Future contingents and the Multiverse

“Future Contingents” and “The Multiverse”:
Combining Two Perspectives
Antoine Suarez
© Center for Quantum Philosophy (Fondation du Leman),
Zürich and Geneva
www.quantumphil.org
IIS2018 Netherhall House, London
Can Science And Technology Shape A New Humanity?
Trinity College, Cambridge, January 4, 2018

Chapter 2
Beyond Space and Time:
The Quantum Realm
A cosmos in the lab
Andreas Albrecht ponders a study of the physicists
who grapple with the origins of the Universe.
Andreas Albrecht is a theoretical physicist
at the University of California, Davis.
e-mail: ajalbrecht@ucdavis.edu
Ernst Specker:
Quantum contextuality
Nature 542 (2017) 164

“Suarez …found a new way
to fit a deity into the picture,
by identifying the “many
worlds” proposed by US
physicist Hugh Everett with
thoughts in the “mind of
God”.
Andreas Albrecht, Nature 542 (2017) 164
Ernst Specker: Quantum contextuality

Abstract:
Many-Worlds
is a parable of «Divine Omniscience»
arXiv:1712.06448
© A. Suarez: All Possible Worlds

Quantum contextuality:
E. Specker, Die Logik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer
Aussagen, Dialectica, Vol. 14, pp. 239-246, 1960.
Simon Kochen and Ernst Specker, The Problem of
Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics, Journal of
Mathematics and Mechanics, Vol. 17 (1967) 59-87

Ernst Specker with his son Adrian
and Simon Kochen
Walking at Rigiblick, January 1963, Zürich
Courtesy of Suzanne Specker

50 Years Quantum Contextuality:
Workshop, ETHZ, 22-23 June 2017
Simon Kochen, Suzanne Specker, Antoine Suarez

A C
A B C
“Classical-like” prediction
(“properties” exist in space-time
before mesurement):
x1,0, y1,0
P (x, y  x  y)  2/3
P (x, y  x  y)  1/3
whatever pair of boxes is opened
“Quantum-like” prediction
P (x, y  x  y)  1
P (x, y  x  y)  0
whatever pair of boxes is opened.
A B C
1 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0
0 1 1
0 1 0
0 0 1
The Assyrian prophet contest© A. Suarez: All Possible Worlds
B
E. Specker, Die Logik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer Aussagen,
Dialectica, Vol. 14, pp. 239––246, 1960.

b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9
v1j
A 1
(1,0,0,0)
A 1
(1,0,0,0)
B 1
(1,0,-1,0)
C 1
(1,-1,0,0)
C 1
(1,-1,0,0)
D 1
(1,0,0,1)
D 1
(1,0,0,1)
B 1
(1,0,-1,0)
E ?
(1,0,1,0)
v2j
F 0
(0,1,0,0)
G 0
(0,0,0,1)
F 0
(0,1,0,0)
H 0
(0,0,1,1)
I 0
(0,0,1,-1)
J 0
(0,1,1,0)
K 0
(0,1,-1,0)
L 0
(0,1,0,-1)
M ?
(1,1,-1,1)
v3j
H 0
(0,0,1,1)
J 0
(0,1,1,0)
E 0
(1,0,1,0)
M 0
(1,1,-1,1)
N 0
(1,1,-1,-1)
O 0
(1,-1,1,-1)
P 0
(1,1,1,-1)
Q 0
(1,1,1,1)
R ?
(-1,1,1,1)
v4j
I 0
(0,0,1,-1)
K 0
(0,1,-1,0)
G 0
(0,0,0,1)
P 0
(1,1,1,-1)
Q 0
(1,1,1,1)
N 0
(1,1,-1,-1)
R 0
(-1,1,1,1)
O 0
(1,-1,1,-1)
L ?
(0,1,0,-1)
Kochen and Specker (K&S) Theorem, 1967
(Proof by A. Cabello, J. M. Estebaranz, and G. García Alcaine, 1996)
18 unitary vectors vij i 1,...4, j 1,...9 (boxes: A, B, C,...,P, Q, R)
9 different orthonormal bases bj , j 1,...9 (9 choices of 4 boxes).
𝑃𝑖𝑗 = 0 𝑜𝑟 1 𝑖=1
4
𝑃𝑖𝑗 = 1
If two orthogonal projectors are measured on the same system,
both measurements cannot give the result 1.
If 4 pairwise orthogonal projectors are measured on the same system, then one
of the measurements gives 1.
Projector operator onto vij :
Phys. Lett. A 212, 4, 183-187 (1996); DOI: 10.1016/0375-9601(96)00134-X; quant-ph/9706009.

