A heuristic sketch how it could fit all together with time

Knud Thomsen, Paul Scherrer Institut, 5232 Villigen, Switzerland, knud@[Link]

On a scientific meta-level, it is discussed how an overall understanding of the physical universe can be
built on the basis of well-proven theories, observations, and recent experiments. In the light of almost
a century of struggle to make (common) sense of Quantum Mechanics and to reconcile it with General
Relativity, it is proposed to (for some time) forget about quantizing gravity or striving for one Theory
of Everything or “Weltformel”, which would describe the whole of reality seamlessly without any joints
or suture marks. Instead of one single monolithic formalism, a three-legged compound approach is
argued for. Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and Thermodynamics are proposed as the main pillars of
reality, each with its well-defined realm, specific features, and clearly marked interfaces between the
three of them. Not only classical reality, which is rather directly accessible to us, is then
comprehensively modelled by their encompassing combination. Quantum phenomena are understood
as undoubtedly lying at the bottom of classical physics and at the same time, they become “fully real”
only when embedded in classical frames, i.e., preparation and measurements in time. It is then where
thermodynamics steps in and provides the mediating glue as it does at interfaces towards gravity.
Decoherence is understood as a smooth way of gradually transferring information and basically
dumping entropy to a suitable environment. The aim of this short contribution is not to deliver novel
quantitative results but rather to propose a comprehensive research program and to coarsely lay out
a very roughly coherent sketch starting from the beginning of the one universe, which we inhabit. The
all-embracing picture is claimed to be one of (“mutually induced”) emergence.

Keywords: meta-level perspective; natural interpretation of quantum mechanics; timelessness; arrow

of time; entropy; decoherence; emergence; braided universe; self-reflecting; self-consistent;
enlightened; theory of everything.

1. Introduction

Since the dawn of science and certainly long before, humans wanted to know how the universe came
about and how it is structured and working in a grand view, how it could fit all together. With myths
and answers offered by religions evermore losing their convincing power, this remains an unsolved
scientific question. The currently best available physical theories do not yet yield a unified or commonly
agreed account. Here, an attempt is made to sketch an overarching picture of all of physical reality.
The perspective in this short paper deliberately is a very wide one, and the lay-out of the contribution
is meant to somehow reflect its message: the physical universe is identified as a braided self-referring
structure, time as one pillar itself emerging only in mutual dependencies just like the other building
blocks of our understanding. Physical laws as well as constituents and forces consequentially are best
understood as abstractions, with clear-cut if --> then relations valid in limited contexts. Additional
motivation for the chosen approach will become clearer towards the end of this tiny paper.

Arguments about how to understand and interpret Quantum Mechanics as one fundamental well-
proven pillar are as old as the first conceptualizations of the mathematical framework itself. As a
second foundation, Special and General Relativity, although markedly distinct from everyday direct
human experience, appear somewhat easier to grasp. Given the paramount success of each theory in
its field of application, usually many orders of magnitude apart, the very best minds have toiled for
more than 100 years to somehow reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity, alas hitherto without
resounding success. Thermodynamics provides another cornerstone. In its essence it is more an
1
abstract and, in a sense, eternal mathematical theory. According to the frequently cited assessment
by Albert Einstein, thermodynamics uniquely constitutes one foundation of our understanding of the
world, which will within the framework of the applicability of its basic concepts not be overthrown by
new findings.

Here, it is humbly suggested to take a big step back and assume a very broad perspective for a fresh
look, keeping for a start to a very coarse and superficial level while exploring what a rather sketchy but
all-embracing picture comprising quantum mechanics, classical physics, relativity, and
thermodynamics could look like while staying firmly anchored in solid science.

With more or less obvious paths leading to no true breakthrough in unifying our currently best
understanding of the universe, some apparently outlandish inspirations seem appropriate. In line with
a recent account of cognition, it shall be tried to sketch a big schematic picture before details are
worked out in necessary subsequent steps [1]. There is no doubt that at the end well-matching
quantitative accounts, “laws”, are the goal. It should just be avoided that these (the difficulties finding
them) block or blur an overall view and thus hamper progress from the onset.

The aim of this paper is to assess a possible truly overarching match between currently available
experimental/observational evidence and fundamental theoretical findings; it is structured in the
following way: chapter 2 looks back at the very roots of interpreting quantum mechanics and argues
for a well-defined Heisenberg cut. On that basis, chapters 3 and 4 investigate causality and the
measurement of time with real clocks and its progression in one sense only (the arrow of time).
Subsequently baselining time as emergent, it is suggested in chapter 5 that a variable “progression of
time” might resolve some of the problems which had provoked the conjecture of an initial inflationary
phase. The focus is further shifted to the character and role of gravity in chapters 6 and 7. In the light
of the previous sections it is then argued in chapters 8 and 9 that neither dark matter or dark energy
nor many worlds appear required for a consistent overall picture of the physical universe. Principal
limits to achieving any full understanding are delt with in chapter 10, while the conclusions in chapter
11 try to outline an overall self-reflective and -consistent narrative and propose some immediate
upshots of the presented considerations.

2. Timeless Quantum World

From the very beginning of quantum physics, Niels Bohr emphasized the importance of the involved
classical experimental apparatus. Quantum effects always are described and observed in a context in
the real world [2]. On the coarsest “outside” level, the relevant context is classical; it frames free and
undisturbed quantum states at a beginning event as well as at an endpoint. The latter ones we are
usually well aware of when we record and report them. Definite measurements yield irreversible
classical results, but any selected quantum state also needs some preparation harnessing classical
boundary conditions [3,4]. Our everyday world is profoundly classical, and we know of (“weird”)
quantum phenomena only from more detached constellations and deliberately arranged experiments.
Exotic behaviors of quantum systems like entanglement and superposition of states are very fragile
and occur almost exclusively in carefully controlled closed set-ups and for limited time intervals, well-
shielded from any disturbing influence from an outside environment [5]. It can be shown that relying
fully on quantum systems also for reference, i.e., quantum reference frames (QRFs), superposition and
entanglement are relational and in fact just different sides of the same coin [6]. Inside, quantum theory
does not distinguish between prediction and retrodiction, the Born rule applies equally well in both
directions of time [4].

