Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

In indefinite-causality quantum theory, observers are not primitive entities but perspective-relative groupings of input and output data, and a stance called operational eternalism makes this precise.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:46 UTC pith:ULRHPAKP

load-bearing objection A well-sourced interpretive paper whose perspectival-agency thesis holds up; the friendliness criterion's symmetry is asserted without proof and the anti-reconciliation conclusion overreaches, but it deserves a serious referee. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.22879 v2 pith:ULRHPAKP submitted 2025-12-28 quant-ph

Agency under indefinite causality: operational eternalism in higher-order quantum theory

Alexei Grinbaum This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords indefinite causalityoperational eternalismhigher-order quantum theoryobserverfriendliness criteriontime-delocalized subsystemscausal non-separabilityblock universe
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that two decades of research on indefinite causality reveal a fundamental tension between operational quantum theory and dynamical spacetime physics that cannot be bridged if both are taken as fundamental. Its proposed resolution is operational eternalism: all inputs and outputs are primary data in a global Hilbert space, and observers are not assumed but constructed by admissible groupings of that data. Agency is therefore perspectival — from Alice's perspective Bob may not even qualify as an agent. The paper concludes that the observer's real role is to be a 'servant of causality,' and it supplies an operational criterion for which agents can be mutually compatible friends. If correct, this redefines the observer in quantum foundations and shifts the burden from spacetime to data.

Core claim

The central claim is that agents arise from admissible groupings of input and output data in a global Hilbert space, and that redefining these groupings can eliminate non-causality. Because any fixed perspective imposes a local time arrow and a circuit representation, an agent's operations may appear time-delocalized from another agent's perspective, making observerhood genuinely perspectival. The paper calls the global view 'operational eternalism' — a block-universe stance applied to information rather than geometry — and states that observers are well-defined from that global view but not universal across perspectives. It then defines friendliness: observer A is a friend of B iff A's oper

What carries the argument

The central machinery is higher-order quantum theory in a global Hilbert space, where supermaps connect slots for agents' channels without any global time ordering. Within this, the key defined object is the friendliness criterion: A is a friend of B iff A's operations are time-localized transformations in B's circuit, taken to require a common unitary respecting both agents' time arrows. This criterion carries the argument by deciding which agents in friend scenarios are causally compatible; time-delocalization of an agent's input/output subspaces in another agent's frame is the obstruction that makes non-friendly agents operationally incoherent. Operational eternalism supplies the global p

Load-bearing premise

The friendliness criterion assumes that A's time-localizability in B's circuit and B's time-localizability in A's circuit are equivalent — i.e., that friendliness is symmetric — but this equivalence is asserted rather than proven, and the conclusions about who counts as an observer depend on it.

What would settle it

Search process matrices for a bipartite or tripartite setting where Alice's operations admit a time-local representation in Bob's circuit but Bob's operations are time-delocalized in Alice's circuit; any such example would break the symmetry of friendliness. Concretely, one can take the quantum switch and test, using the standard time-delocalization conditions, whether mutual localizability holds for all pairs of agents; if it fails in either direction, the friendliness criterion collapses.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The observer in operational quantum theory becomes a derived mathematical object: any grouping of inputs and outputs that satisfies consistency constraints (no grandfather paradox, no two-way signalling) counts as a valid observer.
  • In a fixed perspective, only 'friendly' agents — those whose operations are mutually time-localizable — can share a causal sequence and exchange classical results; all other observers are operationally incoherent from that perspective.
  • Non-causal processes such as the Lugano process and the cyclic quantum switch can be made causal by adding agents in the global past and future, at the cost of reducing those extra agents to epiphenomenal single-data observers.
  • If the operational-spacetime tension is indeed unbridgeable for fundamental theories, the operational approach signals the obsolescence of the spacetime picture rather than a gap to be reconciled.
  • The framework suggests that even the input/output bipartition is not sacred: the theory may eventually decide which data points are inputs and which are outputs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If friendliness is symmetric, mutual time-localizability defines an equivalence relation among observers; one could then partition global data into equivalence classes of mutually compatible perspectives, and the two lab frames in the quantum switch would belong to different classes.
  • A testable extension: numerically search process matrices with three or more parties for cases where A's operations are time-local in B's frame but B's are not in A's; finding one would falsify the symmetry claim and force a revision of the friendliness criterion.
  • Applied to friend-scenario no-go theorems, operational eternalism suggests the apparent paradox arises from comparing incompatible observer perspectives, which would dissolve the contradiction rather than require a new physical mechanism.
  • Operational eternalism could guide experiment: in optical realizations of the quantum switch, one could attempt to assign a definite time to the other lab's operation and look for the predicted unavoidable time-delocalization, within reach of current interferometric controls.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that two decades of work on indefinite causality in higher-order quantum theory motivate a new interpretive stance, 'operational eternalism.' On this view, the primitive objects of an operational theory are inputs and outputs in a global Hilbert space; agents or observers are not metatheoretical assumptions but are constituted by admissible groupings of those data. Because different groupings are possible, agency is perspectival: from Alice's perspective Bob may not qualify as an observer, and vice versa. The paper illustrates this with the quantum switch and the Lugano process, discusses why non-causal processes are difficult to embed as circuits in spacetime, and proposes an operational criterion of 'friendliness' for Wigner-type scenarios: A is a friend of B iff A's operations can be represented as time-localized transformations in B's circuit representation. It concludes that observers are 'servants of causality' and that the spacetime/operational tension cannot be bridged if both frameworks are taken as fundamental.

