REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 62 references
Observation as Physication. A single-world unitary no-conspiracy interpretation of quantum mechanics
T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Quantum observation is the unitary assignment of physical meaning to operators, yielding definite outcomes in a single world without collapse.
desk verdict A fresh idea about delayed operator assignment, but the no-conspiracy claim is stipulated into existence; worth refereeing to force a concrete model. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central mechanism is 'physication', defined as the gradual assignment of Hermitian operators to physical properties as observations happen. It replaces the projection postulate with an assignment rule: whenever the state vector leaves the currently assigned macrostate subspaces, the operators for macroscopic properties are reassigned so that the state lies in exactly one macrostate. This works because the tensor product structure and operator meanings are not given a priori; the unitary freedom in choosing position-like and other operators is what absorbs the apparent contradiction between unitary evolution and definite outcomes.
What would settle it
Build a preparation-and-measurement setup in which the environment between preparation and measurement has so few non-macroscopic degrees of freedom that no unitary rotation of unassigned variables can place the observed system into the recorded eigenstate; if the measurement still yields a definite outcome, Postulate 4 fails. Alternatively, derive the probabilities forced by Postulates 1–4 and show they deviate from the Born rule.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that a quantum observation does not measure a pre-existing property or collapse the wavefunction; it assigns physical meaning to operators. Structure alone underdetermines which Hermitian operators represent position, spin, or any physical property, because unitary transformations can produce infinitely many operators with identical spectra and identical commutation relations. The author exploits this freedom: when a system is first observed, the operator representing the observed property can be chosen so that the state is already its eigenstate; on later observations, the many unphysicated microscopic degrees of freedom in the preparation device, measuring device, and environment provide room to reassign operators so that the unitary evolution has a definite outcome. The state vector always evolves by the Schrödinger equation, exactly one world exists, and the apparent conspiracy of initial conditions is reinterpreted as delayed assignment.
Load-bearing premise
The proposal stands on the assumption that whenever the universe's state leaves its currently assigned set of coarse-grained macroscopic boxes, a consistent reassignment of operator meanings always exists so the state lies in exactly one box, and this can be done across all observers at once, including observers far apart; no proof of existence or uniqueness is given.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Quantum measurements always have definite outcomes without any physical collapse; the projection postulate becomes a statement about operator assignment rather than dynamics.
- Successive measurements of noncommuting observables do not force branching, because unassigned microscopic degrees of freedom in the preparation apparatus supply the needed reassignment room.
- Conservation laws are preserved exactly, since nothing in the dynamics breaks unitary evolution.
- Bell-type correlations require no nonlocal interaction and no superdeterminism; the consistency of assignment across spacelike separated observers is allowed to be nonlocal without nonlocal signals.
- Space itself emerges through physication, and with respect to the resulting space all interactions are local.
Reading between the lines
- A testable extension would be to quantify the minimal number of unassigned microscopic degrees of freedom needed to make Postulate 4 work for a given measurement; the paper only says 'roughly' more is better.
- The proposal suggests that the Born rule may be derivable from a uniform distribution over initial macrostates; deriving different probabilities would refute it.
- If physication is correct, then any attempt to recover a preferred basis or tensor product structure from the Hamiltonian alone cannot succeed, a result the paper cites as already proven and turns into a constructive mechanism.
- The nonlocal consistency of assignment across spacelike observers is left as an open mechanism; connecting it to a theory of mental state integration is speculative and not part of the paper's claim.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which the physical meaning of operators is not fixed a priori but is assigned gradually through observations, a process called "physication." The state vector is claimed to evolve unitarily at all times, and a definite measurement outcome is obtained by assigning the relevant operator so that the current state is an eigenstate (Eq. 9); whenever the state leaves previously assigned macrostates, new macrostates are assigned so that the state lies in exactly one of them (Postulate 4). The advertised result is a single-world, no-collapse, no-many-worlds interpretation that avoids conspiratorial fine-tuning of initial conditions and resolves the underdetermination of operators by structure discussed in Section 2.
