Tractatus Quanticus

Carlo Rovelli; Niccol\`o Covoni

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

The paper claims that every fact is a fact from some perspective, and quantum mechanics describes correlations between systems rather than any perspective-free or absolute state.

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 18:26 UTC pith:P57HRAWG

load-bearing objection A clear, honest restatement of RQM in Tractatus form—no new results, but a valuable manifesto if you already accept the relational view. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2512.06034 v2 pith:P57HRAWG submitted 2025-12-04 quant-ph physics.hist-ph

Tractatus Quanticus

Niccol\`o Covoni , Carlo Rovelli This is my paper

classification quant-ph physics.hist-ph MSC 81P0500A30 PACS 03.65.Ta

keywords all facts are relative factsrelational quantum mechanicsperspectival factsmeasurement problemnon-commutative algebraabelian subalgebrarelative informationquantum foundations

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 rewrites a classic logical treatise in quantum terms to make the case that there is no perspective-free set of facts: the world is everything that is the case from some perspective, and all facts are relative facts. It argues that quantum mechanics provides the precise formal setting for this insight, because physical variables form a non-commutative algebra and a perspective is exactly an abelian subalgebra whose values carry information about the world. On this view, what is called the measurement problem is not a contradiction but a mismatch of perspectives: one system's certain fact is another system's correlation. If this is right, the theory removes the need for an absolute quantum state or an objective collapse, and it dissolves the riddle of consciousness by denying that there are non-physical facts.

Core claim

The paper asserts that 'all facts are relative facts': a fact is always the value of a variable in some perspective, and a perspective is a physical thing—a family of commuting variables—not a mental or ghostly thing. The quantum formalism supplies the mathematics: variables are elements of a non-commutative algebra, a perspective is an abelian subalgebra, and a relative fact is a value of one of its variables; certainty from another perspective is expressed by a conditional probability equal to one. Consequently there is no absolute state of a system and no collapse of the wave function; the 'measurement problem' is the same physical situation described from two incommensurable perspectives

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the identification of a 'perspective' with an abelian subalgebra of the non-commutative algebra of physical variables. Values of the commuting variables in that subalgebra are the facts in that perspective; conditional probabilities express when one system embodies a perspective on another; and mutual information quantifies how much one variable reveals about another. Because perspectives are treated as physical facts represented by commuting variables, the apparent contradictions of quantum measurement dissolve: what is a definite fact in one perspective is merely correlation in another.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a perspective and the knowledge it contains are fully captured by the values of a family of commuting physical variables; if this identification fails—for instance if knowledge or experience includes something that cannot be represented as relative information between commuting variables—the paper's dissolution of the measurement problem and of the consciousness riddle gives way.

What would settle it

Detection of an objective collapse mechanism, such as spontaneous localisation that suppresses interference above a definite mass threshold, would falsify the claim that no collapse is needed, because it would make facts absolute beyond any perspective. Alternatively, a demonstration that a measurement outcome is a fact without being embodied in any physical record or correlated variable—having no bearer at all—would refute the thesis that all facts are relative.

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

If this is right

No absolute quantum state: the state of a system is always relative to a perspective, so no observer-independent wave function or collapse mechanism needs to be postulated.
The measurement problem is reframed as a harmless difference of perspectives: one perspective sees an update of information, while another sees a continuous time evolution of mutual information.
Quantum non-predictability becomes a permanent feature: since some variables cannot have values together, facts are always incomplete and new interactions always yield genuinely new information.
Consciousness and experience are placed inside physics: a perspective is a physical configuration of variables, so there are no non-physical facts and no hard problem to solve.
The totality of all perspectives is not itself a perspective, so no 'view from nowhere' exists; the world is open and any conceptual scheme is provisional.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the argument implies that even a successor to quantum mechanics not formulated with Hilbert spaces would still need a notion of perspective or reference system for facts; the essential content is about correlations, not the specific non-commutative algebra.
Editorial inference: the paper's 'layers of description' idea—physical, chemical, biological, social—could serve as a criterion of theoretical coherence: two layers are compatible when they are descriptions of the same relative facts from different perspectives; this could be probed in coarse-graining and decoherence programs.
Editorial inference: if knowledge is relative information, then non-human systems such as measuring devices and artificial agents also instantiate perspectives; this gives a concrete way to test the claim by checking whether a machine's certainty about a variable follows the same conditional-probability structure the paper assigns to observers.
Editorial inference: the claim that 'the limits of my information are the limits of my world' suggests a testable asymmetry: if information is always incomplete, no finite observer can possess a complete description of a closed system; this could be examined in quantum thermodynamics or information-theoretic formulations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

