Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 83 references

Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD): An Informational Ontology

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Relational Quantum Dynamics claims that all facts are observer-relative and that quantum mechanics, spacetime, and observers form one informational ontology.

desk verdict A transparent, well-sourced philosophical synthesis whose central claim—that interactions align relational facts—is asserted, not derived; fine as a manifesto, not as a resolution of Frauchiger-Renner. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05979 v2 pith:W3YWY2PM submitted 2024-12-08 quant-ph math-phmath.MPphysics.data-anphysics.hist-ph

Arash E. Zaghi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MPphysics.data-anphysics.hist-ph
keywords relationalquantumdynamicsobserver-relativestatesemergentspacetimeintegratedinformationtheorydecoherenceFrauchiger-Rennerparadoxmeasurementproblemonticstructuralrealism
topics The Measurement Problem
open problems The Measurement Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD) is an interpretation of quantum mechanics built on the claim that facts exist only relative to an observing system: there is no single observer-independent state of the world. The paper argues that a consistent, information-based ontology can simultaneously account for measurement outcomes, the emergence of time and space, and the role of observers. Its strategy is to replace absolute facts with context-dependent relational facts, so Bell's theorem, the Kochen-Specker theorem, Wigner's friend, and the Frauchiger-Renner paradox stop being contradictions and instead become affirmations of perspectival truth. Five interlocking principles carry the argument: contextual quantum states, modular time, entanglement-built geometry, integrated information as the criterion for observers, and decoherence as the source of classical records. If RQD is right, quantum mechanics, spacetime, and observers are not separate domains but aspects of one informational web.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the observer-relative quantum state — the description of a system $S$ relative to an observer system $O$ — together with the rule that comparing two observers' descriptions requires a physical interaction. Around that core, the paper assembles five principles it calls pillars: contextual quantum states, modular (emergent) time, entanglement-constructed geometry, integrated information $\Phi$ as the criterion for when a system counts as an observer, and environment-induced decoherence as the mechanism that turns a superposition into a stable relative record. The pillars are interlocking: the author claims that dropping any one of them reopens the paradoxes the others resolve.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be a two-observer Wigner's-friend experiment in which the friend's record and the superobserver's later measurement are fully communicated and still fail to be consistent under any single relational assignment; RQD predicts this can never happen, so observing such an inconsistency would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

RQD's central claim is that the appearance of a single objective world is emergent: the world is a network of observer-relative quantum states, and a fact is always a fact-for-a-system. The paper asserts this dissolves the Frauchiger-Renner no-go theorem, because that theorem's contradiction requires the Single World assumption (S); RQD drops (S) and keeps consistency by the rule that separate observers' records align only when the observers physically interact, at which point standard quantum dynamics plus decoherence make the records coherent. It further claims that time is not an external parameter but emerges from a subsystem's state in the manner of the thermal-time hypothesis, that space is constructed from patterns of entanglement, that observers are systems with high integrated information $\Phi$, and that no wavefunction collapse is needed because decoherence stabilizes relative records. The author presents RQD not as a modification of quantum predictions but as an ontology in which the measurement problem, the problem of time, and the observer problem are solved together.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that different observers' descriptions can coexist without an underlying global state, and that whenever observers interact, ordinary quantum dynamics plus decoherence will always bring their records into agreement; no formal proof of that alignment is given.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No global wavefunction of the universe is required; every statement about a quantum system is implicitly indexed to an observer.
  • The Frauchiger-Renner contradiction disappears without many worlds and without a classical realm, because no single outcome exists before observers interact.
  • Spacetime becomes derived: distance is a shorthand for entanglement strength, so changing entanglement patterns changes geometry.
  • There is no fundamental collapse; classicality is decoherence plus relational perspective, and the status of being an observer is a matter of integrated information rather than size.
  • Intersubjective agreement, not absolute truth, is the recoverable form of objectivity, achieved when observers exchange information.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: RQD implies an experimental program for mesoscopic quantum control: a network of qubits tuned across an integrated-information threshold should exhibit a measurable change in how rapidly and robustly decoherence produces definite records.
  • Inference: The framework suggests that holographic entanglement entropy is not merely a dual computational tool but constitutive of spatial separation, so experiments probing entanglement-geometry links at low energies would be a direct test of its spatial principle.
  • Inference: If modular time is taken seriously, a Wigner's-friend experiment with entangled clocks should show that the two observers' temporal orderings differ yet remain individually consistent; a contradictory ordering after communication would undercut RQD.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD), an interpretation of quantum mechanics whose fundamental ontology is a network of observer-relative informational relations rather than a single observer-independent wavefunction. RQD rests on five principles: quantum states are contextual and defined only relative to an observer system; time is modular and emergent along thermal-time/Page-Wootters lines; space is constructed from entanglement; observers are systems with high integrated information (Phi); and classical records arise through decoherence without collapse. The paper claims these principles dissolve or resolve Bell's theorem, the Kochen-Specker theorem, Wigner's friend, and the Frauchiger-Renner no-go theorem, and that intersubjective objectivity is recovered because interacting observers' relational facts align under standard quantum rules. The conclusion concedes that the framework is incomplete and that many aspects remain to be fleshed out or tested.