Ernst Specker:
Genius of science and inspired theologian
Ernst Specker in a Colloquium in Prague in 2002
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~knill/various/specker/

«Ich stelle mir vor, dass das Schreiben für meinen Mann eine
meditative Wirkung hatte. Sie können die Bücher, die ich, wie
gesagt, erst nach dem Tod meines Mannes entdeckt habe,
gerne einmal besichtigen.» Courtesy of Suzanne Specker
Full Greek text of the Gospels according to Mathiew and Mark
hand-written by Ernst Specker with beautiful calligraphy, who
let bind the trancript in leather and engrave the titel in gold.

“In einem gewissen Sinne gehören aber auch die
scholastischen Spekulationen über die
Infuturabilien hieher, das heisst die Frage,
ob sich die göttliche Allwissenheit auch auf
Ereignisse erstrecke, die eingetreten wären, falls
etwas geschehen wäre, was nicht geschehen ist.
(Vgl. hiezu etwa [3], Bd.3, S.363)”
[3] Solana M., Historia de la filosofía española (Asociación Española para el Progreso de
las Ciencias, Madrid 1941)
E. Specker, Die Logik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer Aussagen, Dialectica, Vol. 14, pp.
239––246, 1960.
«Quanten infuturabilien»

“In a certain sense the scholastic speculations
about the «Infuturabilien» [To be translated as something like ‘future
contingencies’] also belong here, that is, the question
whether the omniscience of God also extends to
events that would have occurred in case
something would have happened that did not
happen. (cf. e.g. [3], Vol. 3, p. 363.)”
[3] Solana M., Historia de la filosofía española (Asociación Española para el Progreso de
las Ciencias, Madrid 1941)
E. Specker, Die Logik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer Aussagen, Dialectica, Vol. 14, pp.
239––246, 1960. https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4537
«Quanten infuturabilien»

Ernst Specker
Academic year 1949-50
at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton
Here he attended lectures
by Church, Siegel and discus
sed problems on recursive
analysis with Gödel.
And here Specker may have
read the book of M. Solana
quoted in his seminal article
in Dialectica 1960.

https://archive.org/stream/historiadelafilo03sola#page/345/mode/1up
The scholastic speculations about
“the omniscience of God and Human Free-Will”
[3] Solana M., Historia de la filosofía española, Vol. 3, S. 363, Madrid 1941)
Pedro da Fonseca
Portuguese Jesuit
philosopher and theologian
(1528-1599)
God’s
“ciencia media
puramente
condicional”
https://diariodigitalcastelobranco.pt/detalhe.php?id=36237

Luis de Molina September 1535 – 12 October 1600
“Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia,
praedestinatione et reprobatione”.
http://freethinkingministries.com/an-unfortunate-appraisal-of-molinism-a-response-to-carm-orgs-what-is-molinism/
The omniscient God, by means of His scientia media knows future
contingent events: He foresees which choices we can freely make
and what will happen thereafter. But our will remains free to make
this choice or another.
Solana M., Historia de la filosofía española, Vol. 3, p. 416, Madrid 1941

