differentiated legal and normative regimes. Questions of responsibility, governance, protection, and use of knowledge could thus be assessed differently depending on whether one is situated before the act of measurement, in a potential state of knowledge, or after the act of measurement, in a state of non-localized or localized knowledge. The International Association of University Professors and Lecturers (IAUPL), an organization holding General Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC, proposed during the joint meetings of the United Nations General Assembly and ECOSOC, 05/05/2026, the ECOSOC Science, Technology and Innovation Forums (2025, 2026), the 221st and 223rd sessions of UNESCO’s Executive Board, as well as at the 43rd UNESCO General Conference (2025), to initiate a reflection with Member States on the development of a “Convergent Pact for Quantum Technologies for the Future.”This proposal is based on the principles of convergence of knowledge, “ quantum knowledge systems,” and convergent technologies, as well as on the convergence of objectives pursued and effects produced by quantum technologies in the scientific, educational, economic, social, and institutional domains. The second part of this presentation will focus on the very nature of “convergence,” a notion raised during consultations relating to the future European Quantum Act, for which IAUPL submitted its consultative response in December 2025. It will examine how these principles of “Convergence” could be systematized within future normative instruments and how they could ultimately spread and generate impact at the international level within the framework of global governance of quantum technologies and the knowledge systems associated with them.

Related papers

The Magical Realism of Quantum Physics: A Postcolonial Reading

Maxim V. Kharkevich

Quantum physics can be understood as an epistemological rupture that transforms the foundations of modern scientific rationality. In contrast to the Newtonian mechanistic worldview that underpinned universalist notions of progress, objectivity, and control, quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty, contextuality, non-locality, and the constitutive role of observation into scientific knowledge. These features destabilize the image of reality as a unified, hierarchically structured, and fully transparent domain, thereby challenging the epistemic premises of Western universalism. At the cultural level, this rupture finds expression in forms of scientific magical realism, where the quantum world appears as strange, paradoxical, elusive and fundamentally ungraspable. Such representations allow the quantum revolution to be interpreted not only as a theoretical breakthrough in physics but as an internal epistemological transformation of modern rationality itself. The issue is not the abandonment of rationality, but the reconfiguration of its foundations: the acknowledgment of uncertainty, contextuality, and the participatory role of the observer as structural features of knowledge. This shift is comparable to the epistemological tensions identified by postcolonial theory in situations where hegemonic discourses encounter forms of knowledge that cannot be reduced to their universalist logic. In this sense, quantum physics emerges as a form of internal epistemological alterity within Western science: while remaining part of its canon, it simultaneously rearticulates its ontological assumptions and limits its claim to constitute the sole normative regime of rationality. Extending quantum logic into social theory enables a shift from mechanistic social ontology toward a quantum social ontology, in which relationality, co-constitution, and process take precedence over fixed entities and linear causality. This transformation unfolds as a form of passive revolution, in the Gramscian sense: a profound ontological reorientation achieved not through the destruction of disciplinary institutions, but through their gradual conceptual reconfiguration. The epistemological outcome of this shift is the pluralization of knowledge and the emergence of a pluriversal onto-epistemological horizon, where scientific rationality becomes compatible with multiple cosmologies and situated ways of knowing. In this sense, the quantum turn opens a pathway toward the decolonization of knowledge and the rethinking of global order beyond universalist epistemic hierarchies.

Cuadernos Iberoamericanos•Apr 9, 2026•0 citations

The End of the Quantum Civilization: From Observation-Dependent Reality to a Future-Causal Convergence Civilization