2
In Wigner’s friend scenarios, a memory of the friend would in general be reset by Wigner’s
measurement, which would conflict with the no-signaling condition [7]. Interfaces between quantum
and classical phenomena are marked with time stamps, i.e., in most cases some type of persistent
classical memory. This need not be a record set in stone, fleeting (“pale”) traces suffice [8]. After some
while, probably nothing more than a minute increase in overall entropy is left while some free energy
has been “consumed”. Importantly, at every irreversible transition (like erasure, i.e., when the input
state cannot be fully recovered from an output state) there is a concomitant change, i.e., increment,
in entropy in some environment outside of the narrow (quantum) system under investigation
[9,10,11]. Entropy characterizes uncertainty and ignorance. After an event with a growth in entropy, it
is not possible to reconstruct what had been the exact and complete state before.

It has recently been proposed that a clear Heisenberg cut can be identified with an increase of entropy
and the associated transfer of energy (or “consuming” another conserved quantity) between the
investigated system and its environment according to Landauer’s principle [12]:

ΔE ≥ kT ln2

Unitary quantum systems inside their classical demarcations could then be conceptualized as
“timeless”. This condition provides all the internal opportunities for the exploration of each and every
development, which is permitted by the boundary conditions, in parallel. All available options are
taken into account as with Richard Feynman´s path integrals [13]. As long as nothing irreversible
occurs, all possible states will somehow potentially/ghostly co-“exist” inside an isolated QM system
according to the Schrödinger equation “at the same no-time”, with their respective probabilities for
being observed given by the Born rule.

For the arguments here, it can be disregarded that there is in fact a whole “zoo” of different but related
definitions of entropy in different (quantum) contexts [14,15,16,17]; basic Boltzmann entropy suffices
for a start.

It can convincingly be argued that there is no way getting time from no-time in quantum mechanics
without first presupposing some concept of time [18]. The Hamiltonian operator, corresponding to the
total energy of a system, is firmly rooted in the classical reality, and it generates the time evolution of
quantum states in the Schrödinger picture, in fact by defining boundary condition s possibly varying
with respect to laboratory-time. For observables, speed limits apply [19]. Dynamical quantum systems
are thus tightly tied to laboratory “standard” time during unitary evolution, while internally enjoying
all the freedom also in their phasing such that only statistical predictions are possible before a
(collapsing) measurement. In case external classical boundary conditions vary with time explicitly, the
last version (defined by the Hamiltonian and by the associated classical time stamp) is decisive.
Unintended disturbances interrupt the unitary evolution the same as for any static system as soon as
enough energy is transferred / entropy produced.

Upon the collapse of the wavefunction, linearity and unitarity are broken, one classical outcome is
materialized depending on the overall set-up, the apparatus; e.g., wave- or particle-behavior is
observed [20]. This holds for single individual cases ideally. The Landauer threshold is somewhat
paradoxically strictly applicable in this simple form only in quasi-static conditions; the picture is more
complicated when unavoidable fluctuations are taken into account but Landauer´s principle is also
valid then [11,21].

With multiple systems / repetitions, statistics can be compiled, and in an intricate set-up a quantitative
complementarity relation for wave-particle behaviors has been measured [22]. It is hypothesized that
weak measurements employing an ancilla disturb / collapse the system of interest only partly and for
each data point effectively transfer just a tiny amount of entropy / energy; no sudden collapse ensues
3
but entropy will accumulate gradually. Tsallis entropy might be an apt tool to describe this [17].
Dilution of entanglement in the environment, i.e., decoherence, leads basically to the same classical
behavior of a considered system. A trade-off between information gain, reversibility, and disturbance
has been demonstrated for quantum measurements employing ensembles [23]. The more information
is extracted, the more a state is disturbed and/or the less recoverable it is, this all for a constant space
frame. There is a minimum amount of entropy production required for obtaining information about
work done to a quantum system driven far from equilibrium [24]. Entropic uncertainty relations can
be shown to be equivalent to wave-particle duality [25,26].

Contextuality denotes the fact that measurements of quantum observables can in no case be simply
thought of as revealing pre-existing values [27,28]. Results depend on which other observables are
measured together in a sequence. Projective measurements are not commutative; they in turn yield
(new) classical results and constraints, their order matters. Surplus weirdness can be avoided when
carefully keeping to the respectively applicable contexts [29,12,30].

Normally, we do not exactly know the complete frame. A single photon without a heralding companion
does not tell whether or how there exist(s) any entangled state(s); this the Holevo bound.

It appears not immediately clear that at the start of an (internally) timeless phase a similar discrete
event has to happen for properly conditionalizing an thereafter isolated individual quantum system.
The necessity of carefully preparing a quantum state has been described by Niels Bohr, Willis Eugene
Lamb, John Archibald Wheeler, Andrei Khrennikov, and many others. Given that quantum theory is
time-symmetric, it only seems natural that the beginning and the end of a completely isolated
quantum system are considered equivalent (except for their embedding in outside (laboratory) time).

Current conceptualizations of Bell measurements emphasize their contextuality-aspects [31,32,33].