Significance. If the proposal worked, it would be a significant conceptual advance: a single-world unitary interpretation that explains definite outcomes while avoiding Bell-type superdeterminism. The paper has real strengths: it clearly identifies a genuine underdetermination problem (Observation 1), states the proposal as a set of explicit postulates, and includes a section on empirical falsifiability. However, the central mechanism is stipulated rather than demonstrated. Postulate 4 is an existence claim for globally consistent operator and macrostate assignments, and no proof is offered; Eq. (9) builds the observed outcome into the choice of operator; and the EPR-Bell discussion either reintroduces outcome-dependent preparation or accepts a nonlocal assignment, in tension with the advertised no-conspiracy and locality features. As written, the proposal does not yet constitute a working interpretation, so the significance is conditional on a gap that the manuscript does not close.
major comments (5)
- [Section 5, Eq. (26), Postulate 4] Postulate 4 states that whenever the state leaves the already assigned macrostates, new macrostates are assigned so that |ψ(t)> lies in exactly one macrostate. This is an existence claim for a global, jointly consistent assignment at every time and for all observers. No such existence proof is given; the postulate merely stipulates that the assignment happens so that the unwanted components vanish. To make the proposal nontrivial, one would need to show, for arbitrary sequences of measurements (including noncommuting observables and spacelike-separated observers), that a reassignment exists that is consistent with previously assigned macroscopic properties, with the functional form of the Hamiltonian from Postulate 2, and with the claimed locality. This is the load-bearing step that replaces the projection postulate, and it is currently no more than an assumption.
- [Section 4, Eq. (9)] The operator S_z is chosen only after the outcome +ℏ/2 has been recorded, by setting S_z = 1/2(|v><v|-|u><u|). Since every normalized vector |v> is an eigenvector of the operator constructed from it, the definite outcome is guaranteed by construction rather than derived from the dynamics. The observation therefore does not select a value of a pre-existing property; it selects the operator that makes the observed state an eigenstate. This is not an explanation of why definite outcomes occur, because the construction succeeds for any state and any desired outcome. The actual probabilities are put in by hand in Postulate 5, which is stated independently and whose consistency with Postulates 1-4 is left open.
- [Section 4, EPR-Bell paragraph; Section 7] To accommodate the EPR-Bell singlet state, the paper suggests that the interaction with the preparation device "may in fact result in a product state" such as |↑>_A|↓>_B or |↓>_A|↑>_B. This is exactly the kind of outcome-dependent fine-tuning of the preparation that the abstract promises to avoid. Alternatively, Section 7 concedes that "the assignment, the physication itself, has to be non-local in some sense." A local assignment of spin operators cannot make the singlet state a common eigenstate of Alice's and Bob's local spin operators, because the singlet is not a product state. The manuscript therefore either reintroduces conspiracy or gives up the advertised locality feature; the abstract's claim that the approach requires no conspiratorial fine-tuning is not supported.
- [Section 5, Eq. (24)] The statement that U(t1,t0)H0 ⊥ U(t2,t0)H0 for t2>t1 because the entropy is different is not valid. Two subspaces of equal dimension can be distinct without being orthogonal, and unitary time evolution does not enforce orthogonality between different time slices of the same initial subspace. The subsequent assertion A(t1)∩A(t2)=∅ therefore does not follow. Since this disjointness is used to argue that macrostates at different times can be assigned independently, the consistency argument for Postulate 4 is weakened.
- [Section 5, Postulate 5; Section 6] Postulate 5 states that the probability of the macrostate at time t is given by the Born rule, Pa(t)=⟨ψ(t)|P_a|ψ(t)⟩. But the macrostates themselves are assigned, according to Postulate 4, after the fact so that |ψ(t)> lies in one of them. Since P_a depends on the assignment, and the assignment depends on which outcome is realized, the Born probability is not a prediction about a pre-existing set of alternatives. Section 6 explicitly leaves open whether Postulate 5 is consistent with Postulates 1-4. The proposal therefore lacks well-defined quantitative predictive content as it stands.
minor comments (5)
- [Section 6] The phrase "given provisionally as Postulate 28" should read "given provisionally as Eq. (28)" or "Postulate 5."
