Talk:Quantum foundations

Major rewrite

This entry is deeply incomplete, so I intend to conduct a major re-write. These are the main points that I would like to fix:

1. Quantum nonlocality is a subject on its own, with many recent important foundational results. The current entry skips all that to speak about quantum contextuality and its relation to quantum computing.
2. The part on reconstructions of quantum theory is too short. Not only it does not quote a single physical principle, but it also doesn't give any credit to the contributions of Dakic and Brukner. It is fair to say that their paper, although incomplete, awakened the field from its lethargy and was the basis of most of the reconstructions which came later.
3. There is no mention whatsoever to proposed extensions of quantum theory. By this I mean collapse models, Sorkin’s quantum measure theory and the formalism of acausal processes.
4. No mention to the PBR theorem, despite this topic having its own Wikipedia entry.

Unless anyone objects, I will introduce the corresponding changes in a couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguel Navascues (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Major Rewrite Complete?

Has the major rewrite mentioned above complete? It seems like there should be a notation to that effect, assuming it is complete.

Rhkramer (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it was completed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Language Level

I don't know if Wikipedia is targeted to a certain language level (if so, what is it?), but this seems written at rather a high level -- not sure what level, but to me, it seems higher than appropriate for an encyclopedia intended to be available to the general public.

Lack of examples contributes to the problem.

Rhkramer (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't targeted to a specific language level; the general idea is to make as much as possible of each article accessible to as wide a readership as we can, but that can become very difficult when the subject matter is intrinsically technical. When a topic is something that typically isn't seen until 2 or more years into a physics degree, it's a challenge to write anything for "the general public" that isn't total pablum. See WP:UPFRONT and WP:ONEDOWN for some general advice on this. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, XOR'easter, for the replies! Rhkramer (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Is endocontextuality (endosystemic contextuality) achievable in open physioaxiomatics [physioaxiomatic systems] (physics; not proof systems: mathematics and geometries)?

Some questions aren't asked.

Difference of logical foundations between proof systems and substantiality = universe-making systems.

The axioms of mathematics would disperse without making a universe.

Physics requires entangled program-like axiomatics.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle becomes fundamental in an open physioaxiomatic universe. see: infinite series of Wigner's friends

The physioaxiomatics (quantum foundations for our universe) isn't separate from the phenomena. Humans separate them to understand them.

______

internal contextualization = endocontextualization

Physical foundations means many things

• Physical foundations means many things. Theoretically if we knew the quantum foundations we would have the theory of everything but not all people working on the quantum foundations try to program-axiomatize (typical axiomatic lists don't work) the universe. The term theory of everything is wrong because we cannot guarantee that the Universe is the "everything" nor we have the definition of everything to claim so; also mutually exclusive systems don't create a single functional everything. There is a very strong hint that the program-like axiomatic foundations of our Universe is an open system, and we will increase our understanding but non-trivially infinite descriptions don't have easily guessable parts and patterns to get omitted (nowadays we don't know the answer on it). There is a very strong hint that the program-like axiomatic foundations of our Universe doesn't cut all the infinities problems. We'll have to invent something equivalent to renormalization to describe other fundamental problems like non-renormalizable quantum gravity, the cosmological constant problem, the hierarchy problem, singularities in spacetime, emergent complexity and turbulence, the measurement problem, etc. For some we have answers but they're not standard physics (measurement problem in the many-worlds interpretation: some regions of interaction are more probable and others less in a wavy 3d pattern. Every possible measurement is materialized in a separate universe. // And for other open questions in physics we have answers but they're not the mainstream physics.).
• Many people claim that there isn't a single theory and that different phenomena obay laws of their order of magnitude, but there is causo-permeability: causal permeability amongst orders of magnitude. At least an improved quantum field theory must have one foundations but some theorists disagree even about the true ontological monism of it due to interpretations of aforementioned open problems.

~2026-83907-3 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)