Experiments with photons from a distant star or quasar might raise some doubt but fit nicely with the
idea that the undisturbed travelling photons are somehow “out of time” and fully enter reality only
upon registration. Light quanta are not detected as arriving in earmarked entangled pairs; such
“fossile” light can effectively be used as a random generator for closing the freedom-of-choice
loophole in Bell experiments [34]. The latter only if one does not believe in principally untestable
metaphysical superdeterminism, which claims that about everything is somehow correlated or
determined since the very beginning of the universe.

3. Clocks in the real world

The classical frames of quantum systems with their start- and end-points can, depending on the
available details, be ordered in at least one way to form consistent histories. Time thus starts out locally
and discrete. Events with their records have been described as creating empirical (space-)time before
[35,36].

Not only collapse-events, but, of course, also interactions in the classical domain with energy transfer
(and entropy production) generate records and timestamps. Given some energy/time uncertainty
relation, “moments” come with a fuzzy extension, i.e., minimum duration. The sheer number of related
and partly overlapping and also nested/embedded systems following the same laws and producing
records, allows for their qualified ordering and, depending on the context, also synchronization;
practically quantitative, smooth, and continuous time emerges. Employing a model of a relaxation
process, time can be shown to appear as a coarse-grained parameter in the statistics of measurements
of events very similar to temperature [37].

4
Any clock produces entropy, and clocks need energy, the better they are, the more. The laws of
thermodynamics dictate a trade-off between the amount of heat dissipated (entropy produced) on
the one hand side and the accuracy and resolution on the other [38,39,40].

Boundary conditions are given by relativity; time stamps are relative in a context and they are local.
The dependence of outcomes on the order of such events establishes one direction of time (in a
context/history), which cannot simply be reversed. This is ascribed to the entropy generated w hen
establishing the records. These traces together with the mechanism generating them effectively
constitute clocks, which cannot exist as such inside an isolated timeless quantum system. Any clock
needs something which changes, either periodically or as in some form of relaxation. The expansion of
the universe is a special and most important example of the latter because all other clocks are one way
or the other anchored to that universal reference [41].

The well-known Page Wootters mechanism for supplying clocks to a quantum system involves a second
system, in which memories/records are conserved (i.e., effectively classical in disguise) [42]. Even
disregarding a full collapse of a quantum syystem, energy cannot be measured arbitrarily fast by an
external system, and the evolution observed by an internal clock cannot be unitary during an energy
measurement regardless whether an internal or an external system carries out the measurement [43].

In general, quantum measurements cannot be performed instantaneously in decoherence-focused

interpretations; the time required scales with the change of entropy of the measured system [44].
There are speed limits on observables both classically and for quantum systems [19]. Also in the light
of what has been shown for (continuous) position, it is seems natural to state that time principally
cannot be measured to arbitrary precision [45]. Measurements have a minimum energy cost,
infinitively exact measurements quite generally would require unbounded resources [40,46].

No clock is a clock without memory [12]. Clocks with some permanence require some entropy
production; if they were all unitary and reversible there would be the risk that they run in the wrong
direction [47]. A definite thermodynamic time’s arrow is restored by even a quantum measurement of
entropy production [48]. In experiments purportedly putting counter-running arrows of time in a
superposition, (only) the order of unitary evolution-steps was affected, and no record with entropy
was generated during the process before the very (classical) end.

For periodic clocks, progressive counting is essential, and for aperiodic ones it is required to remember
at least some starting value. Real physical clocks cannot be in equilibrium and they cannot be
reversible, they require some reservoir of low entropy / some source of free energy. In suitably large
enough real classical systems, memories, at least traces, are possible, and entropy is never decreasing;
reversibility is barred, and causality can be relied on [49,50].

Building on the embedding of quantum processes in classical spacetime, it can be shown that processes
with indefinite causal order (ICO) are forbidden unless input and output agent systems are non -
localized [51,52,53]. Even then, one can “zoom in” and unveil a finer level of description exhibiting a
well-defined and acyclic causal order. ICO processes, which violate causal order, cannot be realized
faithfully in classical spacetime.

Causality is a time-oriented abstraction on the basis of (interaction) events, in particular their observed
order, and correlations relatively high up in a hierarchy of concepts following an ontology as devised
by Nicolai Hartmann [54]. Human cognition unfolds in time, and it works with expectations but not in
the sense that we only dream up and thus constitute regularities but rather that these are (often
statistically) extracted from learning, in part already ground-laid by evolution over eons, as sketched
in the Ouroboros Model [1]. Linking two events causally demands much more connection(s) between
these two than mere succession in time, i.e., generally the impact of an event or intervention has to
5
be described [36,55]. To understand anything acceptably, detailed schemata have to be activated and
filled without leaving big gaps between any purported cause and effect. This in turn does not mean
that clocks would require some observer to read them or that cause and effect would wait for anyone
to disentangle them.

Here it is argued that that one has to forego any tacit assumption that normal classical laboratory time
can be directly extrapolated to arbitrary settings, e.g., like the very beginning of the universe.

4. The Arrow of Time

Ordered records with reversible transitions in forward and in backward direction do not suffice for
keeping time, nor for establishing a well-defined and univocal direction of time passing. A most simple
example is given by an old film roll, which (given suitable content) can be seen with one or the other
succession of frames without noticing any uncertainty or error. Similarly, it is currently agreed
knowledge that the standard microscopic laws of physics, which describe possible developments in
forward direction do this equally well in backward direction [48].

Common agreement can be refined and superseded as a result of more information (from additional
sources like, e.g., more powerful instruments) becoming available, which can yield a new and improved
understanding. Recently it has been shown that, indeed, there is a microscopic classical phenomenon,
which unambiguously specifies an allowed forward direction of time. An accelerating wave equation
is reported to have a solution only with time progressing but not in reverse [56,57]. The long-standing
Abraham-Minkowski controversy about the speed and momentum of light in a changing medium has
thus been resolved by carefully considering the used frames of reference; i.e., the discussed
discrepancies can be ascribed to non-local observations. In terms of longitudinally accelerating waves,
thus there is a well-defined direction of time, an "arrow of time." Relativistic (observer dependent)
effects ensure the conservation of momentum of the wave between different media. The proper time
of the accelerating wave is universal and analogous to the proper time in Special and General Relativity,
not necessarily the same as laboratory time. With a constant reference velocity, momentum and
energy are conserved for a wave moving along a geodesic.