Significance. If correct, the paper would make a substantive contribution to the foundations of quantum mechanics by offering a coherent philosophical framework for indefinite causality and by connecting results about time-delocalized subsystems to the Wigner-friend debate. It draws on established technical results—Hardy's causaloids, Oreshkov's time-delocalization, Wechs-Oreshkov's perspective transformations, and Baumeler-Wolf's Lugano process—and contains no free parameters or curve fitting, which keeps the interpretive claims cleanly separated from adjustable assumptions. The friendliness criterion is a genuinely new proposal with the potential to sharpen future discussions of causally compatible observers. However, the central load-bearing step—the symmetry of friendliness—is asserted rather than proved, and the paper's strong conclusion about the unbridgeable tension with spacetime relies on an interpretive premise that is not derived.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4] The friendliness criterion is defined directionally: 'observer A is a friend of observer B iff A's operations can be represented as time-localized transformations in the circuit representation of B.' The very next sentence states: 'From the eternalist viewpoint, this requires the existence of a unitary transformation respecting the time arrows of both observers. Hence friendliness is symmetric.' This 'hence' is a non-sequitur unless one proves that A-local-in-B's-frame is equivalent to the existence of a common unitary respecting both time arrows. No derivation or citation is supplied for this equivalence, and the cited results [62,85] concern one-way time-delocalization from a chosen perspective, not an equivalence relation. If there is a process in which A's operations are time-local in B's circuit but B's operations are not time-local in A's circuit, then the Abstract's 'and vice vers
  2. [Sec. 6] The friendliness criterion is operationalized in the conclusion as: 'a friend is another observer whose measurement result can be communicated to the initial one and compared with their measurement result without any temporal non-locality.' This is not derived from the formal criterion. One needs to show that time-local representability of A's operations in B's circuit is sufficient (and necessary) for A and B to classically communicate and compare their outcomes with compatible time labels. The paper gives no argument for this equivalence. Without it, the criterion does not connect to the Wigner-friend paradox literature in the way the paper claims.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 6] The motivating claim that the tension between operational quantum theory and dynamical spacetime physics is 'impossible to bridge if both types of theories are taken as fundamental' is used to dismiss reconciliation attempts such as [82]. This is a strong philosophical premise, not a consequence of the technical results cited (time-delocalized subsystems and non-embeddable processes show a conflict, not in-principle unbridgeability). The conditional form 'if one believes both types of theories to be fundamental' softens the claim, but the paper's paradigm-shift conclusion depends on it. Please either provide a precise no-go argument for the unbridgeability, or explicitly state that this is a starting assumption of the interpretive proposal rather than a theorem.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5 / Fig. 5] The caption says 'the subspace of the quantum system is assumed to be accessible in both labs,' yet the surrounding text says Alice's input and output are time-delocalized in Bob's perspective. It would help to explain how accessibility and delocalization are compatible in this example.
  2. [Sec. 5] The sentence 'one out of eight settings allowed by the consistency constraints (green graphs in Figure 7) belongs to this category' is unclear: Figure 7 displays several graphs, and the reader cannot tell which of the eight settings is meant or how the green graphs map onto the enumeration. Please specify.
  3. [References] Reference [44] contains a typo: 'A VS Quantum Science' should be 'AVS Quantum Science.'