小川, 悠斗

This paper proposes a unified theoretical framework that redefines the foundations of scientific inquiry, technological development, and civilizational structure through the lens of future causality. Conventional civilization has been governed by two paradigms:(1) Classical causality, in which the past determines the present, and(2) Quantum causality, in which observation determines physical states.Both paradigms ultimately rely on present-based determinacy and therefore exhibit structural limitations in explaining generation, creativity, and the emergence of meaning. To address these limitations, this study introduces the concept of the future-causal civilization, in which the future acts as the primary source of determination. Using the Future Convergence Theory (FCT), the paper formalizes the future-causal operator Λ(T) and establishes meaning-density tensors as the foundational structures governing physical, informational, and cognitive processes. In this framework, convergence replaces probabilistic uncertainty, and future-fixed points replace observation-dependent state formation. Building on this theoretical foundation, the paper defines the Λ-System as the practical implementation architecture of future-causal dynamics. The Λ-System reconfigures artificial intelligence, scientific reasoning, social governance, and creativity by enabling systems to operate through future-fixed-point constraints rather than historical data or observational collapse. This establishes a non-continuous transition from quantum-based technologies to future-causal structures. The findings demonstrate that future causality is not a speculative metaphysical concept but a coherent structural principle capable of reorganizing scientific methodology, ethical norms, technological design, and civilizational development. The paper concludes by outlining research directions for formalizing Λ-System protocols, measuring meaning-density fields, and constructing operational models for future-causal societies. Prior PublicationThis paper was archived and published in advance on Arweave. https://arweave.net/822cGwua3RBfC6uoYrlB2JIAgYkVqu1lSid9vrz7Qmc https://arweave.net/sUOWqy-C4N4PHQrjutIg80-7pblAG1tzOUUglIO5ZaE

•Nov 26, 2025•0 citations

Two Ontologies of Contextuality: Igor Prisyazhnyuk and Gilbert Simondon

Vladislav Olegovich Sayapin

The focus of the article is the question of the nature of contextuality in quantum phenomena. What underlies it: normative procedures of description dictated by rules and language, or is reality itself structured procedurally? At the core of Igor Prisyazhnuk's contextual quantum realism lies the distinction between the ideal and the real. Quantum uncertainty is interpreted by him as a situation where the rule has not yet been applied to the object, and the measurement context merely creates conditions in which the object can be identified. This allows for the avoidance of both subjectivism and flat objectivism, while maintaining the conception of a reality that objectively exists, yet is sensitive to context. Prisyazhnuk draws a line between sequential contextualism (the Bohr-Benoit line) and what he calls ontological correlationalism, classifying the latter under agency realism by Karen Barad. The methodology is based on a comparative analysis of two philosophical traditions concerning quantum contextuality. First, the foundations of each position and key concepts are reconstructed to reveal the divergence: Prisyazhnuk's categorical dualism versus Simondonian ontogenesis. Then this divergence is tested against the material of quantum uncertainty and entanglement. The goal is to understand which strategy more consistently explains the nature of quantum reality, avoiding relativism and anthropocentrism. The comparison is made along three parameters: the relationship between reality and its description, the status of the subject and norms, and the explanatory power of the conceptual apparatus in the context of experimental data. Viewing this through the lens of Simondon reveals a different ontological perspective. Quantum contextuality ceases to be a relation between norm and reality; it becomes a phase of individuation. The measurement situation appears not as the application of a rule, but as the resolution of a metastable state. In this state, the system and the instrument do not yet exist separately; they exist in an inseparable potential being, and only in the act of measurement do their outlines emerge. The comparison of the two approaches raises questions about ontological depth. Does Prisyazhnuk's normative structure provide the tools necessary to explain quantum entanglement and the emergence of the world, or does the Simondonian model, with its transduction, metastability, and associated environment, offer a more coherent description of the formation of a quantum event, avoiding anthropocentrism?

Философия и культура•May 1, 2026•0 citations

[1] On the Role of Measurement Events in Non-Equilibrium Quantum State Formation

CESAR ARELLANES

Measurement in quantum mechanics is commonly treated as a passive observational process that reveals properties of an underlying physical system. However, both theoretical analysis and experimental practice suggest that measurement interactions are physical events that irreversibly alter system states and their subsequent evolution. This work advances the hypothesis that measurement events function as generative interactions that actively produce realized states, rather than merely disclosing pre-existing conditions.Focusing on non-equilibrium dynamics, we examine the role of discrete interaction events in the transition from potential configurations to actualized states. Measurement interactions are characterized as localized, irreversible processes that introduce stable correlations and constrain future system evolution. From this perspective, state realization is associated with event-based commitments rather than continuous revelation, aligning naturally with thermodynamic irreversibility and entropy production.Preliminary conceptual analysis indicates that this generative role of measurement events is consistent with established formulations of quantum theory, including unitary evolution prior to measurement and the statistical structure of observed outcomes. The proposed viewpoint does not modify existing formalism or introduce new dynamical laws, but instead reframes the ontological role of measurement within standard theory.1Analogous event-driven state transitions appear across a range ofnon-equilibrium systems, including thermodynamic processes, information processing, chemical reactions, and distributed computational protocols. These analogies are noted to highlight structural commonalities in state actualization, rather than to assert cross-domain phys-ical equivalence.The present work introduces this hypothesis as a foundational perspective on the role of discrete interaction events in state formation. Broader structural implications and potential extensions of this framework are reserved for future investigation. Keywords: measurement theory, non-equilibrium dynamics, quantum observation, state formation, irreversibility