Time dilatation as described by Special Relativity ensures a smooth interface to the timeless quantum
realm: in a system speeding up and approaching the speed of light (thus also becoming ever more
isolated), internal time drags on ever more slowly, and its passing diminishes, coming to a standstill in
the limit (for an outside observer). In a recent paper it has been shown that even tachyons, by
definition travelling with a speed larger than the speed of light, can consistently be fit into standard
covariant quantum field theory, just that the phase space has to be doubled [58]. Taking the initial and
final state of the system on equal footing as boundary conditions for the calculation of probabilities
involving tachyons, makes the theory mathematically consistent. It is highlighted by the authors that
this endorses the two-state formalism of quantum mechanics featuring time symmetry of quantum
measurement processes proposed 60 years ago [59]. A time-symmetric theory then obtains the arrow
of time by macroscopic factors like an embedding in the expanding universe.

Since its first conception by Arthur Stanley Eddington, the arrow of time, which we experience in the
macroscopic world, has been traced to a state of very low entropy at a beginning of the universe. Its
continuous expansion goes hand in hand and delivers a backdrop with time progressing in only the
forward direction [41]. With progressing time, the universe develops towards some equilibrium, and
entropy is increasing. This might go on until the universe has so much expanded that almost any finite
region is empty; this would then be an effectively timeless condition with zero entropy (after some
maximum in between).
6
While there is little disagreement about the principal existence of a postulated highly ordered state
with low entropy in the early universe, it is not so clear how this purportedly very special state could
ever have arisen. As to time then, it would progress very slowly due to the dilatation caused by the
enormous mass concentration and possibly also resulting from the dilation as a consequence of very
rapid expansion (all for later outside observers where possible). Leaving out for now the very first
moments, there is an obvious way to pinpoint an important transition in time at decoupling when the
universe was about 300000 years old and approximately 3000 K hot with expansion going on
thereafter. This is documented in the cosmic microwave background, CMB [60].

The proposal is, again, to consider the full frame of reference, in particular its change from one
condition to another in the early expanding universe. What was an average high entropy state of
matter at an early point with basically only short-range forces, became one of very low entropy
triggered by the changing balance between the contributions of the dominating forces. Gravity at that
time of continued expansion becomes the most effective force on larger scales, and it is attractive. As
gravity tends to clump matter together, a homogenous smooth state of high entropy turns into a highly
improbable state of low entropy [61]. Roger Penrose with his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, for
example, has raised similar arguments (in order to bypass questions relating to special initial
conditions, hypothesizing an eternal recurrent universe) [62].

Deemphasizing the role of gravity, another special point in time has been proposed by Carlo Rovelli
[8]. At about “one second” after Big Bang, protons and neutrons were no longer in thermal equilibrium
due to the expansion of the universe. At the freeze out temperature of 0.7 MeV the ratio between
helium and hydrogen was fixed. Giant clouds of hydrogen can later be identified as providing one
suitable reservoir of low entropy [63].

Very recent calculations arrive at the conclusion that the universe at its current state with low entropy
and a small cosmological constant may actually not be so special anyway [64]. Even if coarse graining
is required for defining entropy, this does not necessarily mean that the arrow of time turns fully
perspectival, and could only be rescued with some type of anthropic argument.

The Bekenstein bound specifies an upper limit how much entropy can be contained in a volume with
a given energy (on the surface) following the second law of thermodynamics [65]. A small baby
universe would have its limits. As soon as there is an environment to which enough entropy can be
dumped, quantum states can be framed (classically), and matter can turn into real, the expan sion
process at least then becomes irreversible. It has been argued that time dilation itself (both from
Special Relativity and gravitational causes) produces entropy [66]. For the early constituents of Big
Bang, which fly rapidly apart, time dilation would have applied with the expansion generating entropy
(and time).

Each single photon of the CMB detected now has lost most of its energy since it had been emitted,
redshifted due to the expansion of the universe. Propagating all the time with the speed of light, these
photons cannot really be called “tired” but they are definitively “stretched”. Here, it is hypothesized
that the “lost” energy went into entropy production, again adhering to Landauer’s principle. The ratio
between energy and entropy thus changes during expansion, which fits with a corresponding increase
of the Bekenstein bound [65].

The expanding universe in total can be seen as an “absorber”, allowing only outward spreading
electromagnetic waves. The microscopic direction of time from the accelerating wave equation thus
fits nicely with the general cosmological arrow of time, and so do all other such arrows, e.g., our
perceptual and psychological ones, too. Animals including humans actually are (inter alia) clocks
employing in fact a plentitude of mechanisms in parallel, which might be one reason why a timeless

7
quantum world is so hard to imagine and is felt to be so weird. Interestingly, Large Language Models,
which are the current most successful models of human thought are slightly better at predicting what
comes next in a sentence than what came before [67].

5. No need for inflation

In standard scenarios of Big Bang, time and gravity, and actually all of the world, starts in a state at
least close to a mathematical infinity. Inflation during a first short period then is purported to finally
yield a universe, which matches with current observations.

The classical preparation of an isolated quantum systems poses a challenge in any laboratory. With
gravity probably assuming no decisive role long before freeze out or recombination and transparency,
quantum effects of the other three fundamental forces of nature dominated. The very beginnings of
the universe certainly were not classical, and the conditions of systems separation, thermodynamic
imbalance and long thermalization times for memory and traces very probably were not met [8]. Far
from equilibrium with time only emerging in the process and diverse non-linear feedback between all
constituents, certainly no nice linear scale for the development of anything can be expected.

