Nature is relentless and unchangeable, and it is indifferent as to whether its hidden reasons and actions are understandable to man or not.
–Galileo Galilie.
Abstract
Decompositional equivalence is the principle that there is no preferred decomposition of the universe into subsystems. It is shown here, by using a simple thought experiment, that quantum theory follows from decompositional equivalence together with Landauer’s principle. This demonstration raises within physics a question previously left to psychology: how do human—or any—observers identify or agree about what constitutes a “system of interest”?
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The mathematical formalism of quantum theory has been subjected to physical and philosophical interpretation since its inception. Bacciagaluppi and Valentini (2009) discuss the interpretative positions advanced by the theory’s founders at the 1927 Solvay Conference and reproduce their original papers. Bunge (1956) reviews the largely-unchanged interpretative landscape 30 years later. Bastin (1971) provides a revealing glimpse of interpretative discussions following the introduction of Everett’s (1957) relative-state interpretation, but prior to both the reformulation of Everett’s interpretation in terms of “multiple worlds” by DeWitt (1970) and the introduction of decoherence by Zeh (1970). Landsman (2007) and Wallace (2008) provide more recent synoptic reviews, the former with an emphasis on decoherence and the latter with an emphasis on multiple worlds. The diversity of opinions on basic questions of interpretation remains large, as documented by Norsen and Nelson (2013), Schlosshauer et al. (2013) and Sommer (2013) by surveying participants at relevant conferences. Both physicists and philosophers have found the seemingly irresolvable differences between interpretative stances disturbing. Fuchs (2002) parodies interpretative “camps” as fundamentalist churches. Cabello (2015) titles a recent, fairly exhaustive overview of the diversity of interpretative assumptions a “map of madness”.
References
Aerts D, Gabora L, Sozzo S (2013) Concepts and their dynamics: a quantum-theoretic modeling of human thought. Top Cogn Sci 5:737–772
Anders J, Shabbir S, Hilt S, Lutz E (2006) Landauer’s principle in the quantum domain. Electron Proc Theor Comput Sci 26:13–18
Arndt M, Nairz O, Vos-Andreae J, Keller C, van der Zouw G, Zeilinger A (1999) Wave-particle duality of C\(_{60}\) molecules. Nature 401:680–682
Ashby WR (1956) An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman and Hall, London
Bacciagaluppi G, Valentini A (2009) Quantum theory at the crossroads: reconsidering the 1927 Solvay conference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bastin T (ed) (1971) Quantum theory and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (re-published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 2009)
Bennett CH (2003) Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon. Stud Hist Philos Modern Phys 34:501–510
Bub J, Pitowsky I (2010) Two dogmas about quantum mechanics. In: Saunders S, Barrett J, Kent A, Wallace D (eds) Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory and reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 433–459
Bunge M (1956) Survey of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Am J Phys 24:272–286
Butterfield J (2011) Emergence, reduction and supervenience: a varied landscape. Found Phys 41:920–959
Cabello A (2015) Interpretations of quantum theory: a map of madness. Preprint arXiv:1509.04711v1 [quant-ph]
DeWitt BS (1970) Quantum mechanics and reality: could the solution to the dilemma of indeterminism be a universe in which all possible outcomes of an experiment actually occur? Phys Today 23(9):30–40
Eibenberger S, Gerlich S, Arndt M, Mayor M, Tüxen J (2013) Matter-wave interference of particles selected from a molecular library with masses exceeding 10,000 amu. Phys Chem Chem Phys 15:14696–14700
Everett H III (1957) “Relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev Mod Phys 29:454–462
Feynman RP, Leighton RB, Sands M (1965) Feynman lectures on physics. Addison-Wesley, New York
Fields C (2011) Classical system boundaries cannot be determined within quantum Darwinism. Phys Essays 24:518–522
Fields C (2012) The very same thing: extending the object-token concept to incorporate causal constraints on individual identity. Adv Cogn Psychol 8:234–247
Fields C (2013a) Bell’s theorem from Moore’s theorem. Int J Gen Syst 42:376–385
Fields C (2013b) The principle of persistence, Leibniz’s Law and the computational task of object identification. Hum Dev 56:147–166
Fields C (2014a) On the Ollivier–Poulin–Zurek definition of objectivity. Axiomathes 24:137–156
Fields C (2014b) Motion, identity and the bias toward agency. Front Human Neurosci 8:Article # 597
Fuchs CA (2002) Quantum mechanics as quantum information (and only a little more). Preprint arXiv:quant-ph/0205039v1