Jules Lequyer
30 January 1814 – 11 February 1862
Lequyer wrote in favor of dynamic divine
omniscience, wherein God's knowledge of the
future is one of possibilities rather than
actualities. Omniscience, under this view, is the
knowledge of necessary facts as necessary, and
contingent facts as contingent. Since the future
does not yet exist as anything more than a realm
of abstract possibilities, it is no impugning of
divine omniscience to claim that God does not
know the future as a fixed and unalterable state
of affairs: that he does not know what is not there
to be known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Lequier
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lequyer/

A B C
Superdeterminism
The prophet knows which pair of boxes the suitor will
choose, for instance BC or AB
A B C

A B C
Copenhagen
The prophet let the diamant appear just at the
moment the suitor open the pair of boxes he
chooses, for instance

Copenhagen
The prophet let the diamant appear just at the
moment the suitor open the pair of boxes he
chooses, for instance
A B C

Manyworlds
At any choice (for instance AB) the world and
the suitor split in 4 parallell worlds, so that all
possible outcomes become realised although
in different parallel worlds, which are
experimentally inaccessible to each other.
A B A B A B A B
Suitor 11
10
Suitor 12
01
Suitor 13
11
Suitor 14
00
Suitor 21
01
Suitor 22
10
Suitor 23
11
Suitor 24
00
And similarly
for choices:
A C and B C
Hugh Everett III
(1930-1982)

The Solvay Congress: Brussels 23-27.10.1927
[first row] (1) I. Langmuir, (2) M. Planck, (3) M. Curie, (4) H.A. Lorentz, (5) A. Einstein,
(6) P. Langevin, (7) C.E. Guye, (8) C.T.R. Wilson, (9) O.W. Richardson
[second row] (1) P. Debye, (2) M. Knudsen, (3) W.L. Bragg, (4) H.A. Kramers, (5) P.A.M. Dirac,
(6) A.H. Compton, (7) L.V. de Broglie, (8) M. Born, (9) N. Bohr
[third row] (1) A. Piccard, (2) E. Henriot, (3) P. Ehrenfest, (4) E. Herzen, (5) Th. de Donder, (6) E.
Schroedinger, (7) E. Verschaffelt, (8) W. Pauli, (9) W. Heisenberg, (10) R.H. Fowler, (11) L. Brillouin.
1. Nonlocality at detection
This version of the classic photo has been "embellished" by PhysLINK's creator: Anton Skorucak.

Light going trough a slit reaches a screen.
Deciding at which point the detection
happens requires nonlocal coordination
between all the detection units.
Nonlocality at detection provoked Einstein
in the Solvay Congress 1927, and
led thereafter to the EPR controversy 1935.
Einstein realized that
the question “at what time the
‘wave’ hits the detector” matters in
quantum physics!

Alice
?
BS
Bob
Decision at detection
(Collapse of the wave function)
implies
coordination at a distance between detectors
Welcome the Qubit!
Alice
1
0
1
0
Bob
0
1
1
0

Single-photon space-like antibunching
Thiago Guerreiro a, Bruno Sanguinetti a, Hugo Zbinden a, Nicolas Gisin a, Antoine Suarez b,∗
a Group of Applied Physics, University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
b Center for Quantum Philosophy, P.O. Box 304, 8044 Zurich, Switzerland
376 (2012) 2174–2177
Nonlocality at detection,
or the standard quantum «collapse»

Future contingents and the Multiverse

Nonlocality at detection
Single-photon space-like antibunching
T. Guerreiro, B. Sanguinetti, H. Zbinden, N.Gisin and A. Suarez (2012)
𝑃 𝑇𝐿
(1,1)=𝑃 𝑇𝐿
(0,0)=0
𝑃 𝑇𝐿(1,0)=𝑃 𝑇𝐿(0,1)=0.5
𝑃 𝐴
𝑇𝐿=𝑃 𝐵
𝑇𝐿=0.5
𝑃 𝑆𝐿(1,1)= 𝑃 𝑆𝐿(0,0)=𝑃 𝑆𝐿(1,0)=𝑃 𝑆𝐿(0,1)=0.25
𝑃 𝐴
𝑆𝐿=𝑃 𝐵
𝑆𝐿=0.5
𝑷 𝑺𝑳(1,1)=𝑷 𝑨
𝑺𝑳 ∙ 𝑷 𝑩
𝑺𝑳=0.25