The proposal here is to consider the possibility that time in some way progressed from a very beginning
but clocks ticked differently before the advent of hadrons and/or neutral atoms, which could provide
some basis for defined (classical) boundary conditions and a suitable environment for records and for
dumping entropy. The idea is trivial: something can seem extremely fast in case the available clock
runs very slow. Not some intrinsic speed but rather the applicable frame and scale would be to
investigate for answering open questions, e.g., concerning smoothness. A “slow genesis” of space and
time during that initial phase might in hindsight just look like “inflation” (with its “timely duration”
constrained also by some sort of time/energy uncertainty relation).

Presumably the Hubble tension could be addressed by allowing time to pass differently in very early
and later phases of the unfolding expanding universe, similar in effect to changing coupling constants.
Probably this is not really needed, and identifying some other biases in measurements can resolve the
currently observed discrepancies between diverse methods [68,69]. At the time the cosmological
microwave background froze out the transition most likely was not razor-sharp, and remainders of
earlier “slower time” might have still been effective (the universe appears to be expanding faster in
our (local and temporal) vicinity). This might just match with (almost) no time passing before
decoupling (given ample opportunities for all types of development like in small isolated quantum
systems). The time passing close to the center of the young expanding universe would have been
gravitationally dilated compared to more peripheral volumes experiencing a weaker gravitational
potential, and expansion speed (probably higher at the periphery) could have had an influence, too
(probably even a compensating one). Baryonic acoustic oscillation features observed in the CMB now
could be blurred due to possibly associated gradients.

Inflation has been proposed to solve a number of problems like the observed homogeneity of the
visible universe in every direction [70]. After tremendous initial success, foremost earlier proponents
have turned fierce sceptics. Discrepancies between ever more exact measurements have surfaced, and
it seems that in order to avoid extreme finetuning for certain parameters others have to lie in
unbelievable narrow regions [62,71].

A deep arrow of time pointing in the usual direction but with “less speed” might obviate the need for
an inflationary phase. Homogeneity does not always require direct interaction. Behavior of the
constituents according to the same laws, which became effective after wider separation, could have
8
led to very similar outcomes overall. With one common timescale for all phenomena ascribed to the
first moments after the Big Bang, it can be speculated, that changing just that scaling has only
moderate impact on specific mechanisms unfolding. With space expanding, unitarity breaks down
even without disturbance, and only isometry appears to be left [72,73].

6. Matter and antimatter

While gravity might not be of top importance directly for the progressing of time in the earliest phases
it might be interesting to note that within the initial gigantic concentration of energy/mass (even if not
infinite), conditions will vary to some extent. This is hardly seen today, one main reason, why an
inflationary period was invented originally.

Gravity defines geometry and there has to be some initial difference whether particles are located at
the middle of the baby universe or at its periphery. Some type of gradients appears unavoidable. Even
in a constant gravity field, the temperature in a gas in thermal equilibrium and in gravitational
equilibrium cannot be uniform [74]. In this case, still, a uniform temperature is seen by an observer
due to gravitational redshift. Given the universality of free fall, the validity of the Stefan –Boltzmann
law is not affected by a temperature gradient stemming from gravity [75]. The Tolman–Ehrenfest effect
probably canceled (almost all) imbalance in the CMB measured today.

If gravity affected matter and antimatter slightly differently this might be the reason for the absence
of antimatter in the observable universe. First measurements of the behavior of antimatter in the weak
gravitational field of the earth show no difference to ordinary matter but need not be of real relevance
for very high concentrations of energy and gravity. A recent experiment at CERN most probably was
far too insensitive to see any difference in gravitation for matter and antimatter at a level likely
required to explain the imbalance observed in the universe today [76]. Actually, it is not so obvious
how any finding in such an experiment would relate to a minuscule asymmetry during baryogenesis
[77].

Some tiny violation of the CPT symmetry could explain the dominating prevalence of matter over
antimatter [78,79]. Charge and parity appear pretty quantized and solid. This is different for time. Here
it is suggested that, in fact, time-symmetry is the crucial component, and it is violated in the relevant
context far away from equilibrium. With time itself only emerging during the violent processes of
expansion and baryogenesis, it certainly cannot in this epoch be considered as an effectively “static
container” in which any development can run unaffectedly in forward or backward direction equal in
all detail. To a much lesser extent this applies in general: already Heraclitus knew that no one can step
into the same river two times.

7. Gravity from thermodynamics and the other way round

Gravity in turn might also be seen emergent as an entropic force. Ted Jacobson has shown that the
Einstein field equations, which describe relativistic gravitation, can be derived by combining general
thermodynamic considerations with the equivalence principle (involving the Bekenstein bound)
[65,80]. Erik Verlinde and others have investigated how alternative proposals for gravity might
originate in entropic scenarios [81,82]. Jacob Bekenstein has also proposed a generalized second law,
which is valid when the Einstein Equation holds, linking the latter to vacuum entanglement [83,84]. In
a program aimed at deriving gravity from quantum mechanics and utilizing several mostly reasonable
assumptions, the emergence of spacetime from entanglement, i.e., “bulk entanglement gravity”, has
been sketched [85].
9
If it is most difficult to reconcile gravity and quantum physics at the beginning of time it could be
interesting to look at the other side, to the end of time. With expansion going on forever (let us
assume), maybe even accelerating for some of the time, the universe turns basically into an empty
void. Still, gravity might not peter out incessantly and drop to perfect (mathematical) zero. Time itself
would freeze, and with it some bottom value of gravity. In addition, the very act of measuring would
require some means, i.e., some type of apparatus, which cannot completely be devoid of mass or
energy. This, in turn, would produce gravity, albeit very weak. At least some inevitably self-induced
gravity thus will always be present for any observer [40]. This would be another analogy to
thermodynamics, i.e., to the third law, saying that absolute zero cannot be achieved in finite time.