  4. [Sec. 4] The distinction between 'observer-neutral' (attributed to [85]) and 'observer-indefinite' is made in a single sentence. Since this distinction matters for the global perspective of operational eternalism, a fuller explanation would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a conceptual synthesis; its self-citations are background, and the only flagged logical gap is an unproved symmetry assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the paper's claimed derivation chain: there are no fitting parameters, no data, and no equations whose outputs are the inputs under a new name. The central claims are (i) agents are lawful groupings of inputs/outputs, taken from Hardy's causaloid cards; (ii) regrouping inputs/outputs can remove non-causality, supported by external results on the Lugano process and quantum switch (e.g., [55,75,62,85]); and (iii) under the proposed 'friendliness' criterion, A is a friend of B iff A's operations are time-localized in B's circuit representation. None of these steps is derived by fitting a parameter and then calling the result a prediction. The author's self-citations ([45,46,47,59,78]) are used for historical context, background views, or concrete examples; they do not carry the load-bearing argument. The main logical concern is in Sec. 4: the text states, 'From the eternalist viewpoint, this requires the existence of a unitary transformation respecting the time arrows of both observers. Hence friendliness is symmetric.' This is an omitted proof or unstated assumption: the symmetry of the friendliness relation does not follow from the asymmetric definition alone, and the cited one-way time-delocalization results do not establish it. However, an unproved assumption is not circularity—it is a correctness or completeness risk. The conclusion would fail if the assumption were false, but it is not equivalent to the premise by construction. Therefore the paper has no significant circularity; the low nonzero score reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations and the unresolved symmetry premise that should be weighed in a correctness review rather than a circularity verdict.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The paper is an interpretation, so its ledger is dominated by borrowed axioms and asserted premises rather than invented quantities. It contributes no free parameters and introduces no physical entities; the two 'invented' items are conceptual constructs (a named interpretive stance and a definitional criterion). The central claims rest on (i) the operational starting point that inputs/outputs are primitive and agents are groupings of them (Hardy's causaloid axioms, Sec. 2.3), (ii) the higher-order/process-matrix formalism (Sec. 3), (iii) Oreshkov's time-delocalization and Wechs-Oreshkov's causal-perspectives results (Sec. 3-4), and (iv) the paper's own asserted premise that the operational/spacetime tension is unbridgeable (Abstract, Sec. 6). The friendliness criterion is definitional; its symmetry is asserted, not derived.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Inputs and outputs are primitive; a physical theory correlates data points, and agents are groupings of such data (Hardy's causaloid postulates 1-2)
    Adopted in Sec. 2.3 and carried into Sec. 4-5 as the foundation of operational eternalism; the paper does not derive this starting point.
  • domain assumption Physicalization axiom: every test can be realized as a channel followed by a measurement on an ancilla
    Invoked in Sec. 3 to connect operational tests to empirical readouts; cited to Chiribella [26].
  • domain assumption Admissible observer groupings are those avoiding the grandfather paradox and two-way signalling (consistency constraints)
    Sec. 5 uses these constraints to define lawful groupings; standard in the process-matrix literature [10,63].
  • ad hoc to paper The operational/spacetime tension is in principle unbridgeable if both types of theory are fundamental
    Asserted in Abstract and Sec. 6; used to dismiss reconciliation frameworks such as [82]; not derived.
  • domain assumption Higher-order quantum theory (supermaps) in a global Hilbert space, including the observer-neutral top-down construction, is the correct description of indefinite causality
    Sec. 3 relies on supermaps [27], process matrices [63], and the observer-neutral construction [85] as given.
  • standard math Standard Hilbert-space mathematics (tensor products, unitaries, subspaces)
    Background for the technical statements in Sec. 3-5.
invented entities (2)
  • operational eternalism no independent evidence
    purpose: Interpretive stance: all inputs/outputs considered simultaneously in a higher-order process, 'freezing information' as the block universe freezes geometry; grounds perspectival agency and the derived-observer thesis
    Introduced in Sec. 4; a philosophical construct with no falsifiable handle outside the paper; its only support is the cited time-delocalization results, which it interprets.
  • friendliness (operational criterion) no independent evidence
    purpose: Defines causally compatible agents in Wigner-type scenarios: A is a friend of B iff A's operations are time-localized in B's circuit representation; claimed symmetric
    Proposed in Sec. 4; purely definitional, and the symmetry is asserted without derivation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14427 in / 23230 out tokens · 204695 ms · 2026-08-03T13:46:54.542725+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