•Jan 27, 2026•0 citations

The Quantum Governance Stack: Models of Governance for Quantum Information Technologies

Elija Perrier

Abstract The emergence of quantum information technologies with potential application across diverse industrial, consumer and technical domains has thrown into relief the need for practical approaches to their governance. Technology governance must balance multiple objectives including facilitating technological development while meeting legal requirements, normative expectations and managing risks regarding the use of such technology. In this paper, we articulate a variety of idealised governance models and approaches for synthesising these complementary and sometimes competing objectives. We set out a comparative analysis of quantum governance in the context of existing models of technological governance. Using this approach, we develop an actor-instrument model for quantum governance, denoted the ‘quantum governance stack’, across a governance hierarchy from states and governments through to public and private institutions. Our model sets out key characteristics that quantum governance should exhibit at each level in the stack, including identification of stakeholder rights, interests and obligations impacted by quantum technologies and the appropriate instruments by which such impacts are managed. We argue that quantum governance must be responsive based on (a) the state of technology at the time; (b) resource and economic requirements for its development; and (c) assessments and estimates of the near-term and future impacts of such technology. Our work provides a pragmatic introduction to quantum governance by (a) specifying a taxonomy of governance actors and instruments and (b) providing examples of how different stakeholders within the stack might implement governance responses to quantum information technologies. It is intended for use by stakeholders in government, industry, academia and civil society to help inform their governance response to the quantum technology revolution.

Digital Society•Oct 12, 2022•45 citations

Quantum Mechanics: Ontology and Information

Gennaro Auletta

Quantum theory shows that natural laws cannot be understood as ruling single events since the latter occur randomly. Nevertheless, the physical world shows everywhere order whose source cannot be represented by the latter. It is shown that this order is due to the presence of quantum correlations. Since their e↵ect is to reduce the space of the possible events, they can be considered as causal factors. However, being correlations, they do not display the dynamic character that would be required in order to produce a determinate e↵ect. This is why they need additional local factors in order to concur to the production of a certain event. If not so, this would even imply a violation of Einstein’s locality since correlations could be used by themselves to transmit superluminal signals. Due to such a character of correlation, they can be understood as kind of potential reality needing actual (and local) context to be e↵ective. This allows also a distinction that is classically unknown between locality and globality. Such a distinction solves the important problem of measurement showing that ultimately we have irreversible local processes while globally everything is still reversible. In particular, it is a shift of information that can explain this local phenomenon. In fact, quantum systems are essentially information and also the measurement process is ultimately a dealing with information: information processing (preparing a system), information sharing (coupling a system with an apparatus) and information selection (detecting). State, observable and property appear as equivalence classes of these three procedures, respectively. Finally, the distinction between interpreted and uninterpreted ontology is considered in a Kantian perspective, but it is also shown that the approach supported here is rather a critical realism.

