Quantum Foundations

Work on formulating general probabilistic theories in an operational context has tended to concentrate on the probabilistic aspects (convex cones and so on) while remaining relatively naive about how the operational structure is built up (combining operations to form composite systems, and so on). In particular, an unsophisticated notion of a background time is usually taken for granted. It pays to be more careful about these matters for two reasons. First, by getting the foundations of the operational structure correct it can be easier to prove theorems. And second, if we want to construct new theories (such as a theory of Quantum Gravity) we need to start out with a sufficiently general operational structure before we introduce probabilities. I will present an operational structure which is sufficient to provide a foundation for the probabilistic concepts necessary to formulate quantum theory. According to Bob Coecke, this operational structure corresponds to a symmetric monoidal category. I will then discuss a more general operational framework (which I call Object Oriented Operationalism) which provides a foundation for a more general probabilistic framework which may be sufficient to formulate a theory of Quantum Gravity. This more general operational structure does not admit an obvious category theoretic formulation.

I will rephrase the question, "What is a quantal reality?" as "What is a quantal history?" (the word history having here the same meaning as in the phrase sum-over-histories). The answer I will propose modifies the rules of logical inference in order to resolve a contradiction between the idea of reality as a single history and the principle that events of zero measure cannot happen (the Kochen-Specker paradox being a classic expression of this contradiction). The so-called measurement problem is then solved if macroscopic events satisfy classical logic, and this can in principle be decided by a calculation. The resulting conception of reality involves neither multiple worlds nor external observers. It is therefore suitable for quantum gravity in general and causal sets in particular.

Researchers in quantum foundations claim (D'Ariano, Fuchs, ...): Quantum = probability theory + x and hence: x = Quantum - probability theory Guided by the metaphorical analogy: probability theory / x = flesh / bones we introduce a notion of quantum measurement within x, which, when flesing it with Hilbert spaces, provides orthodox quantum mechanical probability calculus.

Removing the mystery from quantum mechanics, the Bohmian perspective – a way of describing the motion of quantum particles, and applying this to spacetime singularities (where gravity becomes infinite) like those inside a black hole.

The nature of time, probability and quantum mechanics, philosophy of physics and metaphysics, especially issues involving the role of mathematical tools like symmetry in physics, and applying this formal apparatus to the philosophy of mind.

We know the mathematical laws of quantum mechanics, but as yet we are not so sure why those laws should be inevitable. In the simpler but related environment of classical inference, we also know the laws (of probability). With better understanding of quantum mechanics as the eventual goal, Kevin Knuth and I have been probing the foundations of inference. The world we wish to infer is a partially-ordered set ('poset') of states, which may as often supposed be exclusive, but need not be (e.g. A might be a requirement for B). In inference, a state of mind about the world degrades from perfect knowledge through logical OR, which allows for uncertain alternatives. We don't need AND, and we don't need NOT; we just need OR. This display of acceptable states of mind is [close to] a mathematical 'lattice'. We find that the OR structure by itself (!) forces the ordinary rules of probability calculus. No other rules are compatible with the structure of a lattice, so the ordinary rules are inevitable. The standard Shannon information/entropy is likewise inevitable. Taking this idea further, the OR of states of mind gives a lattice of 'Questions' that might be useful for automated learning. Disconcertingly, this lattice is very much larger (in class aleph-2), and the natural valuations on it exhibit large range. I will present this extension, and ask whether we can rationally foresee its use in practical application.