- [Section 5, Definition 1] A "macroscopic physical property" is defined as a property that "always has a definite value"; this presupposes the very definiteness that Postulate 4 is intended to derive.
- [Section 5, Eq. (21)] The statement that the sum in Eq. (21) is formal is unclear for infinite or continuous spectra; the measure-theoretic treatment should be specified.
- [Figure 1] The dashed lines mentioned in the figure caption are not identified in the text, which makes the intended disturbance scenario harder to follow.
- [Section 2] The paper relies on several works by the author that are listed as unpublished or preprint-only (e.g., Stoica 2023a, 2024b) for load-bearing underdetermination results; these results should be summarized in the text or their proofs provided.
Circularity Check
The definite-outcome result is not derived from unitary evolution; it is stipulated by choosing operators and macrostates after the state is known, and the EPR-Bell no-conspiracy resolution renames a fine-tuned product-state disturbance as 'delayed assignment'.
-
self definitional
[Section 4, eq. (9) and Observation 7]
"Suppose we measured the spin along the z-axis and obtained the eigenvalue +1/2ℏ. Then, we can choose Sˆz = 1/2ℏ(|v⟩⟨v| − |u⟩⟨u|), (9) ... We arrive at the following observation: Observation 7. When a system is observed for the first time, it is possible to assign the operator representing the observed property so that the observation happens unitarily, without having to appeal to collapse or branching."
The operator S_z is chosen only after the outcome +1/2 is already known, so |v⟩ is made an eigenstate by construction. The 'definite outcome' is therefore an input to the operator assignment, not a consequence of unitary evolution. This is the template for Postulate 4: the same post-hoc freedom is elevated to a general principle that guarantees definite measurement outcomes.
-
self definitional
[Section 5, Observation 11 and Postulate 4, eq. (26)]
"Observation 11. There is a freedom to choose the assignment of operators to the macroscopic physical properties so that A (t) always has only one element. ... Postulate 4 (Assignment). Whenever |ψ (t)⟩ leaves the already assigned macrostates, the new ones are assigned so that |ψ (t)⟩ is in a definite macrostate. That is, there is an element a(t) ∈ A so that |ψ (t)⟩ ∈ Ha(t). (26) This accounts for definite outcomes, resolving the measurement problem..."
The target fact to be explained—that every measurement has a single definite outcome—is literally stipulated: at each time the assignment is made so that |ψ(t)⟩ sits inside one macrostate. No derivation from Postulates 1–3 is provided. Since the assignment is performed after the state is known, eq. (26) holds by definition, so the claimed resolution of the measurement problem is equivalent to assuming the answer.
1 more flagged steps
-
other
[Section 4, EPR-Bell paragraph and Section 5, nonlocality discussion]
"Suppose a pair of spin-1/2 particles is prepared in a singlet state ... The interaction with the device that prepares the observed system to be a singlet state as in Figure 1, may in fact result in a product state, | ↑⟩ A ⊗ | ↓⟩ B or | ↓⟩ A ⊗ | ↑⟩ B ... Again, such a conspiratorial interaction leading unitarily to definite outcomes for Alice and Bob’s observations is possible in principle, on the behalf of the interaction with the preparation device. And again, the conspiracy can be removed by adopting the explanation of the delayed assignment..."