After two decades of research on indefinite causality, a conceptual lesson emerges: the tension between operational quantum theory and dynamical spacetime physics requires observers, or agents, to be defined within the theory itself. Agents arise from admissible groupings of input and output data in a global Hilbert space, and redefining these groupings may eliminate non-causality. Agency is perspectival: from Alice's perspective, Bob may fail to qualify as an observer, and vice versa. We interpret these results through an \emph{operational eternalism}, a stance analogous to the block-universe view but applied to information rather than geometry. Observers are thus well-defined in the global eternalist picture, but they are not universal across local perspectives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.22879 by Alexei Grinbaum.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The quantum switch achieves an indefinite causal order [59]. Depend [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Higher-order processes are generalized processes in a global Hilbert [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Process matrix [63] in the higher-order process formalism [77]. Alice’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The quantum switch in a circuit representation from Bob’s perspec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In his laboratory, the external observer Bob can measure the joint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Data under operational eternalism. Left: data points are not initially [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Characterization of all pairwise non-isomorphic consistent (green) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A cyclic diagram that describes the quantum switch [85]. Letters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A circuit diagram describes a sequential process that can be imple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Causality from the spectrum: Emergence of causal order from process-matrix mereology

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    A process matrix can be unitarily transformed to a fixed-causal-order process exactly when its eigenvalue multiplicities are divisible by the final output dimension; generic high-dimensional spectra are close to such spectra.

  2. Frame perspectives for process matrices: from coordinate parametrization to spacetime representation

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Causal reference frame and time-delocalized subsystem descriptions of pure processes are coordinate parametrizations of a single neutral object, with unitary perspective transformations possible by reshuffling time or...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abbott, C

    A. Abbott, C. Giarmatzi, F. Costa, and C. Branciard. Multipartite causal correlations: Polytopes and inequalities.Phys. Rev. A, 94:032131, 2016, arXiv:1608.01528

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    A. A. Abbott, M. Mhalla, and P. Pocreau. Quantum query complexity of boolean functions under indefinite causal order.Phys. Rev. Res., 6:L032020, 2024, arXiv:2307.10285

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    E. Adlam. Spooky action at a temporal distance.Entropy, 20(1), 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Adlam and C

    E. Adlam and C. Rovelli. Information is physical: Cross-perspective links in relational quantum mechanics.Philosophy of Physics, Nov 2023, arXiv:2203.13342

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Ara´ ujo, C

    M. Ara´ ujo, C. Branciard, F. Costa, A. Feix, C. Giarmatzi, andˇC. Brukner. Witnessing causal nonseparability.New Journal of Physics, 17(10):102001, 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    Ara´ ujo, F

    M. Ara´ ujo, F. Costa, and ˇC. Brukner. Computational advantage from quantum-controlled ordering of gates.Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:250402, 2014

    2014

  7. [7]

    Bacciagaluppi and A

    G. Bacciagaluppi and A. Valentini.Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009

    1927

  8. [8]

    J. Barrett. Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories. Physical Review A, 75(3):032304, Mar. 2007

    2007

  9. [9]

    Barrett, R

    J. Barrett, R. Lorenz, and O. Oreshkov. Cyclic quantum causal models. Nature Communications, 12(1), Feb. 2021, arXiv:2002.12157

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Baumeler and S

    ¨A. Baumeler and S. Wolf. The space of logically consistent classical pro- cesses without causal order.New Journal of Physics, 18:013036, 2016

    2016

  11. [11]