Significance. If the result held, a consistent relational ontology covering measurement, spacetime emergence, and observers would be a major unification, and that aspiration is visible here. The breadth of engagement (Rovelli's RQM, the Connes-Rovelli thermal-time hypothesis, Van Raamsdonk-type entanglement geometry, IIT, and Zurek's decoherence program) is a genuine strength, as is the author's candor: Section 5.4 explicitly concedes that the IIT/consciousness link is 'an assertion rather than an explanation,' and Section 6 concedes that 'many aspects remain to be fleshed out or tested.' As presented, however, the contribution is programmatic rather than established: the manuscript contains no equations, no formal semantics for 'relational fact' or 'alignment,' no update rules for relative states, and no worked analysis of the Frauchiger-Renner protocol, nor does it offer distinct falsifiable predictions. There are no machine-checked proofs, parameter-free derivations, or reproducible artifacts to point to. The central consistency claim that motivates the paper is therefore asserted rather than derived.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 (Frauchiger-Renner bullet); Section 5.2] The central claim that RQD escapes the Frauchiger-Renner no-go theorem is not demonstrated. The paper asserts in Section 3 that 'only when interactions bring those observers together can their knowledge be compared, at which point standard quantum rules ensure they agree,' and in Section 5.2 that 'quantum theory (with decoherence in play) guarantees that relative records will align.' No rule is given for comparing two relational facts from different observer-contexts, and no update rule specifies how one observer's relational description changes when another observer measures that observer. More importantly, the asserted mechanism does not engage the logical structure of the theorem: the contradiction in Frauchiger and Renner arises from the agents' deductive use of one another's statements under assumptions (Q) and (C), and a theory that denies (S) while retaining (Q) and (C) must specify exactly which step in the agents' reasoning chain is blocked. RQD supplies no such specification, so the claimed escape rests on a postulate rather than a derivation; this is the load-bearing premise of the paper's central consistency claim.
  2. [Section 4 (Principles 1-5); Section 6] Notwithstanding the Introduction's promise to 'show' how the framework resolves the paradoxes, and the Acknowledgment's reference to 'mathematical derivations,' the manuscript contains no equations and no formal definitions of its key terms. In particular, 'relational fact' ('X has value v relative to O'), 'alignment of records,' the integrated-information threshold that demarcates an observer, and the sense in which entanglement 'constructs' distance are all used informally. Because the paper's thesis is that RQD is consistent, and because the consistency of a relational ontology turns precisely on the rules for updating and comparing relative states, the absence of this formal core means the central claim cannot be checked. This is a substantive gap, not a presentation issue.
  3. [Section 3 (all four no-go bullets); Section 4, Principle 1] The resolutions of the no-go theorems are largely restatements of Principle 1: once observer-relative facts are stipulated, Kochen-Specker and Wigner's friend are dissolved by definition (the paper itself says the Kochen-Specker contradiction 'evaporates'). For Frauchiger-Renner this move is not sufficient, because the theorem retains assumptions (Q) and (C). A concrete, checkable requirement would be a step-by-step analysis of the four-agent FR protocol under RQD: state, for each agent, which statements count as facts relative to whom at each stage, and identify the first step in the FR reasoning chain that RQD invalidates. Without such an analysis, the claimed escape from the theorem cannot be distinguished from an assumption of the conclusion.
  4. [Section 5.4; Section 6] The paper concedes in Section 5.4 that the connection between integrated information and consciousness is 'an assertion rather than an explanation,' and in Section 6 that 'many aspects remain to be fleshed out or tested.' Since Principle 4 provides RQD's criterion for which systems constitute observers with definite records, the criterion that supports the intersubjective-agreement story, this concession weakens a central pillar of the ontology. The manuscript should either define a concrete, computable quantum Phi-like measure and state its role in the update rules, or restrict the observer-demarcation claim to decoherence-defined measurement devices and separate it clearly from the consciousness claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Header (title page)] The title is typeset as 'An Informational Ontol ogy' in the full-text header; the space in 'Ontol ogy' should be removed.
  2. [Acknowledgment] The Acknowledgment states that the author used AI tools 'in refining the mathematical derivations,' but the manuscript contains no mathematical derivations; this discrepancy should be resolved either by supplying the derivations or by removing the reference to them.
  3. [Section 3, Bell's theorem bullet] The phrase 'the nonlocality is epistemic unless and until observers compare notes' is misleading: RQD elsewhere describes the correlations as holistic and part of the fundamental relational web, so the word 'epistemic' suggests a hidden-variable-style ignorance that the framework explicitly disavows.
  4. [Section 5.3, comparison with RQM] The claims that RQM 'remains agnostic about the status of space and simply assumes a background arena' and that RQM lacks a decoherence-based account of objectivity are asserted without citation to the recent RQM literature on Frauchiger-Renner and objectivity; reference [44] (Pienaar) is cited earlier but is not used to assess these comparative claims.
  5. [References] Several references are non-peer-reviewed or popular sources, including [4] (Quanta Magazine), [38] (Psychology Today), and [80] (PhilArchive); a journal submission should replace these with peer-reviewed sources or clearly mark them as popular accounts.
  6. [Section 6, Concluding Remark] The claim that RQD is 'grounded in equations' is inconsistent with the absence of any equations anywhere in the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: no-go escapes are explicit assumption rejections, though the interaction-alignment guarantee is asserted rather than derived.