Fuchs CA (2010) QBism: the perimeter of quantum Bayesianism. Preprint arXiv:1003.5209v1 [quant-ph]
Grinbaum A (2015) How device-independent approaches change the meaning of physics. Preprint arXiv:1512.01035v1
Ghirardi GC, Rimini A, Weber T (1986) Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Phys Rev D 34:470–491
Hartle JB (2011) The quasiclassical realms of this quantum universe. Found Phys 41:982–1006
Healey R (2012) Quantum theory: a pragmatist approach. Br J Philos Sci 63:729–771
Jauch JM (1968) Foundations of quantum mechanics. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Jennings D, Leifer M (2016) No return to classical reality. Contemp Phys 57(1):60–82
Kastner R (2014) ‘Einselection’ of pointer observables: the new H-theorem? Stud Hist Philos Modern Phys 48:56–58
Koenderink J (2014) The all-seeing eye? Perception 43(1):1–6
Landauer R (1961) Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process. IBM J Res Dev 5(3):183–195
Landauer R (1999) Information is a physical entity. Phys A 263:63–67
Landsman NP (2007) Between classical and quantum. In: Butterfield J, Earman J (eds) Handbook of the philosophy of science: philosophy of physics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 417–553
Leifer MS (2014) Is the quantum state real? An extended review of \(\psi\)-ontology theorems. Quanta 3:67–155
Moore EF (1956) Gedankenexperiments on sequential machines. In: Shannon CW, McCarthy J (eds) Automata Stud. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 129–155
Nagel E (1961) The structure of science: problems in the logic of scientific explanation. Harcourt, Brace & World, New York
Nielsen MA, Chaung IL (2000) Quantum information and quantum computation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Norsen T, Nelson S (2013) Yet another snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics. Preprint arXiv:1306.4646v2 [quant-ph]
Ollivier H, Poulin D, Zurek WH (2004) Objective properties from subjective quantum states: environment as a witness. Phys Rev Lett 93:220401
Ollivier H, Poulin D, Zurek WH (2005) Environment as a witness: selective proliferation of information and emergence of objectivity in a quantum universe. Phys Rev A 72:042113
Penrose R (1996) On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction. Gen Relativ Gravit 28:581–600
Peres A, Fuchs C (2000) Quantum theory needs no “interpretation”. Phys Today 53(3):70–73
Peres A, Terno DR (2004) Quantum information and relativity theory. Rev Mod Phys 76:93–123
Pothos EM, Busemeyer JM (2013) Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behav Brain Sci 36:255–327
Rovelli C (1996) Relational quantum mechanics. Int J Theor Phys 35:1637–1678
Rovelli C (2014) Why do we remember the past and not the future? The ‘time oriented coarse graining’ hypothesis. Preprint arXiv:1407.3384v2
Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423
Schlosshauer M (2007) Decoherence and the quantum to classical transition. Springer, Berlin
Schlosshauer M, Kofler J, Zeilinger A (2013) A snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics. Stud Hist Philos Modern Phys 44:222–230
Spekkens RW (2007) Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: a toy theory. Phys Rev A 75:032110
Sommer C (2013) Another survey of foundational attitudes towards quantum mechanics. Preprint arXiv:1303.2719v1 [quant-ph]
Tegmark M (2000) Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Phys Rev E 61:4194–4206
Tegmark M (2012) How unitary cosmology generalizes thermodynamics and solves the inflationary entropy problem. Phys Rev D 85:123517
von Neumann J (1932) Mathematical foundations of quantum theory. Springer, Berlin
Wallace D (2008) Philosophy of quantum mechanics. In: Rickles D (ed) The Ashgate companion to contemporary philosophy of physics. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 16–98
Wang Q, Schoenlein RW, Peteanu LA, Mathies RA, Shank CV (1994) Vibrationally coherent photochemistry in the femtosecond primary event of vision. Science 266:422–424
Weinberg S (2012) Collapse of the state vector. Phys Rev A 85:062116
Wigner EP (1962) Remarks on the mind-body question. In: Good IJ (ed) The scientist speculates. Basic Books, New York, pp 284–301
Zeh D (1970) On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Found Phys 1:69–76
Zurek WH (2003) Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Rev Mod Phys 75:715–775
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Don Hoffman for encouraging me to think about 1-bit information transfers, to The Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation for financial support during the final stages of this work, and to an anonymous referee for suggestions and an additional reference.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fields, C. Decompositional Equivalence: A Fundamental Symmetry Underlying Quantum Theory. Axiomathes 26, 279–311 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-016-9289-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-016-9289-z