It is proposed to see gravity not smoothly dropping to zero in the weak limit as one argument for some
type of modified Newton/Einstein gravity, MOND. Modified Newton gravity has recently booked some
success in various versions; indefinitely flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies [86,87,88], gravitationally
weekly coupled binary star systems [89,90], the cosmic microwave background [91], and the observed
bulk flow [92] can be described/explained.

To account for gravitational lensing, earlier versions of MOND need to be generalized and relativistic.
Maybe, in the end matters are more complicated, and some tensor-vector-scalar theory as proposed
by Jacob Bekenstein is required [93,94]. Einstein’s General Relativity would suffer the same fate as
Newton´s gravity before: i.e., rendered a most appropriate and useful approximation in certain
somewhat limited domains.

Probably it is all too early to dismiss Einstein or tinker too much with his equations. Taking the
nonlinear field self-interaction effects of General Relativity seriously can possibly explain both, dark
matter and dark energy [95,96]. Exploring the expansion of the universe using fundamental
thermodynamical concepts for adiabatic conditions, some cooling has to be expected in a fluid
approach [97]. This can be described with a Grüneisen-parameter, which is found as naturally
embodied in the energy-momentum stress tensor in the Einstein field equations. A concept of “thermal
time”, with dynamical laws fully and only determined by correlations, has been considered as a
possible basis for fully general-relativistic thermodynamics. In the presence of gravity, temperature is
not constant in equilibrium in space. This Tolman-Ehrenfest effect linking thermodynamics and gravity
can be derived by applying the equivalence principle to a key feature, i.e., the “speed of time”, which
is the ratio between the flow of thermal time and the flow of proper time [49,98]. This speed of time
in turn can be identified as the local temperature. Carlo Rovelli takes thermal time as centerpiece in
an attempt to de-construct and afterwards re-construct time as the local order of events in a
fundamentally relativistic account with time resulting from a blurred vision of macroscopic states, i.e.,
course graining [99].

8. No need for dark matter nor dark energy

As decades of dedicated search for dark matter (particles) and dark energy have so far turned back
basically empty-handed, gravity as an emergent phenomenon might be worthwhile a consideration.
Some version of MOND could almost certainly deliver an observed performance just as dark matter
(or better); suitable approximations of General Relativity might do the same [95]. Heuristically, it has
been sketched how space, gravity, and spacetime could emerge in a holographic scenario and rather
directly yield Newton’s law of gravitation [82,100]. Displacements change the entropy and lead to
reaction forces. Gravity as an entropic force would then result from such changes in the information
about the positions of material bodies. Generalization to relativity could further lead to the Einstein
equations. The law of inertia might thus have an entropic origin following the equivalence principle.

10
Entropic gravity can in a toy model also be linked to the quantum entanglement of small bits of
spacetime information [101].

While it seems that there are several connections between quantum entanglement, gravity and dark
matter, there might also be mechanisms for dark energy [102,103]. For the latter it might be even
more natural to consider that our galaxy is located in a (not really very pronounced) under-dense
region in the local universe. In this context it is interesting to observe that MOND does predict more
clumpy structures early on than plain (approximated) General Relativity / standard Lambda-cold dark
matter (ɅCDM) models [92]. At the same time, James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) observations of
the early universe are in strong tension with ɅCDM cosmology, which seems to favor hybrid models
[104,105,106]. JWST observations yielded tensions with current models of galaxy evolution, detecting
massive and apparently mature structures much earlier than expected [107]. One particular way some
issues with the Hubble tension and galaxy formation could be fixed is with an early contribution of dark
energy [108].

In any case, adapting / enhancing low field gravity could look more promising than searching forever
for seemingly directly non-observable dark matter or dark energy, the latter driving an observed
accelerated expansion of the universe. Accepting General Relativity as basis, one should take its non-
linear self-interaction fully into account. This seems to offer explanations for the effects ascribed to
the presence of dark matter as well as dark energy [95,96]. While effective gravity would be boosted
over shorter distances inside denser regions, its influence over wide distances in between massive
blocks would be diminished. A clumpy universe can give rise to “timescapes”, i.e., clocks ticking with
different speeds depending on whether they are situated in widely empty space or inside massive
dense regions [92,109].

There might still be a little space for some dark baryonic matter in the vast expanses between far
distant galaxies.

A not completely cancelled geometrical asymmetry during the late phases of Big Bang might explain
the observed very small lopsidedness of the CMB [60] and an uneven distribution of very big structures
observed today [92].

Based on the latest JWST observations, dark energy has been hypothesized as waning (“thawing”)
compared to a few billion years ago [110]. This could qualitatively fit with the non-linear self-effects of
General Relativity, which would certainly not establish a single static value for a vacuum energy once
and forever [94,95]. Dark energy according to the fluid model also turns out as time dependent in the
current (dark energy-dominated) era [97].

9. No need or place for many worlds

It looks like all of the above can nicely fit with one real world, the universe, which we inhabit and
observe. Quantum systems need classical framing while purported effects from un-reflected uses of
unitary quantum physics seem dispensable and not contributing too much to our understanding. Nice
and elegant as a theory, which needs nothing else but itself for its own interpretation, might be, it has
been argued before that not only quantum but even classical systems always require some sperate
reference [111].