    Bavaresco, M

    J. Bavaresco, M. Murao, and M. T. Quintino. Unitary channel discrimi- nation beyond group structures: Advantages of sequential and indefinite- causal-order strategies.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 63(4):042203, 2022, arXiv:2105.13369

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    J. Bell. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.Physica, 1:195–200, 1964

    1964

  13. [13]

    J. Bell. On the problem of hidden variables in quantum theory.Rev. Mod. Phys., 38:447–452, 1966. Reprinted in J. Bell.Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics.Cambridge University Press, 1987

    1966

  14. [14]

    J. Bell. The theory of local beables. Technical report, TH-2053-CERN,

    2053

  15. [15]

    J. Bell. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments. InProceedings of the Sym- posium on Frontier Problems in High Energy Physics in honour of Gilberto Bernardini on his 70th birthday, Pisa, 1976. Reprinted in J. Bell.Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics.Cambridge University Press, 1987

    1976

  16. [16]

    J. Bell. Free variables and local causality.Epistemological Letters, February 1977

    1977

  17. [17]

    J. Bell. Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality.J. Phys. Colloques, 42:41–61, 1981. Reprinted in J. Bell.Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics.Cambridge University Press, 1987

    1981

  18. [18]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, C. A. Fuchs, T. Mor, E. Rains, P. W. Shor, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters. Quantum nonlocality without entanglement.Phys. Rev. A, 59:1070–1091, Feb 1999

    1999

  19. [19]

    Bohm.Quantum theory

    D. Bohm.Quantum theory. Prentice Hall, New York, 1951

    1951

  20. [20]

    Bohm.Causality and chance in modern physics

    D. Bohm.Causality and chance in modern physics. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1957

    1957

  21. [21]

    K.-W. Bong, A. Utreras-Alarc´ on, F. Ghafari, Y.-C. Liang, N. Tischler, E. G. Cavalcanti, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wiseman. A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox.Nature Physics, 2020

    2020

  22. [22]

    Branciard, M

    C. Branciard, M. Ara´ ujo, A. Feix, F. Costa, andˇC. Brukner. The simplest causal inequalities and their violation.New Journal of Physics, 18:013008, 2015

    2015

  23. [23]

    ˇC. Brukner. Quantum causality.Nature Physics, 10:259–263, 2014

    2014

  24. [24]

    Brukner, S

    ˇC. Brukner, S. Taylor, S. Cheung, and V. Vedral. Quantum entanglement in time, 2004, quant-ph/0402127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  25. [25]

    Castro-Ruiz, F

    E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, A. Belenchia, and ˇC. Brukner. Quan- tum clocks and the temporal localisability of events in the presence of gravitating quantum systems.Nature Communications, 11(1), May 2020, arXiv:1908.10165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Chiribella

    G. Chiribella. Dilation of states and processes in operational-probabilistic theories.Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, 172:1–14, Dec. 2014, arXiv:1412.8539

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti. Transforming quantum operations: Quantum supermaps.Europhysics Letters, 83(3):30004, jul 2008

    2008

  28. [28]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. d’Ariano, and P. Perinotti. Informational derivation of quantum theory.Phys. Rev. A, 84:012311, 2011. 21

    2011

  29. [29]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and B. Valiron. Quan- tum computations without definite causal structure.Physical Review A, 88(2):022318, Aug. 2013, arXiv:0912.0195

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    Chiribella and Z

    G. Chiribella and Z. Liu. Quantum operations with indefinite time direc- tion.Communications Physics, 5(1), 2022, arXiv:2012.03859

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Clauser, R

    J. Clauser, R. Holt, M. Horne, and A. Shimony. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories.Phys. Rev. Lett., 23:880–884, 1969

    1969

  32. [32]

    Clauser and M

    J. Clauser and M. Horne. Experimental consequences of objective local theories.Phys. Rev. D, 10:526–535, 1974

    1974

  33. [33]

    B. Coecke. Quantum picturalism.Contemporary Physics, 51:59–83, 2010

    2010

  34. [34]

    Coecke and A

    B. Coecke and A. Kissinger.Picturing Quantum Processes: A First Course in Quantum Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017

    2017

  35. [35]

    Einstein

    A. Einstein. Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativit¨ atstheorie.Annalen der Physik, 49:769–822, 1916

    1916

  36. [36]