full rationale

This paper contains no fitted parameters, no numerical predictions, and no self-citation chain; its only 'derived' claims are the resolutions of no-go theorems, and these are presented as direct consequences of explicitly adopted axioms. In particular, the Frauchiger-Renner escape is achieved by rejecting the theorem's Single World assumption, which is a legitimate logical move and not a case of defining the conclusion into the premises. The main weakness is that the paper asserts, rather than proves, that 'standard quantum rules ensure' records align when observers interact (Section 3, Frauchiger-Renner bullet; Section 5.2). This is a missing derivation, not a circularity: the alignment guarantee is an extra assumption that could fail, and the paper itself concedes incompleteness ('many aspects remain to be fleshed out or tested,' Conclusion; 'this is an assertion rather than an explanation,' Section 5.4). Because the claimed resolution is not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and because no result is obtained by fitting or by self-citation, the circularity score is low. Score 1 reflects the acknowledged gap while recording that no significant circularity was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests almost entirely on five domain assumptions posited in Section 4; each is borrowed from the prior literature but none is derived or formalized in this paper. The claim that omitting any pillar reopens paradoxes is asserted, not proven. There are no free parameters and no invented physical entities beyond the interpretive primitive of observer-relative facts. The five axioms do the explanatory work, which is why the circularity burden is high.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quantum states are contextual and observer-relative; no observer-independent state exists.
    Principle 1 in Section 4. This is the core RQM assumption that directly produces the claimed dissolution of Wigner's friend and Frauchiger-Renner.
  • domain assumption Time is emergent from subsystem state via thermal time; there is no global time parameter.
    Principle 2 in Section 4, based on Connes-Rovelli thermal time and Page-Wootters mechanism.
  • domain assumption Space and geometry are constructed from patterns of quantum entanglement.
    Principle 3 in Section 4, based on Van Raamsdonk and holography.
  • domain assumption A collection of particles forms an observer when it has high integrated information Phi.
    Principle 4 in Section 4, borrowed from IIT; no quantum-field definition of Phi is given.
  • domain assumption Decoherence plus unitary dynamics produce classical records without collapse.
    Principle 5 in Section 4, based on the decoherence program of Zurek, Joos and Zeh.
invented entities (1)
  • observer-relative fact (relational fact)
    purpose: Fundamental truth-bearer for RQD; each observer has their own valid set of facts about a system, replacing a single absolute set of facts.
    Introduced in Section 3 and Principle 1 as the primitive ontology. The paper provides no independent empirical handle for this entity; it is a postulated interpretive primitive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD): An Informational Ontology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W3YWY2PM