D(+)
D()
?
BS
Schrödinger Cat

Stern-Gerlach experiment using
Spin 1 particles (Qutrit)
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/physics/quvis/simulations_twolev/IOP%20-%20Spin-
1%20Particles%20in%20Successive%20Stern-Gerlach%20Experiments%20V5%20REV.html

Schrödinger Cat
in a Stern-Gerlach experiment using
Spin 1 particles (Qutrit)

http://www.cropcirclesandmore.com/geometries/201101lss.html
“Some 100 yards away from the centre of
Stonehenge stands the so called Heelstone. It is
a single large block of Sarsen stone. On the day
of the summer solstice, usually 21 June, you can,
while standing in Stonehenge, see the sun rise
exactly above the Heelstone. It is a truly magical
moment.”
Classical Determinism

Crowds gather at the ancient stone circles of Stonehenge
and Avebury in Wiltshire to celebrate sunrise on the longest
day of the year and the beginning of summer.

To my knowledge there are no bookmakers
accepting bets on whether the sun appears at
the left, middle, or right arc!
Schrödinger’s Sun?

Interference The counting rate depends on the path-length-difference
Mobile mirror
BS1
BS2 D(+)
D()
Screw
L
20%
80%
T
R


Φ


ΦΦ= ω
l− s
c
: Phase shift because of
the length difference

Quantum determinism!
There can be quantum sharp measurements
P(D(+) counts)=1
BS1
BS2
D(+)
D()
50%
R
T
L
100 %
0 %
Notice: The nonlocal qubit and the quantum sharp
measurements is what makes quantum computing
possible!

Copenhagen (Bohr’s Orthodoxy)
• Classical determinism (the measuring
devices have to be classical; there are no Bohr’s
Cats!).
• Quantum randomness (but determinism
allowed for so called “sharp measurements”).

Manyworlds:
Determinism at any level!
At any choice (for instance AB) the world and the suitor split
in 4 parallell worlds, so that all possible outcomes become
realised although in different parallel worlds, which are
experimentally inaccessible to each other.
A B A B A B A B
Suitor 11
10
Suitor 12
01
Suitor 13
11
Suitor 14
00
Suitor 21
01
Suitor 22
10
Suitor 23
11
Suitor 24
00
And similarly
for choices:
A C and B C
Hugh Everett III
(1930-1982)

Jeremy’s Butterfield’s perspective on the Multiverse:
Invokes the Eddington fishing-net metaphor (Philosophy of
Physical Science, 1938):
Let us suppose that an ichthyologist is exploring the life of the
ocean. He casts a net into the water and brings up a fishy
assortment. Surveying his catch, he proceeds in the usual
manner of a scientist to systematize what it
reveals. He arrives at two generalizations:
(1) No sea creature is less than two inches long.
(2) All sea creatures have gills.
These are both true of his catch, and he assumes tentatively
that they will remain true however often he repeats it.

In applying this analogy, the catch stands for the body of
knowledge which constitutes physical science, and the net for
the sensory and intellectual equipment which we use in
obtaining it. The casting of the net corresponds to
observation; for knowledge which has not been or could not
be obtained by observation is not admitted into
physical science.
An onlooker may object that the first generalization is wrong.
"There are plenty of sea-creatures under two inches long,
only your net is not adapted to catch them." The icthyologist
dismisses this objection contemptuously. "Anything
uncatchable by my net is ipso facto outside the scope of
icthyological knowledge. In short, "what my net
can't catch isn't fish."