    Einstein

    A. Einstein. What is the theory of relativity?London Times, 1919. Reprinted in: A. Einstein,Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, New York, 1982

    1919

  37. [37]

    Einstein.Letters to Solovine 1906-1955

    A. Einstein.Letters to Solovine 1906-1955. Philosophical Library, New York, 1987

    1906

  38. [38]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical de- scription of physical reality be considered complete?Phys. Rev., 47:777, 1935

    1935

  39. [39]

    T. Filk. Temporal non-locality.Foundations of Physics, 43:533–547, 2013

    2013

  40. [40]

    Frauchiger and R

    D. Frauchiger and R. Renner. Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself.Nature Communications, 9:3711, 2018

    2018

  41. [41]

    Freire, Jr.The Quantum Dissidents: Rebuilding the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1950-1990)

    O. Freire, Jr.The Quantum Dissidents: Rebuilding the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1950-1990). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2015

    1950

  42. [42]

    Friedman.Dynamics of Reason

    M. Friedman.Dynamics of Reason. CSLI Publications, Stanford, 2001

    2001

  43. [43]

    T. Fritz. Quantum correlations in the temporal CHSH scenario.New Journal of Physics, 12(8):083055, 2010, arXiv:1005.3421

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    Goswami and J

    K. Goswami and J. Romero. Experiments on quantum causality.A VS Quantum Science, 2(3):037101, 09 2020

    2020

  45. [45]

    Grinbaum

    A. Grinbaum. How device-independent approaches change the meaning of physical theory.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B, 58:22–30, 2017, arXiv:1512.01035. 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Grinbaum

    A. Grinbaum. The effectiveness of mathematics in physics of the unknown. Synthese, 196:973–989, 2019, philsci/13191

    2019

  47. [47]

    Grinbaum

    A. Grinbaum. Quantum information and the quest for reconstruction of quantum theory. In O. Freire, editor,Oxford Handbook of the History of Interpretations of Quantum Physics, pages 417–436. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2022

    2022

  48. [48]

    L. Hardy. Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms. 2000, arXiv:quant- ph/00101012

    arXiv 2000

  49. [49]

    L. Hardy. Probability theories with dynamic causal structure: A new frame- work for quantum gravity. 2005, arXiv:gr-qc/0509120

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  50. [50]

    L. Hardy. Towards quantum gravity: a framework for probabilistic theories with non-fixed causal structure.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40(12):3081–3099, 2007

    2007

  51. [51]

    Heisenberg

    W. Heisenberg. ¨Uber quantentheoretische Umdeutung kinematischer und mechanischer Beziehungen.Zeit. f. Phys., 33:879–893, 1925

    1925

  52. [52]

    Heisenberg.Der Teil und das Ganze: Gespr¨ ache im Umkreis der Atom- physik

    W. Heisenberg.Der Teil und das Ganze: Gespr¨ ache im Umkreis der Atom- physik. R. Piper and Co. Verlag, M¨ unchen, 1969. English translation: Physics and Beyond, Harper Collins, 1971

    1969

  53. [53]

    Hilbert, J

    D. Hilbert, J. von Neumann, and L. Nordheim. ¨Uber die Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik.Math. Ann., 98:1–30, 1927. (Reprinted in J. von NeumannCollected WorksPergamon Press, Oxford, 1961, Vol. I, pp. 104– 133)

    1927

  54. [54]

    Jauch and C

    J. Jauch and C. Piron. “can hidden variables be excluded in quantum mechanics?Helvetica Physica Acta, 36:827–837, 1963

    1963

  55. [55]

    Kunjwal and ¨A

    R. Kunjwal and ¨A. Baumeler. Trading causal order for locality.Physical Review Letters, 131(12), Sept. 2023

    2023

  56. [56]

    F. Laudisa. How and when did locality become ‘local realism’ ? A historical and critical analysis (1963–1978).Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 97:44–57, 2023

    1963

  57. [57]

    A. J. Leggett and A. Garg. Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: Is the flux there when nobody looks?Phys. Rev. Lett., 54:857–860, 1985

    1985

  58. [58]

    Liu and G

    Z. Liu and G. Chiribella. Tsirelson bounds for quantum correlations with indefinite causal order.Nature Communications, 16(1), Apr. 2025