•Jan 1, 2014•0 citations
The paper entitled “From the Quantum Act to a Convergent Pact for Quantum Technologies for the Future”* by Oleg Curbatov aims to draw attention to and open discussion on the introduction of new conceptual objects such as “quantum knowledge systems” and “quantum rationality agents,”which constitute original characteristics of the functioning of quantum devices. In the first part, these concepts have already been presented within the framework of various consultations relating to the development of future normative instruments, notably within the European Commission in the context of the future Quantum Act, as well as before several bodies of the United Nations system, including UNESCO, UNCTAD, and ECOSOC. Quantum physics has demonstrated that the act of measurement directly intervenes in the observed phenomenon. This property suggests that the acquisition of information forms an integral part of the physical process itself. From this perspective, the emergence of “quantum knowledge systems” modifies their properties at the very moment they are observed or appropriated by observers or their digital analogues (AI-Digital-Systems). This results in a process of knowledge transformation that may be described through three complementary levels: 1. The potential state of non-local knowledge, corresponding to a set of probabilistic possibilities and constituting the prerequisite for the emergence of non-local knowledge systems;2. The act of transformation, associated with observation, measurement, and information transfer during the interaction between the observer and the non-local knowledge system;3. Local knowledge, corresponding to the observed outcome, that is, knowledge that has become localized and actualized following the observation process.These “quantum knowledge systems” possess specific properties that may be associated with different forms of rationality (including quantum rationality) and with the behaviors that derive from them. They therefore invite a distinction between several regimes of legal responsibility and normative governance depending on the state of the knowledge system under consideration. Before the act of measurement, when knowledge remains in a potential, non-local, and probabilistic state, the issues primarily concern the conditions for protecting systems and governing the informational possibilities that may be generated. After the act of measurement, when knowledge becomes localized, observable, and appropriable by identified actors, legal responsibilities emerge that are more directly linked to the emergence, use, dissemination, ownership, traceability, and effects produced by these “knowledge systems.”In this respect, the act of measurement could be recognized as a legal act of responsibility in its own right with regard to the quantum knowledge conversion systems that it triggers, insofar as it simultaneously modifies the state of the knowledge system, the information accessible to actors, and the effects that may result from it.Such an approach would open the way to a new reflection on the liability regimes applicable to quantum technologies, not only according to their uses or outcomes, but also according to the transformations of 'quantum knowledge systems” produced during the act of measurement itself. From this perspective, the act of measurement appears as an act of knowledge governance. It constitutes the point of transition between different states of a knowledge system and could, as such, be recognized as a generating event of legal responsibility. Responsibility would therefore not relate solely to the effects produced by quantum technology, but also to the processes of conversion of quantum knowledge systems that it initiates, transforms, and renders legally accountable. This distinction leads to the consideration that each form of “quantum knowledge system” may fall under specific normative frameworks, both at the national and international levels, depending on its degree of design and protection, in accordance with the “Quantum-Safe-by-Design” principle, its implementation, its state of localization, and its appropriation by different actors. Would this idea of now considering the quantum domain in terms of states and knowledge systems change the framework for the development of normative instruments? Indeed, if quantum physics distinguishes different states before and after the act of measurement, it may be relevant to examine whether the knowledge systems associated with these states should likewise be subject to differentiated legal and normative regimes. Questions of responsibility, governance, protection, and use of knowledge could thus be assessed differently depending on whether one is situated before the act of measurement, in a potential state of knowledge, or after the act of measurement, in a state of non-localized or localized knowledge. The International Association of University Professors and Lecturers (IAUPL), an organization holding General Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC, proposed during the joint meetings of the United Nations General Assembly and ECOSOC, 05/05/2026, the ECOSOC Science, Technology and Innovation Forums (2025, 2026), the 221st and 223rd sessions of UNESCO’s Executive Board, as well as at the 43rd UNESCO General Conference (2025), to initiate a reflection with Member States on the development of a “Convergent Pact for Quantum Technologies for the Future.”This proposal is based on the principles of convergence of knowledge, “ quantum knowledge systems,” and convergent technologies, as well as on the convergence of objectives pursued and effects produced by quantum technologies in the scientific, educational, economic, social, and institutional domains. The second part of this presentation will focus on the very nature of “convergence,” a notion raised during consultations relating to the future European Quantum Act, for which IAUPL submitted its consultative response in December 2025. It will examine how these principles of “Convergence” could be systematized within future normative instruments and how they could ultimately spread and generate impact at the international level within the framework of global governance of quantum technologies and the knowledge systems associated with them.