For non-identical measurement axes the singlet is not a common eigenstate of the local spin operators, so the paper posits that the preparation interaction converts it into one of the product states. That is exactly the conspiratorial, measurement-dependent fine-tuning the abstract claims to avoid. Calling the conversion 'delayed assignment' does not change the ontic state or the unitary evolution; it renames the conspiracy. The no-conspiracy claim is therefore an admitted input ('possible in principle') rather than a derived result, and the paper later concedes that the assignment itself 'has to be non-local in some sense'.
full rationale
Postulate 4 makes the target phenomenon an axiom: whenever the state leaves a macrostate, the macrostates are reassigned so that the state lies in exactly one of them (eq. 26). Combined with the operator choice in eq. (9), where S_z is selected after the outcome is known, 'definite outcome' is guaranteed by construction rather than shown to follow from unitary Schrödinger evolution. The same construction is used for EPR-Bell: the admitted 'conspiratorial interaction' that turns the singlet into a product state is relabeled as delayed assignment, and the paper concedes the assignment itself is nonlocal. These are definitional moves, not derived consequences. The underdetermination results cited from Stoica (2022, 2023a) are independent published arguments and by themselves would not raise the score; the high score is due to the outcome being an input to the postulates. The paper itself flags the Born-rule consistency as unresolved in Postulate 5, a correctness caveat rather than a circular step.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (7)
- domain assumption Unitary evolution of an abstract state vector with no a priori operator assignment (Postulate 1).
- ad hoc to paper Hamiltonian depends functionally on a set of operators representing physical properties, whose assignment is unknown a priori (Postulate 2).
- ad hoc to paper Macroscopic physical properties form a compatible set and are assigned gradually in time (Postulate 3).
- ad hoc to paper Whenever the state leaves assigned macrostates, new macrostates are assigned so the state is in one definite macrostate (Postulate 4).
- ad hoc to paper Born rule probabilities are valid (Postulate 5).
- domain assumption Operators representing physical properties are underdetermined by structure (Observations 1 through 3, based on Stoica 2022 and 2023a).
- domain assumption The initial macrostate of the universe had low entropy (past hypothesis, Observation 5).
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Observation as Physication. A single-world unitary no-conspiracy interpretation of quantum mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GL552YOH
@misc{pith2026241209669,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Observation as Physication. A single-world unitary no-conspiracy interpretation of quantum mechanics},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GL552YOH}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09669}
}
read the original abstract
The physical meaning of the operators is not reducible to the intrinsic relations of the quantum system, since unitary transformations can find other operators satisfying the exact same relations. The physical meaning is determined empirically. I propose that the assignment of physical meaning to operators spreads through observation, along with the values of the observables, from the already observed degrees of freedom to the newly observed ones. I call this process "physication". I propose that quantum observations are nothing more than this assignment, which can be done unitarily. This approach doesn't require collapse, many-worlds, or a conspiratorial fine tuning of the initial conditions.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Aharonov, Y., Bergmann, P., and Lebowitz, J. (1964). Time symmetry in the quantum process of measurement. Phys. Rev. , 134(6B):B1410
work page 1964
-
[2]
Aharonov, Y. and Vaidman, L. (2007). The two-state vector formalism: an updated review. In Time in Quantum Mechanics , pages 399--447. Springer
work page 2007
-
[3]
Bell, J. (1964). On the E instein- P odolsky- R osen paradox. Physics , 1(3):195--200
work page 1964
-
[4]
Bell, J. (2004). Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics: C ollected papers on quantum philosophy . Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK
work page 2004
-
[5]
Bohm, D. (1951). T he Paradox of E instein, R osen, and P odolsky , pages 611--623. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
work page 1951
-
[6]
Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of quantum mechanics in terms of ``hidden'' variables, I & II . Phys. Rev. , 85(2):166--193
work page 1952
-
[7]
Boltzmann, L. (1910). Vorlesungen \"u ber gastheorie , volume 1. JA Barth (A. Meiner)
work page 1910
-
[8]
Bredon, G. (1997). Sheaf theory , volume 170. Springer Verlag
work page 1997
Show all 62 references
-
[9]
Burgos, M. (2010). Contradiction between conservation laws and orthodox quantum mechanics. Journal of Modern Physics , 1(2):137
2010
-
[10]
Carroll, S. (2022). Reality as a vector in H ilbert space. In Allori, V., editor, Quantum mechanics and fundamentality , volume 460, pages 211--224. Springer Nature