    2025

  59. [59]

    Loizeau and A

    N. Loizeau and A. Grinbaum. Channel capacity enhancement with indefi- nite causal order.Phys. Rev. A, 101:012340, 2020

    2020

  60. [60]

    London and E

    F. London and E. Bauer.La th´ eorie de l’observation en m´ ecanique quan- tique. Hermann, Paris, 1939. English translation in [86, p. 218–259]. 23

    1939

  61. [61]

    Mejdoub and A

    I. Mejdoub and A. Vanrietvelde. Unilateral determination of causal order in a cyclic process, 2025, arXiv:2506.18540

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Oreshkov

    O. Oreshkov. Time-delocalized quantum subsystems and operations: on the existence of processes with indefinite causal structure in quantum me- chanics.Quantum, 3:206, 2019, 1801.07594

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Oreshkov, F

    O. Oreshkov, F. Costa, and ˇC. Brukner. Quantum correlations with no causal order.Nature Communications, 3:1092, 2012

    2012

  64. [64]

    Oreshkov and C

    O. Oreshkov and C. Giarmatzi. Causal and causally separable processes. New Journal of Physics, 18(9):093020, Sept. 2016, arXiv:1506.05449

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  65. [65]

    J. Pienaar. A quintet of quandaries: Five no-go theorems for re- lational quantum mechanics.Foundations of Physics, 51(5), 2021, arXiv:2107.00670

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    S. Popescu. Nonlocality beyond quantum mechanics.Nature Physics, 10:264–270, 2014

    2014

  67. [67]

    Popescu and D

    S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich. Nonlocality as an axiom for quantum theory. Foundations of Physics, 24:379, 1994, quant-ph/9508009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  68. [68]

    Price.Time’s arrow and Archimedes’ point

    H. Price.Time’s arrow and Archimedes’ point. Oxford University Press, 1996

    1996

  69. [69]

    C. Rovelli. Time in quantum gravity: An hypothesis.Phys. Rev. D, 43(2):442–456, 1991

    1991

  70. [70]

    L. A. Rozema, T. Str¨ omberg, H. Cao, Y. Guo, B.-H. Liu, and P. Walther. Experimental aspects of indefinite causal order in quantum mechanics.Na- ture Reviews Physics, 6:483, 2024, arXiv:2405.00767

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Salzger and V

    M. Salzger and V. Vilasini. Mapping indefinite causal order processes to composable quantum protocols in a spacetime.New Journal of Physics, 27(2):023002, 2025, arXiv:2404.05319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Schmid, Y

    D. Schmid, Y. Y ¯ ıng, and M. Leifer. Copenhagenish interpretations of quan- tum mechanics, 2025, arXiv:2506.00112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    A. Shimony. Controllable and uncontrollable non-locality. In S. Kamefuchi et al., editors,Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, pages 225–230. Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo, 1984

    1984

  74. [74]

    Sider.Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time

    T. Sider.Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001

    2001

  75. [75]

    Steffinlongo and H

    A. Steffinlongo and H. Dourdent. Simulating noncausality with quantum control of causal orders, 2025, arXiv:2502.15579. 24

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Str¨ omberg, P

    T. Str¨ omberg, P. Schiansky, M. T. Quintino, M. Antesberger, L. A. Rozema, I. Agresti, v. Brukner, and P. Walther. Experimental super- position of a quantum evolution with its time reverse.Physical Review Research, 6(2), 2024, arXiv:2211.01283

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Taranto, S

    P. Taranto, S. Milz, M. Murao, M. T. Quintino, and K. Modi. Higher-order quantum operations. 2025, arXiv:2503.09693

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Terris and A

    B. Terris and A. Grinbaum. Observation as a temporal process: Rethinking empirical confirmation in relational quantum mechanics. 2025

    2025

  79. [79]

    Tselentis and ¨A

    E.-E. Tselentis and ¨A. Baumeler. Admissible causal structures and corre- lations.PRX Quantum, 4(4), Oct. 2023, arXiv:2210.12796

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    van der Lugt, J

    T. van der Lugt, J. Barrett, and G. Chiribella. Device-independent certification of indefinite causal order in the quantum switch, 2023, arXiv:2208.00719

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.