@misc{pith2026241205979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD): An Informational Ontology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W3YWY2PM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05979}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum mechanics has transformed our understanding of reality, yet deep philosophical puzzles remain unresolved. Is there a consistent way to describe quantum measurement, the emergence of space and time, and the role of observers within one coherent ontology? This paper introduces Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD), an interpretation that places relationships and information, not isolated objects, at the foundation of physics. Unlike traditional views, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, Everett's many-worlds theory, or hidden-variable approaches, RQD denies a single observer-independent reality, instead proposing that facts only become definite within specific observational contexts. It explicitly addresses foundational no-go results, including Bell's theorem, the Kochen-Specker theorem, and the Frauchiger-Renner paradox, by replacing absolute facts with relational, context-dependent truths. RQD rests on five interlocking principles: (1) quantum states are contextual and observer-relative, (2) time emerges from quantum interactions rather than existing as an external parameter, (3) space is constructed from patterns of quantum entanglement, (4) observers emerge as systems with highly integrated information, and (5) classical reality appears through quantum decoherence without special wavefunction collapse. Philosophically, RQD aligns with ontic structural realism, proposing that the fundamental ontology of the universe consists entirely of informational relations. It avoids collapsing into relativism or solipsism by ensuring intersubjective agreement through physical interactions. Ultimately, RQD may offer a unified picture in which quantum mechanics, spacetime, and observers are no longer separate domains but aspects of one interconnected informational web.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The debates on scientific realism today: Knowledge and o bjectivity in science

    Mario Alai. The debates on scientific realism today: Knowledge and o bjectivity in science. In Evandro Agazzi, editor, Varieties of Scientific Realism: Objectivity and Truth in Science , pages 19–47. Springer, 2017. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-51608- 0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51608- 2017

  2. [2]

    URL https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-51608-0_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-51608-0_2

  3. [3]

    Measuring the integrat ed information of a quantum mechanism

    L Albantakis, R Prentner, and I Durham. Measuring the integrat ed information of a quantum mechanism. Entropy, 25(3), 2023. doi: 10.3390/e25030449. URL https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/3/449

    doi:10.3390/e25030449 2023

  4. [4]

    Scientific realism and primitive ontology

    Valia Allori. Scientific realism and primitive ontology. Philoso- phy of Science , 84(5):785–796, 2017. doi: 10.1086/694165. URL https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/694165

    work page doi:10.1086/694165 2017

  5. [5]

    New quantum paradox clarifies where our vie ws of reality go wrong

    Anil Ananthaswamy. New quantum paradox clarifies where our vie ws of reality go wrong. Quanta Magazine , December 2018. URL https://www.quantamagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-clarifies-where-our-views-of-

    2018

  6. [6]

    Experimenta l realization of einstein-podolsky-rosen-bohm gedankenexperiment: A new violat ion of bell’s inequali- ties

    Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, and G´ erard Roger. Experimenta l realization of einstein-podolsky-rosen-bohm gedankenexperiment: A new violat ion of bell’s inequali- ties. Physical Review Letters, 49(2):91–94, 1982. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.49.91 1982

  7. [7]

    Quantum non-locality based on finite-spee d causal in- fluences leads to superluminal signaling

    Jean-Daniel Bancal, Stefano Pironio, Antonio Ac ´ ın, Yeong-Che rng Liang, Valerio Scarani, and Nicolas Gisin. Quantum non-locality based on finite-spee d causal in- fluences leads to superluminal signaling. Nature Physics , 8:867–870, 2012. doi: 10.1038/nphys2460. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2460

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys2460 2012

  8. [8]

    Shreya Banerjee, Sayantani Bera, and T. P. Singh. Quantum n onlocality, and the end of classical space-time. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.06022 , 2016. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.06022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    J. S. Bell. On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox. Physics Physique , 1(3):195–200, 1964. doi: 10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195. UR L https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195. 23

    1964 doi

  2. [10]