It seems clear that for physical models we have to stay inside the universe as observed (if we do not
want to appeal to some metaphysical external god’s eye perspective or help; doing this in effect by
enthroning abstracted formalisms including the postulation of perfectly plain stability for some
relations does not look like a convincing option).
11
Frames and records as suggested here, can naturally match with time as described in Special and
General Relativity. It has been demonstrated that Einstein´s equivalence principle can be generalized
such that it applies for reference frames, which are associated to quantum systems, even when in a
superposition of spacetimes [112]. This way, there seems to be no basic conflict between Quantum
Theory and General Relativity. Nevertheless, that does not mean that massive bodies actually could be
in superpositions; this appears to be prevented by inevitable phonons, which would be generated
when trying to prepare a superposition of a massive body [113].

Spacetime cannot be infinitively smooth. At some (very small) scale, fluctuations must appear due to
the quantum nature of many observables, and also time [39].

Attempts to arrive at classical manifest observations and one solid world based on fleeting quantum
mechanical behavior have basically followed two routes: decoherence (staying inside unitary QM
formalism, but only for the entire system including the environment, and not for the respective
quantum system alone) and modifying Schrödinger´s equation (postulating external influences). Here,
it is proposed to leave QM inside alone, but effectively delimit completely isolated quantum systems
by relatively hard boundaries at their preparation (or birth) and also at collapse (possibly rather smooth
at this end if partly isolated).

One mandatory ingredient required for reconciling the quantum with the classical realm obviously is a
certain level of randomness; some type of fluctuations, as described by thermodynamics, thus play an
important role in all accounts. Conceptualizing decoherence as transmitting / loss of information to an
environment, end-boundaries are diluted as information leaks out of an incompletely isolated
quantum system. With a tight relation between information and energy, in the end the same amount
of entropy as given by Landauer’s principle is produced as a minimum for a quantum system to behave
classically [114]. Like heat from mechanical friction, information related to entanglement does not
return back to resurrect some exact starting conditions; this is the arrow of time.

The standard von Neumann entropy is not suitable for characterizing extractable work from internally
correlated systems, any lack of knowledge limits the amount of work, which an observer can gain [115].
Strict energy conservation and the Jarzynski fluctuation theorem cannot be observed at the same time
when extracting work from a quantum system in a thermal state [116].

In a very recent proposal of marrying quantum mechanics and gravity, fluctuations feature
prominently, and it is hypothesized that small masses can be measured as fluctuating [117,118]. Zero-
point fluctuations with particle-antiparticle pairs leading to a polarizability of the vacuum also play a
decisive role in an attempt to address the cosmological enigma and derive (some) dark energy as
vacuum energy from Casimir self-interaction of quantum electrodynamic fields [119]. Local
contributions from Casimir self-interaction would most probably not preclude effects due to field self-
interaction in General Relativity over wide distances [95,96], and the other way round.

10. Other parallels to the outside of the physical box

Any complete understanding of the universe has to cope with unknown unknowns and surely with
principled limitations. These refer to the sheer understandability of physics on the one hand side, and
to limited capabilities of humans on the other. The “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the
natural sciences” as described by Eugene Wigner [120] does not come with a guarantee for infinite
extension. On the contrary, mathematical impossibilities surely also constrain physical models.
Additionally, any structure and theory must somehow match with human capacities for perception
and cognition. Paraphrasing Immanuel Kant: “the conditions of the possibilities to experience objects
12
are at the same time the conditions for the possible objects of this experience” [121]. Technical
instruments built on the basis of thorough physical understanding have dramatically expanded human
perception, often leading to serendipitous discoveries. In some (not so far) future, similar might
happen to constrained human cognition. The Ouroboros Model offers an explanation how our
subjective experience of unfolding time structured in moments arises in iterations [1,121].

Looking at biology, we have learned that nature is a tinkerer, and assuming one divine streamlined
master-plan behind all physical reality might simply be misguided; and if nature were that clear in some
end, that structure would only be accessible to us via cognition, which in turn is principally limited and
relying to a large part on manyfold abstractions, which are linked and interwoven, but rather specific
for clearly demarked contexts [1].

The “natural“ but not naïve interpretation of quantum mechanics described above has to be
considered local; everything we really know of happens in a (classical) context. Any prima facie non-
local effect can solely be detected by employing meta- selections the specifications of which itself
cannot be transmitted without relying on at least some classical communication. Quantum mechanics
is thus left in a situation akin to the case of mathematics: the impossibility to demonstrate some basic
tenets of quantum reality without resorting to classical means can be seen as corresponding to Gödel´s
incompleteness result. Some “external” reference for non-contradictory self-consistent grounding is
required for “completeness”. This fundamental open-ended nature of relevant endeavors (in
mathematics and for physics) does not prevent beautiful and useful results, on the contrary.

David Hilbert’s program of strict and complete axiomatization of mathematics (and physics) has been
proven impossible. Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness proof just the same as Alan Turing’s work with self-
referring statements at their core. The demonstrated irresolvable contradictions can be ascribed to a
clash between a sought-for “eternal” (timeless) mathematical solid structure and a “dynamical” twist
to it, which contraposes different “moments” (i.e., contexts). If that famous guy from Crete had made
reference to the respective actual time in the real world and exclaimed “I lie now: (in this following
interval, with this specific well-defined statement)” nobody would have ever bothered much.

In the light of the above, taking time fully into account looks like offering the best way out, and this
often offers a resolution of apparently infinite regress. Bhartṛhari and Julian Roberts have had that
idea (long) before [122].

Anyway, there are (individual) limits to human cognition and understanding. Natural laws carved out
as straight(ened) important links in the web of dependencies have to be “accessible and simple”, and
this constraint can only be expanded so much with artificial intelligence. Relations are selected as
fundamental if they are clear and direct, useful, compatible with (almost) everything known,
“elegant”,…; i.e., if they are in a way “beautiful”, similarly as in daily life or art. It can be admitted that
such a program might not be simply “realistic”, as there will be always something which we do not and
cannot know, but the ambition and the obtained results overall certainly are not “anti-realistic”.