Or — to translate the analogy — "If you are not simply
guessing, you are claiming a knowledge of the physical
universe discovered in some other way than by the
methods of physical science, and admittedly unverifiable
by such methods. You are a metaphysician. Bah!"
Manyworlds is Metaphysics after all!

Leibniz’ Principle
“If there is no possible perceptible difference
between two objects, then these objects are the
same, not superficially, but fundamentally“.
If Alice in our world can never be able to see the other Alice*
in a parallel world, then one should conclude that Alice*
does not belong to our physical reality at all: Things that
cannot in principle be perceived by the senses do not exist
within space-time. And if the existence of Alice* can be
inferred by reasoning but cannot in principle be perceived by
the senses, this means that Alice* exists outside space-time.

Many-Worlds completed
MW (consistently) requires that at any choice (for
instance AB) the other possible choices (AC, BC)
happen as well in 3 parallell worlds
And additionnally for each
outcome the world and each
Suitor splits in 4 other
paralell worlds:
In total 12 paralell worlds!
A B A C B C
Suitor 1AB
10
Suitor 1AC
01
Suitor 1BC
10
Suitor 2AB
01
Suitor 2AC
10
Suitor 2BC
10
Manyworlds completed

Many-Worlds razored !
MW (consistently) requires that at any choice (for
instance AB) the other possible choices (AC, BC)
happen as well in 3 parallell worlds
And additionnally for each
outcome the world and each
Cand splits in 4 other
paralell worlds:
In total 12 paralell worlds!
A B A C B C
Suitor 1AB
10
Suitor 1AC
01
Suitor 1BC
10
Suitor 2AB
01
Suitor 2AC
10
Suitor 2BC
10

All Possible Worlds:
Many-Worlds & Quantum (nonlocal) Contextuality
The "prophet" has in his mind an outcome choice for each of the
three possible choices a suitor can do
The suitor is free to
make the choice he
wishes.
The prophet let then
appear the outcome
(10) or (01).
Suitor N A B B C A C
Choice 1 10 10 10
Choice 2 10 10 01
Choice 3 10 01 10
Choice 4 10 01 01
Choice 5 01 10 10
Choice 6 01 10 01
Choice 7 01 01 10
Choice 8 01 01 01

All Possible Worlds and Born’s rule
The "prophet" has in his mind an outcome choice for each of the
three possible choices a suitor can do
The prophet let then
appear the outcome
(10) or (01)...
Suitor N A B B C A C
Choice 1 10 10 10
Choice 2 10 10 01
Choice 3 10 01 10
Choice 4 10 01 01
Choice 5 01 10 10
Choice 6 01 10 01
Choice 7 01 01 10
Choice 8 01 01 01
distributed according to
the quantun mechanical
predictions (Born’s rule).

All Possible Worlds and QBism:
Born’s rule with Bayesian probabilities
All rules we use to predict nature do not exhaust the whole physical reality
(all the outcomes assignments the “omniscient mind” and other assistant
minds may have done), and in this sense can be considered to express a
“subjective belief” on our part and are intrinsically incomplete:
• The Born rule in quantum mechanics is about the decision-making
behavior any individual agent should strive for to avoid being Dutch-
booked;
• The deterministic equations of GR express our subjective belief: We are
not ready to pay anything to entering a bet with payoff 1 if the sun rises
by the left or right arc at Stonehenge and no payoff if it rises by the
middle arc. GR does not forbid nature to let the sun rise by the left or
right arc.

All Possible Worlds and QBism:
Born’s rule with Bayesian probabilities
On the other hand these rules fit well a highly
significant part of physical reality: the subset of
outcomes shaping the regularities we are used to.
Thereby they make it possible for us to predict,
develop technologies, and live, and in this sense
can be considered “objective” and highly useful!