    E pr- bell nonlocality, lorentz invariance, and bohmian quantum theory

    Karin Berndl, Detlef D¨ urr, Sheldon Goldstein, and Nino Zangh ` ı. E pr- bell nonlocality, lorentz invariance, and bohmian quantum theory. Physi- cal Review A , 53(4):2062–2073, 1996. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.53.2062. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9510027

    1996 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cavalcanti, Geoff J

    Kok-Wei Bong, An ´ ıbal Utreras-Alarc´ on, Farzad Ghafari, Yeong-Cherng Liang, Nora Tischler, Eric G. Cavalcanti, Geoff J. Pryde, and Howard M. Wiseman. A strong no- go theorem on the wigner’s friend paradox. Nature Physics , 16:1199–1205, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x. ...

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Kochen–specker contextuality

    Costantino Budroni, Ad´ an Cabello, Otfried G¨ uhne, Matthias K leinmann, and Jan ˚ Ake Larsson. Kochen–specker contextuality. Reviews of Modern Physics, 94(4):045007, 2022. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.94.045007. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.94.045007

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Jeremy Butterfield and C.J. Isham. On the emergence of time in q uantum gravity. In Jeremy Butterfield, editor, The Arguments of Time , pages 111–168. Oxford University Press, 1999. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9901024

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    On the possibility of quantum informational structural realism

    Terrell Ward Bynum. On the possibility of quantum informational structural realism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1303.6007 , 2013. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.6007

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Carroll, and Spyridon Michalakis

    ChunJun Cao, Sean M. Carroll, and Spyridon Michalakis. Space fr om hilbert space: Recovering geometry from bulk entanglement. Physical Review D , 95(2):024031, 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024031. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08444

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Eugene Y. S. Chua. The time in thermal time. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18948 , 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18948

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Von neumann algebra automorphism s and time- thermodynamics relation in generally covariant quantum theories

    Alain Connes and Carlo Rovelli. Von neumann algebra automorphism s and time- thermodynamics relation in generally covariant quantum theories. Classical and Quan- tum Gravity , 11(12):2899–2918, 1994. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/11/12/007 . URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10....

    1994 doi

  10. [18]

    In defense of a ’single, consistent ontology’

    Mauro Dorato. In defense of a ’single, consistent ontology’. Cognitive Systems Research , 44:1–10, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.003. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219817301788

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute vs

    John Earman. World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute vs. Relational Theor ies of Space and Time . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989. ISBN 9780262050408

    1989

  12. [20]

    A defence of informational structural realism

    Luciano Floridi. A defence of informational structural realism. Syn- these, 161(2):219–253, 2008. doi: 10.1007/s11229-007-9163-z. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9163-z

    2008 doi

  13. [21]

    Quantum theory can- not consistently describe the use of itself

    Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner. Quantum theory can- not consistently describe the use of itself. Nature Communi- cations, 9:3711, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05739-8 . 24

    2018 doi

  14. [23]

    Christopher A. Fuchs. On participatory realism. In Ian T. Durh am and Dean Rick- les, editors, Information and Interaction: Eddington, Wheeler, and the L imits of Knowledge, pages 113–134. Springer, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-4376 0-6 6. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04360

    2016 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Fuchs and R¨ udiger Schack

    Christopher A. Fuchs and R¨ udiger Schack. A quantum-bayesian route to quantum-state space. Foundations of Physics , 41(3):345–356, 2011. doi: 10.1007/s10701-009-9404-8

    2011 doi

  16. [25]

    Fuchs and R¨ udiger Schack

    Christopher A. Fuchs and R¨ udiger Schack. Quantum-bayesia n coherence. Reviews of Modern Physics , 85(4):1693–1715, 2013. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1693. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1693

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    Quantum mech an- ics, strong emergence and ontological non-reducibility

    Rodolfo Gambini, Luc ´ ıa Lewowicz, and Jorge Pullin. Quantum mech an- ics, strong emergence and ontological non-reducibility. Foundations of Chemistry, 17(2):117–127, 2015. doi: 10.1007/s10698-015-9224-1. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-015-9224-1

    2015 doi

  18. [27]

    Ghirardi, A

    G.C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber. Unified dynamics for microsc opic and macro- scopic systems. Physical Review D , 34(2):470–491, 1986. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.34

    1986 doi

  19. [28]