Quantum physics can be understood as an epistemological rupture that transforms the foundations of modern scientific rationality. In contrast to the Newtonian mechanistic worldview that underpinned universalist notions of progress, objectivity, and control, quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty, contextuality, non-locality, and the constitutive role of observation into scientific knowledge. These features destabilize the image of reality as a unified, hierarchically structured, and fully transparent domain, thereby challenging the epistemic premises of Western universalism. At the cultural level, this rupture finds expression in forms of scientific magical realism, where the quantum world appears as strange, paradoxical, elusive and fundamentally ungraspable. Such representations allow the quantum revolution to be interpreted not only as a theoretical breakthrough in physics but as an internal epistemological transformation of modern rationality itself. The issue is not the abandonment of rationality, but the reconfiguration of its foundations: the acknowledgment of uncertainty, contextuality, and the participatory role of the observer as structural features of knowledge. This shift is comparable to the epistemological tensions identified by postcolonial theory in situations where hegemonic discourses encounter forms of knowledge that cannot be reduced to their universalist logic. In this sense, quantum physics emerges as a form of internal epistemological alterity within Western science: while remaining part of its canon, it simultaneously rearticulates its ontological assumptions and limits its claim to constitute the sole normative regime of rationality. Extending quantum logic into social theory enables a shift from mechanistic social ontology toward a quantum social ontology, in which relationality, co-constitution, and process take precedence over fixed entities and linear causality. This transformation unfolds as a form of passive revolution, in the Gramscian sense: a profound ontological reorientation achieved not through the destruction of disciplinary institutions, but through their gradual conceptual reconfiguration. The epistemological outcome of this shift is the pluralization of knowledge and the emergence of a pluriversal onto-epistemological horizon, where scientific rationality becomes compatible with multiple cosmologies and situated ways of knowing. In this sense, the quantum turn opens a pathway toward the decolonization of knowledge and the rethinking of global order beyond universalist epistemic hierarchies.
This paper proposes a unified theoretical framework that redefines the foundations of scientific inquiry, technological development, and civilizational structure through the lens of future causality. Conventional civilization has been governed by two paradigms:(1) Classical causality, in which the past determines the present, and(2) Quantum causality, in which observation determines physical states.Both paradigms ultimately rely on present-based determinacy and therefore exhibit structural limitations in explaining generation, creativity, and the emergence of meaning. To address these limitations, this study introduces the concept of the future-causal civilization, in which the future acts as the primary source of determination. Using the Future Convergence Theory (FCT), the paper formalizes the future-causal operator Λ(T) and establishes meaning-density tensors as the foundational structures governing physical, informational, and cognitive processes. In this framework, convergence replaces probabilistic uncertainty, and future-fixed points replace observation-dependent state formation. Building on this theoretical foundation, the paper defines the Λ-System as the practical implementation architecture of future-causal dynamics. The Λ-System reconfigures artificial intelligence, scientific reasoning, social governance, and creativity by enabling systems to operate through future-fixed-point constraints rather than historical data or observational collapse. This establishes a non-continuous transition from quantum-based technologies to future-causal structures. The findings demonstrate that future causality is not a speculative metaphysical concept but a coherent structural principle capable of reorganizing scientific methodology, ethical norms, technological design, and civilizational development. The paper concludes by outlining research directions for formalizing Λ-System protocols, measuring meaning-density fields, and constructing operational models for future-causal societies. Prior PublicationThis paper was archived and published in advance on Arweave. https://arweave.net/822cGwua3RBfC6uoYrlB2JIAgYkVqu1lSid9vrz7Qmc https://arweave.net/sUOWqy-C4N4PHQrjutIg80-7pblAG1tzOUUglIO5ZaE
The focus of the article is the question of the nature of contextuality in quantum phenomena. What underlies it: normative procedures of description dictated by rules and language, or is reality itself structured procedurally? At the core of Igor Prisyazhnuk's contextual quantum realism lies the distinction between the ideal and the real. Quantum uncertainty is interpreted by him as a situation where the rule has not yet been applied to the object, and the measurement context merely creates conditions in which the object can be identified. This allows for the avoidance of both subjectivism and flat objectivism, while maintaining the conception of a reality that objectively exists, yet is sensitive to context. Prisyazhnuk draws a line between sequential contextualism (the Bohr-Benoit line) and what he calls ontological correlationalism, classifying the latter under agency realism by Karen Barad. The methodology is based on a comparative analysis of two philosophical traditions concerning quantum contextuality. First, the foundations of each position and key concepts are reconstructed to reveal the divergence: Prisyazhnuk's categorical dualism versus Simondonian ontogenesis. Then this divergence is tested against the material of quantum uncertainty and entanglement. The goal is to understand which strategy more consistently explains the nature of quantum reality, avoiding relativism and anthropocentrism. The comparison is made along three parameters: the relationship between reality and its description, the status of the subject and norms, and the explanatory power of the conceptual apparatus in the context of experimental data. Viewing this through the lens of Simondon reveals a different ontological perspective. Quantum contextuality ceases to be a relation between norm and reality; it becomes a phase of individuation. The measurement situation appears not as the application of a rule, but as the resolution of a metastable state. In this state, the system and the instrument do not yet exist separately; they exist in an inseparable potential being, and only in the act of measurement do their outlines emerge. The comparison of the two approaches raises questions about ontological depth. Does Prisyazhnuk's normative structure provide the tools necessary to explain quantum entanglement and the emergence of the world, or does the Simondonian model, with its transduction, metastability, and associated environment, offer a more coherent description of the formation of a quantum event, avoiding anthropocentrism?