Jeremy Butterfield: A Philosopher’s Perspective on
Multiverse Proposals
https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4348
“It all turns on the simple but crucial distinction between
the "is" of identity and the "is" of instantiation. I am happy
to concede that the world we live in instantiates a
mathematical structure, but I deny that it is a
mathematical structure.”
Reality must have an utterly objective description: The
physical multiverse instantiates a pure mathematical
structure. But the physical multiverse is NOT a pure
mathematical structure.

The invisible quantum realm is in fact a huge mental
ensemble of possible outcomes which lies outside
space-time in God’s mind, and contains as an essential
ingredient all possible experiments humans of all times
can perform.
By freely choosing the settings of the apparatus here
and now the experimenter actualizes one of the
possible outcome worlds and makes it to become
visible.
Conclusion 1
The Multiverse is a parable of Divine Omniscience!

Jeremy Butterfield: A Philosopher’s Perspective on Multiverse Proposals
Each possibility is of course non-actual: but real, in some wider
sense than ‘actual’.
What EXACTLY does such a possibility consist of?
This is generally agreed to be a harder
question than e.g. the mind-body problem!
Leibniz’s possible worlds, revived in modern modal metaphysics:
David Lewis’s realism.
Or Ernst Specker’s future contigents and divine omniscience.
A harder question!
The question may stimulate theological research!

• There is no “law” forbidding nature to produce
phenomena which deviate from the usual
regularities we observe, e.g.: the sun spins in the
sky, a dead resurrects. Such phenomena would
not violate any “law of nature”.
• Schrödinger’s cat is a scientific narrative of
“miracles”.
• We cannot oblige nature to make such “miracles”
as much as we want: Quantum physics does not
support paranormal phenomena.
Conclusion 2

Nature (“the omniscient mind”) is kind to us and
ordinarily shapes the phenomena according to
regularities we can grasp with mathematical
equations and the Born rule.
This make it possible for us to predict, develop
technologies, and live.
Conclusion 2 (continued)
The “big wonder” of ordinary daily life!

Omniscience implies a finite number of choices.
(Omniscience does not imply a finite number of mathematical
theorems i.e.:necessary truths).
Consequences:
a) The discreteness of space-time. (“ ‘Real
numbers’ aren’t real at all” [Nicolas Gisin]).
b) Upper bound for signaling (v  c)
c) The heat death of the universe (“second law”
as formulated by Lord Kelvin).
Conclusion 3

The “laws of physics” actually arise from the
maximal number of experiments the humans of all
times can in principle perform:
What is and is not possible is not determined by
physical “laws” but the other way around, it is
these “laws” which actually arise from what is and
is not possible.
Conclusion 4

David Deutsch: We and the physical reality
“The universal quantum computer, in a sense
contains within itself all the diversity in nature. No
other system does, except perhaps systems that
are capable of constructing a universal quantum
computer. Certainly we find ourselves unavoidably
playing a role at the deepest level of the structure
of physical reality.”
David Deutsch,
Lecture 4: The Schrödinger picture, Video 34:48
http://www.quiprocone.org/Protected/DD_lectures.htm

The “hidden assumption” behind “Many Worlds” is
that the physical reality is defined by “the free
choices human observers can in principle perform”.
Is the Big Bang here?
“I can imagine that we will someday have to answer
your question with a ‘yes’ ” (John A. Wheeler).
Without “human free choices”, no physical reality!
Conclusion 5

“Future Contingents” and “The Multiverse”:
Combining Two Perspectives
Antoine Suarez
© Center for Quantum Philosophy (Fondation du Leman)
www.quantumphil.org
IIS2018 Netherhall House
Can Science And Technology Shape A New Humanity?
Trinity College, Cambridge, January 4, 2018
The End

Future contingents and the Multiverse

Future contingents and the Multiverse

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Future contingents and the Multiverse

Similar to Future contingents and the Multiverse(20)

More from 2idseminar

More from 2idseminar(14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded(20)

Future contingents and the Multiverse