    Quantum theory: A pragmatist approach

    Richard Healey. Quantum theory: A pragmatist approach. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 63(4):729–771, 2012. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axr054

    2012 doi

  20. [29]

    Edward Hackett

    J. Edward Hackett. The case for participatory realism in schele r’s ethics. Phenomenology and Mind , 5:152–165, 2013. URL https://oaj.fupress.net/index.php/pam/article/view/7133

    2013

  21. [30]

    C. J. Isham and J. Butterfield. Some possible roles for topos th eory in quantum theory and quantum gravity. Foundations of Physics , 30(10):1707–1735, 2000. doi: 10.1023/A: 1026406502316. URL https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026406502316

    doi

  22. [31]

    Out of nowhere: Introd uction: The emer- gence of spacetime

    Nick Huggett and Christian W¨ uthrich. Out of nowhere: Introd uction: The emer- gence of spacetime. In Out of Nowhere: The Emergence of Spacetime in Quan- tum Theories of Gravity . Oxford University Press, 2021. Preprint available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.06955

    2021 arXiv

  23. [32]

    An ontological solution to the mind–body pr ob- lem

    Bernardo Kastrup. An ontological solution to the mind–body pr ob- lem. Philosophies, 2(2):10, 2017. doi: 10.3390/philosophies2020010. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/2/2/10. 25

    2017 doi

  24. [33]

    Joos and H

    E. Joos and H. D. Zeh. The emergence of classical properties t hrough interaction with the environment. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter, 59(2):223–243, 1985. doi: 10.1007/BF01725541

    1985 doi

  25. [34]

    Towards a neo-aristotelian mereology

    Kathrin Koslicki. Towards a neo-aristotelian mereology. Dialectica, 60(1):35–62, 2006. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-8361.2006.01070.x

    2006

  26. [35]

    Simon Kochen and Ernst P. Specker. The problem of hidden varia bles in quan- tum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics , 17:59–87, 1967. URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/24902153

    1967

  27. [36]

    How everett solved the probability problem in e verettian quantum mechanics

    Dustin Lazarovici. How everett solved the probability problem in e verettian quantum mechanics. Quantum Reports, 5(2):407–417, 2023. doi: 10.3390/quantum5020026. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/5/2/26

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized

    James Ladyman and Don Ross. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized . Oxford University Press, 2007. ISBN 9780199276196

    2007

  29. [38]

    An intriguing and controversial theory of consciou sness: Iit, 2023

    Ralph Lewis. An intriguing and controversial theory of consciou sness: Iit, 2023. URL https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/202310/an-intriguing-and-cont Accessed: 2025-03-16

    2023

  30. [39]

    Obser vables and un- observables in quantum mechanics: How the no-hidden-variables th eorems sup- port the bohmian particle ontology

    Dustin Lazarovici, Andrea Oldofredi, and Michael Esfeld. Obser vables and un- observables in quantum mechanics: How the no-hidden-variables th eorems sup- port the bohmian particle ontology. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.07120 , 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.07120

    2018 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Perspectival Realism

    Michela Massimi. Perspectival Realism . Oxford University Press, 2022. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780197555620.001.0001. URL https://global.oup.com/academic/product/perspectival-realism-9780197555620

    2022

  32. [41]

    Maldacena

    Juan M. Maldacena. The large n limit of superconformal field theo ries and super- gravity. Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics , 2:231–252, 1998. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9711200

    1998 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Nemirovsky, Nicholas J

    Idan E. Nemirovsky, Nicholas J. M. Popiel, Jorge Rudas, Matthe w Caius, Lo- rina Naci, Nicholas D. Schiff, Adrian M. Owen, and Andrea Soddu. An implementation of integrated information theory in resting-state f mri. Com- munications Biology , 6:692, 2023. doi: 10.1038/s42003-02...

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    Pedro A. M. Mediano, Anil K. Seth, and Adam B. Barrett. Measu ring integrated infor- mation: Comparison of candidate measures in theory and simulation. Entropy, 21(1): 17, 2019. doi: 10.3390/e21010017. URL https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/1/17

    2019 doi

  35. [44]

    Jacques L. Pienaar. Qbism and relational quantum mechanics co mpared. Foun- dations of Physics , 51(5):96, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10701-021-00501-5. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-021-00501-5 . 26

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    Relational quantum mechanics, 2012

    Argyris Nicolaidis. Relational quantum mechanics, 2012. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2706

    2012 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Experimental test of local observer-independence

    Massimiliano Proietti, Alexander Pickston, Francesco Graffitti, P eter Barrow, Dmytro Kundys, Cyril Branciard, Martin Ringbauer, and Alessandro Fedriz zi. Experimental test of local observer-independence. Science Advances, 5(9):eaaw9832, 2019. doi: 10. 1126/sciadv.aaw9832. URL h...