Measurement in quantum mechanics is commonly treated as a passive observational process that reveals properties of an underlying physical system. However, both theoretical analysis and experimental practice suggest that measurement interactions are physical events that irreversibly alter system states and their subsequent evolution. This work advances the hypothesis that measurement events function as generative interactions that actively produce realized states, rather than merely disclosing pre-existing conditions.Focusing on non-equilibrium dynamics, we examine the role of discrete interaction events in the transition from potential configurations to actualized states. Measurement interactions are characterized as localized, irreversible processes that introduce stable correlations and constrain future system evolution. From this perspective, state realization is associated with event-based commitments rather than continuous revelation, aligning naturally with thermodynamic irreversibility and entropy production.Preliminary conceptual analysis indicates that this generative role of measurement events is consistent with established formulations of quantum theory, including unitary evolution prior to measurement and the statistical structure of observed outcomes. The proposed viewpoint does not modify existing formalism or introduce new dynamical laws, but instead reframes the ontological role of measurement within standard theory.1Analogous event-driven state transitions appear across a range ofnon-equilibrium systems, including thermodynamic processes, information processing, chemical reactions, and distributed computational protocols. These analogies are noted to highlight structural commonalities in state actualization, rather than to assert cross-domain phys-ical equivalence.The present work introduces this hypothesis as a foundational perspective on the role of discrete interaction events in state formation. Broader structural implications and potential extensions of this framework are reserved for future investigation. Keywords: measurement theory, non-equilibrium dynamics, quantum observation, state formation, irreversibility
Abstract The emergence of quantum information technologies with potential application across diverse industrial, consumer and technical domains has thrown into relief the need for practical approaches to their governance. Technology governance must balance multiple objectives including facilitating technological development while meeting legal requirements, normative expectations and managing risks regarding the use of such technology. In this paper, we articulate a variety of idealised governance models and approaches for synthesising these complementary and sometimes competing objectives. We set out a comparative analysis of quantum governance in the context of existing models of technological governance. Using this approach, we develop an actor-instrument model for quantum governance, denoted the ‘quantum governance stack’, across a governance hierarchy from states and governments through to public and private institutions. Our model sets out key characteristics that quantum governance should exhibit at each level in the stack, including identification of stakeholder rights, interests and obligations impacted by quantum technologies and the appropriate instruments by which such impacts are managed. We argue that quantum governance must be responsive based on (a) the state of technology at the time; (b) resource and economic requirements for its development; and (c) assessments and estimates of the near-term and future impacts of such technology. Our work provides a pragmatic introduction to quantum governance by (a) specifying a taxonomy of governance actors and instruments and (b) providing examples of how different stakeholders within the stack might implement governance responses to quantum information technologies. It is intended for use by stakeholders in government, industry, academia and civil society to help inform their governance response to the quantum technology revolution.
Quantum theory shows that natural laws cannot be understood as ruling single events since the latter occur randomly. Nevertheless, the physical world shows everywhere order whose source cannot be represented by the latter. It is shown that this order is due to the presence of quantum correlations. Since their e↵ect is to reduce the space of the possible events, they can be considered as causal factors. However, being correlations, they do not display the dynamic character that would be required in order to produce a determinate e↵ect. This is why they need additional local factors in order to concur to the production of a certain event. If not so, this would even imply a violation of Einstein’s locality since correlations could be used by themselves to transmit superluminal signals. Due to such a character of correlation, they can be understood as kind of potential reality needing actual (and local) context to be e↵ective. This allows also a distinction that is classically unknown between locality and globality. Such a distinction solves the important problem of measurement showing that ultimately we have irreversible local processes while globally everything is still reversible. In particular, it is a shift of information that can explain this local phenomenon. In fact, quantum systems are essentially information and also the measurement process is ultimately a dealing with information: information processing (preparing a system), information sharing (coupling a system with an apparatus) and information selection (detecting). State, observable and property appear as equivalence classes of these three procedures, respectively. Finally, the distinction between interpreted and uninterpreted ontology is considered in a Kantian perspective, but it is also shown that the approach supported here is rather a critical realism.