A clear, honest restatement of RQM in Tractatus form—no new results, but a valuable manifesto if you already accept the relational view.

read the letter

Colleague,

This is well-written and honest, but it is not a new result. It is a restatement of RQM in the style of the Tractatus, and it says so. What it does well: it lays out the relational view with unusual clarity, uses the standard probabilistic and algebraic tools correctly (conditional probabilities, Shannon entropy, mutual information, abelian subalgebras), and it does not hide its cards—it explicitly calls itself a manifesto and a perspective on perspectives. The footnotes and references show genuine engagement with the literature, including the authors' prior work.

The soft spot is exactly where your reader puts it: the load-bearing identification of a perspective with an abelian subalgebra of variables (4.6.3) and knowledge with relative information (3.10) is stipulated, not derived. The dissolution of the measurement problem and the consciousness riddle follows only if you accept that identification. The paper offers no independent argument that first-person experience is nothing but a physical configuration correlated with the world; it asserts it. The endorsement of circularity (Section 6) is a philosophical stance, not an argument—it names the circularity and declares it harmless, but doesn't show why the regress is benign in the way needed. That is a real limitation, but it is the limitation of any interpretive essay that takes a stance on metaphysics.

I would not describe this as unsound in the sense of containing errors; the formal bits are fine. It is underdetermined, which is different. If you already accept RQM, this is a nice summary. If you don't, the paper won't convince you, because it rests on a premise you are asked to grant.

This is for philosophers of physics and quantum foundations folks who want a concise, modern statement of RQM in a memorable format. It deserves serious consideration for peer review in a philosophy journal, but I would not treat it as a research contribution to quant-ph. If I were editing a foundations journal, I'd send it to a referee—mostly to check that the philosophical framing is accurate, not because there is math to verify.

Read it if you work on RQM or teach the interpretation debate; otherwise you can skim.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper rewrites Wittgenstein's Tractatus as a numbered sequence of aphorisms to articulate a relational interpretation of quantum mechanics. Its central claim is that all facts are relative facts: the world is everything that is the case from some perspective, and a perspective is physically embodied as an abelian subalgebra of commuting variables. On this basis the paper argues that the measurement problem is merely a mismatch of perspectives, that the consciousness riddle dissolves because phenomenology and physics are the same phenomenon seen from different perspectives, and that circularity in this account is legitimate. The formal ingredients—conditional probability, Shannon entropy, mutual information, and abelian subalgebras—are introduced correctly, but the central metaphysical theses are asserted rather than derived.

Significance. If the framework were established, it would provide a coherent third way between realism and instrumentalism for quantum foundations, unifying RQM with information-theoretic concepts and offering a distinctive resolution of the measurement problem and the consciousness riddle. The paper is explicit that it is a manifesto and not a formal proof, and it does give credit to prior technical work, especially Di Biagio and Rovelli (2025). Its strength is the clarity with which it connects probability definitions to the idea of relative facts, and its honesty about its own provisional status (Section 6.10). However, the paper offers no new empirical predictions and no derivation of its central identification of perspectives with abelian subalgebras; the value of the project depends on whether that identification can be supported or at least precisely formulated as a hypothesis. The manuscript is best judged as a conceptual proposal: it is suggestive and well-written, but not yet a demonstration.

major comments (5)