    2019 doi

  38. [47]

    Toy models for retrocausality

    Huw Price. Toy models for retrocausality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 39(4):752–761, 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsb.2008.06.002. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3230

    2008 arXiv

  39. [48]

    A wheeler–dewitt equation with time

    Marcello Rotondo. A wheeler–dewitt equation with time. Universe, 8(11):580, 2022. doi: 10.3390/universe8110580. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/11/580

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    Building up spacetime with quantum entang lement

    Mark Van Raamsdonk. Building up spacetime with quantum entang lement. General Relativity and Gravitation , 42(10):2323–2329, 2010. doi: 10.1007/s10714-010-1034-0. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3035

    2010 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Relational Quantum Mechanics

    Carlo Rovelli. Relational Quantum Mechanics. In Edward N. Zalta a nd Uri Nodelman, editors, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2025 edition, 2025

    2025

  42. [51]

    Relational quantum mechanics

    Carlo Rovelli. Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of The- oretical Physics , 35(8):1637–1678, 1996. doi: 10.1007/BF02302261. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02302261

    1996 doi

  43. [52]

    Indiscernibles, general covariance, and oth er symmetries: The case for non-reductive relationalism

    Simon Saunders. Indiscernibles, general covariance, and oth er symmetries: The case for non-reductive relationalism. In Abhay Ashtekar et al., editors, Revisiting the Founda- tions of Relativistic Physics , pages 277–298. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. URL https://users.ox....

    2003

  44. [53]

    Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from ads/cft

    Shinsei Ryu and Tadashi Takayanagi. Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from ads/cft. Physical Review Letters, 96(18):181602, 2006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 96.181602. URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.181602

    2006 doi

  45. [54]

    Bohm’s realist interpretation of quantum mecha nics

    Virendra Singh. Bohm’s realist interpretation of quantum mecha nics. arXiv preprint arXiv:0805.1779, 2008. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1779

    2008 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Sebens and Sean M

    Charles T. Sebens and Sean M. Carroll. Self-locating uncertaint y and the ori- gin of probability in everettian quantum mechanics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 69(1):25–74, 2016. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axw004. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7577

    2016 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Entanglement renormalization and holography

    Brian Swingle. Entanglement renormalization and holography. Physical Review D , 86:065007, 2012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.065007. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1317. 27

    2012 arXiv

  48. [57]

    The causal set approach to quantum gravity

    Sumati Surya. The causal set approach to quantum gravity. Living Re- views in Relativity , 22(1):5, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s41114-019-0023-1. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11544

    2019 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Spacetime from entanglement

    Brian Swingle. Spacetime from entanglement. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 9:345–358, 2018. doi: 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-033117- 054219. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07491

    2018 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Constructing holographic spacetimes using entan glement renormaliza- tion

    Brian Swingle. Constructing holographic spacetimes using entan glement renormaliza- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1209.3304 , 2012. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3304

    2012 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler

    Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler. Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity. W. H. Freeman, 2 edition, 1992. ISBN 978-0-7167-2327-1. URL https://www.eftaylor.com/spacetimephysics/

    1992

  52. [61]

    Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity

    Gerard ’t Hooft. Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity. arXiv preprint gr- qc/9310026, 1993. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310026

    1993

  53. [62]

    Daniel Toker and Friedrich T. Sommer. Information integration in large brain networks. PLOS Computational Biology, 15(2):e1006807, 2019. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006807. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02967

    2019 arXiv

  54. [63]

    The Problem of Consciousness: New Essays in Phenomeno- logical Philosophy of Mind

    Evan Thompson, editor. The Problem of Consciousness: New Essays in Phenomeno- logical Philosophy of Mind . Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume, University of Alberta Press, 2003

    2003

  55. [64]