2022
-
[11]
and Singh, A
Carroll, S. and Singh, A. (2019). Mad-dog E verettianism: Q uantum M echanics at its most minimal. In Aguirre, A., Foster, B., and Merali, Z., editors, What is Fundamental? , pages 95--104. Springer
2019
-
[12]
and Singh, A
Carroll, S. and Singh, A. (2021). Quantum mereology: F actorizing H ilbert space into subsystems with quasi-classical dynamics. To appear in Phys. Rev. A . Preprint arXiv:2005.12938 http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.12938
2021 arXiv
-
[13]
and Keisler, H
Chang, C. and Keisler, H. (1990). Model theory . Elsevier
1990
-
[14]
and Popescu, S
Collins, D. and Popescu, S. (2024). Conservation laws for every quantum measurement outcome. Preprint arXiv:2404.18621 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18621
2024 arXiv
-
[15]
Cotler, J., Penington, G., and Ranard, D. (2019). Locality from the spectrum. Comm. Math. Phys. , 368(3):1267--1296
2019
-
[16]
Deutsch, D. (1985). Quantum theory as a universal physical theory. Int. J. Theor. Phys. , 24(1):1--41
1985
-
[17]
Dirac, P. (1958). The Principles of Q uantum M echanics . Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
1958
-
[18]
Eddington, A. (1934). New pathways in science . Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK
1934
-
[19]
Einstein, A. (1905). Zur elektrodynamik bewegter k \"o rper. Annalen der Physik , 322(10):891--921
1905
-
[20]
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. , 47(10):777
1935
-
[21]
Everett, H. (1957). `` R elative state'' formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 29(3):454--462
1957
-
[22]
Feynman, R. (1965). The character of physical law . MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
1965
-
[23]
Fuchs, C., Mermin, N., and Schack, R. (2014). An introduction to QB ism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics. Am. J. Phys. , 82(8):749--754
2014
-
[24]
Ghirardi, G., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics of microscopic and macroscopic systems. Phys. Rev. D , 34(2):470--491
1986
-
[25]
Ghirardi, G.-C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T. (1980). A general argument against superluminal transmission through the quantum mechanical measurement process. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento (1971-1985) , 27(10):293--298
1980
-
[26]
Gr \"a tzer, G. (2008). Universal algebra . Springer Science & Business Media
2008
-
[27]
Hodges, W. (1997). A shorter model theory . Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1 edition
1997
-
[28]
Jaynes, E. (1990). Probability in quantum theory. In Zurek, W., editor, Complexity, entropy, and the physics of information , page 381, Redwood City, CA. Addison-Wesley
1990
-
[29]
King, R. (1995). Early A dvaita V ed \=a nta and B uddhism: T he M ah \=a y \=a na context of the G auḍap \=a d \= ya-k \=a rik \=a . State University of New York Press, New York
1995
-
[30]
Kirk, R. (2023). Zombies . In Zalta, E. N. and Nodelman, U., editors, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, California, S ummer 2023 edition
2023
-
[31]
and Squires, R
Kirk, R. and Squires, R. (1974). Zombies v. materialists. Proc. Aristot. Soc., Supplementary Volumes , 48:135--163
1974
-
[32]
and Specker, E
Kochen, S. and Specker, E. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. J. Math. Mech. , 17:59--87
1967
-
[33]
Levin, J. (2018). Functionalism. In Zalta, E., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, California, fall 2018 edition
2018
-
[34]
and Moerdijk, I
Mac Lane, S. and Moerdijk, I. (1992). Sheaves in geometry and logic: A first introduction to topos theory . Springer
1992
-
[35]
Maldacena, J. (1999). The large- N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity. Int. J. Theor. Phys , 38(4):1113--1133
1999
-
[36]
and Terno, D
Peres, A. and Terno, D. (2004). Quantum information and relativity theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 76(1):93
2004
-
[37]
Piazza, F. (2010). Glimmers of a pre-geometric perspective. Found. Phys. , 40:239--266
2010
-
[38]
Timaeus and C ritias
Plato (2008). Timaeus and C ritias. Translated by R obin W aterfield. W ith an I ntroduction and N otes by A ndrew G regory . Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
2008
-
[39]
Rescorla, M. (2020). The Computational Theory of Mind . In Zalta, E. N., editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Stanford, California, fall 2020 edition
2020
-
[40]
Schulman, L. (1984). Definite measurements and deterministic quantum evolution. Phys. Lett. A , 102(9):396--400
1984
-
[41]
Schulman, L. (1991). Definite quantum measurements. Ann. Phys. , 212(2):315--370
1991
-
[42]
Schulman, L. (2017). Program for the special state theory of quantum measurement. Entropy , 19(7):343
2017
-
[43]
Stoica, O. (2008). Smooth quantum mechanics. PhilSci Archive . philsci-archive:00004344 http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004344/
2008
-
[44]
Stoica, O. (2013). Global and local aspects of causality in quantum mechanics http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20135801017. In EPJ Web of Conferences http://www.epj-conferences.org/index.php?option=com_toc&url=/articles/epjconf/abs/2013/19/contents/contents.html, TM 2012 -- T...