[§4.6.3 and §4.14] The identification of a perspective with an abelian subalgebra is the load-bearing premise of the entire dissolution of the measurement problem and of the consciousness riddle. The text simply asserts this identification and cites Di Biagio and Rovelli (2025), but it is not derived from the quantum formalism or from the earlier definitions. If knowledge or phenomenal consciousness is not exhausted by definite values of a commuting set of variables—for instance, if knowledge can involve noncommuting observables—then the conclusions in §§4.11, 4.14, and 5.7 do not follow. This is an interpretive stipulation, not a consequence of quantum mechanics, and it needs a supporting argument or at least an explicit caveat that everything downstream rests on that stipulation.
[§3.3–3.6] The formal definition of 'fact relative to b' uses p_b(a)=1, but Section 3.6 connects this to 'relative information I_A|B maximal' without defining I_A|B or proving the equivalence. Maximal mutual information I(A;B)=H(A) implies that A is a function of B, but 'a is a fact relative to the actual value b' requires the conditional distribution to be concentrated on that specific value; these are distinct conditions. Moreover, the joint distribution p(a,b) in Section 3.3 is not assigned to any perspective, which is problematic in a theory whose central claim is that all probabilities and facts are relative. The formal apparatus therefore does not yet establish the metaphysical thesis of Section 3.7.1.
[§5.2.4 and §3.7] The paper asserts that 'Nature is coherent' and that perspectives are transparent to one another, immediately after allowing facts to be incompatible across perspectives. A precise consistency condition is needed: given two perspectives represented by abelian subalgebras, when are their fact sets compatible? A Wigner's-friend scenario is the natural test, and the manuscript does not run such a check. Without a consistency criterion, the claim that perspectives are transparent because they are facts remains metaphorical rather than a substantive assertion of the framework.
[§3.10.2.3 and §5.7] The dissolution of the consciousness riddle depends on 'Phenomenology is same, not distinct, from physics' and on the claim that knowledge is physically underpinned by relative information between variables. These are asserted without argument and are not consequences of the quantum formalism. They are also not defended against obvious alternatives, such as first-person experience being a higher-order property not identical to a set of correlations. As with §4.6.3, this is a load-bearing premise that needs support if the paper is to do more than restate a physicalist stance.
[§6.2–6.3.2.1] The paper's embrace of circularity is central to its method, since facts are defined through perspectives and perspectives through facts. The cited Aczel theorem shows that certain self-referential set equations have unique solutions under the anti-foundation axiom, but it does not establish that physical or epistemic circularity is harmless; uniqueness holds only for the specific set-theoretic setup and only under AFA. The paper needs to say why the analogy supports the epistemology. As written, the claim that escaping circularity is 'logically incoherent' is itself asserted, not proven.

minor comments (6)

[§6.2] Typo: 'possibile' should be 'possible'.
[§4.4.2.1.1] Typo and grammar: 'we are outselves a term' should be 'we are ourselves a term'.
[§4.3.1 (Short and Long)] Two different numbered items are both labeled 4.3.1; renumber to avoid confusion.
[§3.6] The notation I_A|B is used but not defined; Section 3.5 defines only I_A:B. Clarify the relation between the two.
[§4.6.5] The expression 'ρ(a "quantum state")' is malformed; define ρ as a linear functional or state and give the spectral decomposition consistently.
[§6.3.2.1] The name 'Zermelo–Frankel' should be 'Zermelo–Fraenkel'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The core thesis is definitional: 'fact' is defined as perspective-relative (3.3.1) and then all facts are declared relative (3.7.1); the key perspective-as-abelian-subalgebra premise is a self-cited stipulation (4.6.3), making the dissolution of the measurement problem and consciousness riddle follow from assumptions, not evidence.

specific steps

self definitional [Sections 1.2, 3.3.1, 3.7.1]
"1.2. Something that is the case from a perspective is a fact, from (or in) a perspective. 3.3.1. a is a fact relative to b, or is a fact in the perspective b, if p b(a) = 1. 3.7.1. All facts are relative facts."

The paper first defines 'fact' as 'something that is the case from a perspective' and defines 'fact relative to b' as p_b(a)=1. The central conclusion 'All facts are relative facts' then follows by construction from these definitions. It is a tautology of the chosen terminology, not a result derived from quantum mechanics or from independent evidence. This definitional conclusion is the load-bearing premise used later to dissolve the measurement problem (4.11) and the consciousness riddle (5.7).
self citation load bearing [Section 4.6.3 (footnote 31)]
"4.6.3. The facts that embody a perspective are represented by simultaneous values of variables. Therefore a perspective is defined by an abelian subalgebra of the algebra of variables. An abelian subalgebra is a linear subset of an algebra formed by elements that commute (such that AB=BA). [fn 31] Di Biagio and Rovelli (2025)."