    Consciousness as integrated information: a provis ional manifesto

    Giulio Tononi. Consciousness as integrated information: a provis ional manifesto. The Biological Bulletin , 215(3):216–242, 2008. doi: 10.2307/25470707. URL https://doi.org/10.2307/25470707

    2008 doi

  56. [65]

    An information integration theory of consciousnes s

    Giulio Tononi. An information integration theory of consciousnes s. BMC Neuroscience , 5(1):42, 2004. doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-5-42. URL https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-5-42

    2004 doi

  57. [66]

    Michael L. Walker. On the copenhagen interpretation of quant um measure- ment. Universe, 10(3):113, 2024. doi: 10.3390/universe10030113. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/10/3/113

    2024 doi

  58. [67]

    In te- grated information theory: from consciousness to its physical su bstrate

    Giulio Tononi, Melanie Boly, Marcello Massimini, and Christof Koch. In te- grated information theory: from consciousness to its physical su bstrate. Na- ture Reviews Neuroscience , 17(7):450–461, 2016. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.44. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.44

    2016 doi

  59. [68]

    Information, physics, quantum: The s earch for links

    John Archibald Wheeler. Information, physics, quantum: The s earch for links. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Foundati ons of Quan- tum Mechanics , pages 310–336, Tokyo, 1989. Physical Society of Japan. URL https://philpapers.org/archive/WHEIPQ.pdf

    1989

  60. [69]

    John A. Wheeler. Information, physics, quantum: The search for links. In Woj- ciech H. Zurek, editor, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information , pages 3–28. Addison-Wesley, 1990

    1990

  61. [70]

    E. P. Wigner. Remarks on the mind-body question. In Jagdish Me hra, editor, Philo- sophical Reflections and Syntheses , volume B / 6 of The Collected Works of Eu- gene Paul Wigner , pages 247–260. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-642-78374-6 20. URL https...

    1995 doi

  62. [71]

    Process and Reality

    Alfred North Whitehead. Process and Reality. Macmillan Publishing Company, 1929. 28

    1929

  63. [72]

    Wootters and Wojciech H

    William K. Wootters and Wojciech H. Zurek. A single quantum canno t be cloned. Nature, 299:802–803, 1982. doi: 10.1038/299802a0. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/299802a0

    1982 doi

  64. [73]

    Eugene P. Wigner. Remarks on the mind-body question. In I. J. Good, editor, The Scientist Speculates, pages 284–302. Heinemann, London, 1961

    1961

  65. [74]

    Wojciech H. Zurek. Decoherence and the transition from quan tum to classical. Physics Today, 44(10):36–44, 1991. doi: 10.1063/1.881293

    1991 doi

  66. [75]

    Niels bohr on the wave function and the class ical/quantum divide

    Henrik Zinkernagel. Niels bohr on the wave function and the class ical/quantum divide. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 53:9–19, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j. shpsb.2015.11.001. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2015.11.001

    2016 doi

  67. [76]

    Wojciech H. Zurek. Probabilities from entanglement, born’s rule from envariance. Physical Review A , 71(5):052105, 2005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052105. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0405161

    2005 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Wojciech H. Zurek. Decoherence, einselection, and the quant um origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics , 75(3):715–775, 2003. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105127

    2003 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Jess Riedel, and Wojciech H

    Michael Zwolak, C. Jess Riedel, and Wojciech H. Zurek. Amplificat ion, decoherence, and the acquisition of information by spin environments. Scientific Reports , 6:25277,

  70. [79]

    Wojciech H. Zurek. Quantum darwinism. Nature Physics , 5:181–188, 2009. doi: 10. 1038/nphys1202. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1202

    2009

  71. [80]

    Informational monism: A phenomenological perspective on t he nature of information

    Igor ˇSevo. Informational monism: A phenomenological perspective on t he nature of information. PhilArchive, 2023. URL https://philarchive.org/archive/EVOIMA-2. 29

    2023

  72. [82]

    A no-go theorem for observer-independent fac ts

    ˇCaslav Brukner. A no-go theorem for observer-independent fac ts. Entropy, 20(5):350,

  73. [470]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470

    doi

  74. [2016]

    URL https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25277

    doi: 10.1038/srep25277. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25277

    doi

  75. [2018]

    URL https://doi.org/10.3390/e20050350

    doi: 10.3390/e20050350. URL https://doi.org/10.3390/e20050350

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.