2013
-
[45]
Stoica, O. (2015). Quantum measurement and initial conditions. Int. J. Theor. Phys. , pages 1--15. arXiv:quant-ph/1212.2601 http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.2601
2015 arXiv
-
[46]
Stoica, O. (2016). On the wavefunction collapse. Quanta , 5(1):19--33. http://dx.doi.org/10.12743/quanta.v5i1.40 http://dx.doi.org/10.12743/quanta.v5i1.40
2016 doi
-
[47]
Stoica, O. (2017). The universe remembers no wavefunction collapse. Quantum Stud. Math. Found. arXiv:1607.02076 http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.02076
2017 arXiv
-
[48]
Stoica, O. (2020). Are mental states nonlocal? Mind and Matter , 18(2). Preprint arXiv:2010.03389 http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03389
2020 arXiv
-
[49]
Stoica, O. (2021). The post-determined block universe. Quantum Stud. Math. Found. , 8(1). arXiv:1903.07078 http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.07078
2021 arXiv
-
[50]
Stoica, O. (2022). 3d-space and the preferred basis cannot uniquely emerge from the quantum structure. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , 26(10):3895---3962. arXiv:2102.08620 http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.08620
2022 arXiv
-
[51]
Stoica, O. (2023a). Are observers reducible to structures?
2023
-
[52]
Stoica, O. (2023b). Asking physics about physicalism, zombies, and consciousness. philsci-archive:23108 http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/23108/
2023
-
[53]
Stoica, O. (2023c). The prince and the pauper. A quantum paradox of H ilbert-space fundamentalism
2023
-
[54]
Stoica, O. (2024a). Does quantum mechanics require ``conspiracy''? Entropy , 26(5):411. arXiv:2209.13275 https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.13275
2024 arXiv
-
[55]
Stoica, O. (2024b). Does the H amiltonian determine the tensor product structure and the 3d space?
2024
-
[56]
't Hooft, G. (2016). The cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics , volume 185. Springer
2016
-
[57]
Tegmark, M. (2015). Consciousness as a state of matter. Chaos Solitons Fractals , 76:238--270
2015
-
[58]
von Neumann , J. (1955). Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
1955
-
[59]
Wallace, D. (2022). Stating structural realism: mathematics-first approaches to physics and metaphysics. Philosophical Perspectives , 36(1):345--378
2022
-
[60]
Watanabe, S. (1955). Symmetry of physical laws. P art III . P rediction and retrodiction. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 27(2):179
1955
-
[61]
Zanardi, P., Dallas, E., and Lloyd, S. (2022). Operational quantum mereology and minimal scrambling. Preprint arXiv:arXiv:2212.14340 https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2212.14340
2022 arXiv
-
[62]
Zanardi, P., Lidar, D., and Lloyd, S. (2004). Quantum tensor product structures are observable induced. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 92(6):060402
2004
Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.