The identification of a perspective with an abelian subalgebra is the key mathematical premise that later licenses 'I, as carrier of thought and knowledge, am a set of values of a set of variables that commute' (4.14) and the dismissal of the consciousness riddle (5.7). The paper does not derive this identification here; it imports it from a prior paper by the same senior author. Because that cited prior work is not machine-checked or otherwise independently verified, the central framework rests on a self-citation rather than on an external mathematical or empirical result.

full rationale

The paper is an openly programmatic manifesto rather than a theorem-proof derivation, and much of it is a restatement of RQM. However, the specific derivation chain it claims is circular in two ways. First, 'fact' is stipulated to be perspective-relative at the outset (1.2, 3.3.1), so the headline conclusion 'All facts are relative facts' (3.7.1) is equivalent to its input by definition. Second, the step that turns this philosophical definition into a mathematical framework—identifying perspectives with abelian subalgebras (4.6.3)—is attributed to the authors' own prior work (Di Biagio & Rovelli 2025) and is not independently argued or verified; it is load-bearing for the later dissolution of the measurement problem (4.11) and the consciousness riddle (5.7). Section 6 explicitly embraces circularity, but acknowledging circularity does not remove it. There are no external benchmarks or predictions against which the framework is tested, so the circularity is not mitigated by independent confirmation. I therefore score 8: the central result is forced by definition and by a self-citation chain, even though the paper is candid about its programmatic character.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters, but its central claims rest on a chain of definitions imported from RQM by the same authors. The ledger shows the burden: a small set of axiomatic identifications, no independent empirical anchors.

axioms (5)

standard math Non-commutative algebra of observables and linear states describe quantum systems.
Section 4.6 and 4.6.5 invoke the standard operator-algebraic formulation without proof.
domain assumption Facts are values of variables that arise in interactions.
Section 4.1-4.3 defines the central ontology of RQM; not derived from elsewhere in the paper.
ad hoc to paper Perspectives are identified with abelian subalgebras of commuting variables.
Section 4.6.3 introduces this as the mathematical embodiment of a perspective; a substantive interpretive choice.
domain assumption Knowledge reduces to relative information between physical systems.
Section 3.10 asserts knowledge is physically underpinned by relative information; no argument gives the completeness of this reduction.
ad hoc to paper Useful circularity is legitimate, supported by Aczel's non-well-founded set theory.
Section 6.3.2.1 imports Aczel's graph decoration theorem to justify circularity in the paper's own framework.

invented entities (1)

Physical perspective (embodied as an abelian subalgebra of variables) no independent evidence
purpose: Replaces the notion of observer/absolute state in quantum description and underwrites the claim that all facts are relative.
The paper postulates that perspectives are physical facts, but offers no falsifiable handle that would distinguish this entity from standard quantum state assignments.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12285 in / 11632 out tokens · 109905 ms · 2026-08-03T18:26:39.233212+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

This is a re-editing, which takes quantum mechanics into account, of Wittgenstein's famous Tractatus. The operation has a playful side in the form, but is a serious attempt to capture possible philosophical implications of the Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and formalize the naturalistic third-way between realism and instrumentalism explored by this interpretation.

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

The New Tractatus Program: Quantum Mechanics, Anti-Totalitarian Ontology, and Consciousness
physics.hist-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

Three tractatus-style texts form a New Tractatus Program that de-absolutizes reality and treats consciousness as an integrated, operationally accessible perspective under relational quantum mechanics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

2 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung

Aczel, P. (1988).Non-Well-Founded Sets. Palo Alto, CA, USA: Csli Lecture Notes. Arcas, B. (2025).What Is Intelligence?: Lessons from AI About Evolution, Computing, and Minds. Antikythera. MIT Press. Bub, J. and I. Pitowsky (2010). Two dogmas about quantum mechanics. In S. Saunders, J. Bar- rett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace (Eds.),Many Worlds?: Everett, Quantu...

1988
[1921]

(1953).Philosophical Investigations

Wittgenstein, L. (1953).Philosophical Investigations. New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Blackwell. Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets.Information and Control 8(3), 338–353. 17

1953

[1] [1]

Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung

Aczel, P. (1988).Non-Well-Founded Sets. Palo Alto, CA, USA: Csli Lecture Notes. Arcas, B. (2025).What Is Intelligence?: Lessons from AI About Evolution, Computing, and Minds. Antikythera. MIT Press. Bub, J. and I. Pitowsky (2010). Two dogmas about quantum mechanics. In S. Saunders, J. Bar- rett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace (Eds.),Many Worlds?: Everett, Quantu...

1988

[2] [1921]

(1953).Philosophical Investigations

Wittgenstein, L. (1953).Philosophical Investigations. New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Blackwell. Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets.Information and Control 8(3), 338–353. 17

1953