The topic of complexity with a main distinction between problem classes belonging to P (solvable in
polynomial time) versus NP (not solvable in polynomial time) might have some additional bearing on
solidly establishing (and limiting) a basis for our (and machine) understanding of the world, which is
principally achievable. A very rough analogy between graphs and quantum systems can be seen by
identifying nodes with (classical records of) events and links with (timeless quantum mechanical)
developments between these specific points. There are very many possible arrangements successively
connecting nodes/events with one link exactly, while there is a limited number of possibilities for
traversing links when nodes (events) are only encountered once on each route.

13
Comparing the number of possible Eulerian paths between few nodes, with the number of Hamiltonian
paths, a tremendous imbalance is obvious (e.g., demonstrated in the nice animation in [123]); there
are overwhelmingly more Hamiltonian paths. While it takes a slow exponential algorithm to find a
solution for a Hamiltonian path, any route can be checked for correctness in polynomial time. For Euler
graphs, both finding and verifying correct routes is easy with a fast polynomial algorithm. In Quantum
Mechanics, events (with irreversible real records in entropy) are fewer than possible connections
between them (links are manyfold and timeless).

It is tempting to speculate, whether some type of Feynman integral approach, taking all possibilities
into account, could be adapted and whether an associated Schrödinger-type equation for NP-hard
problems could be found. Quantum computers might then have an edge while classic simulations
implemented with neuronal networks would be quite efficient up to some capacity limits. Roughly
having all hubs and links in the mind at the same time and then starting with the strongest, i.e.,
internally most densely connected, clusters (coarse graining) in an iterative procedure is hypothesized
to be a procedure by which humans address such problems; e.g., the one called travelling salesman.
Intermittently fixed anchoring points pave the way to a solution and fend off capacity limitations to
some extent (on the expense of time required for a solution) [124].

Foregoing absolute optima helps to find near-optimum solutions efficiently. Bayesian processes as
recently often proposed as blueprint for cognition, are NP-hard [125]. Limiting the material to be
considered in a given context, is one way to make it tractable [121]. In the end, the reachable universe
is finite; this establishes some overall hard boundary conditions.

11. Conclusions

In a down to earth perspective, one specific result and immediate practical consequence of the above
should be mentioned. Taking seriously that the transition of a system between quantum and real has
a threshold given by Landauer’s principle, one should trivially focus on set-ups with very high relevant
temperatures when trying to harness quantum “weirdness”, e.g., for quantum computers.

On the meta-level, which is in the focus of this article, emancipating ourselves and renouncing the
reliance on some external clockmaker or unique eternal formalism (and their respective perspectives),
we have to assemble our understanding of the universe from what is rationally accessible to us inside.
This follows from an obvious criterion of intellectual honesty. While that attitude does not exclude the
contingent existence of other spheres [54], these cannot have a decisive place in any truly scientific
account. The widest possible consistency between all known different constituents and their strongest
achievable and testable interlinking is all, which we can aim to reach at a certain point in time.
Approximating the emergence of reality by quantum decoherence seems to deliver similarly with
basically the same accumulation of entropy in the environment in the end. For a fixed spectrum, no
maximally entangled states can persist in the presence of noise [126]. Above a critical temperature,
entanglement drops to zero, earlier described as “sudden death of entanglement” [127]. The here
emphasized “collapse” would be just a special “abrupt” case of the general process. There are limits
to the application of the formalism, it can even be argued that in a somewhat paradoxical twist objects
could hypothetically decohere to profoundly non-quantum superpositions of massive bodies
[113,128].

So, some type of “Ouroboros”-arrangements appears to be the best, which we can ever achieve. For
the here advocated three-legged approach the Triskelion might be a fitting symbol, see Figure 1. If one
insists, in a very abstract sense, this symbol could be taken as an encompassing god-eye’s view of the
physical universe.
14
Figure 1. Triskelion symbol as an abstract shorthand for how Quantum
Physics, Thermodynamics, and Relativity are interlinked and mutually induce
each other [129].

For the whole ideograph all three legs are necessary, no one is more basic or important than the others.
No vicious circle nor indiscriminate associationism is meant but an overarching consistent narrative
with well-defined building blocks consistently embedded in some meaningful (time-) structure. Circles
and loops are perfect, but more is required than just making ends meet; spirals (and helices) are
preferred and they have to have large enough diameters (and heights), embracing the knitwork of the
entire universe, at least potentially as far as can be seen at any given time. In this somewhat fleeting
picture strongly emphasizing emergences, one might try to find some basis starting with a concept of
energy.

The situation actually is the same, for physical theories, especially about the beginning of the universe,
as it is for understanding consciousness and Free Will [121]. Also there, self-reference causes no
problems as long as time is taken into account properly. Staying inside the known and
rationally/scientifically accessible universe, widest-ranging and well-organized self-referral is the best
one can hope for. This entails pushing boundaries.

The proposal here is to see space as primary basis for a better overview and put grainy emerging time
as “main culprit” for unavoidable fluctuations, which are essential for linking the quantum a nd real
domains, at the forefront. Time itself is anchored in the expanding space of the universe, all void
without material content [41]. Fluctuations themselves are “timeless” and not really “real” as long as
they do not produce entropy and records, just as in isolated quantum systems.

The important point then is that releasing gravity from standing a solitary pillar to some emergent
status and tying it closer to thermodynamics could somewhat close a braided picture just the same as
for the case of time. A self-consistent and intricate interplay of mutually self-reinforcing dependencies
like between quantum and classical mechanics appears to be the best the we can strive for. This is
quite similar to the relation between spacetime and gravity where neither space nor time would exist
without energy or massive objects, the latter also experiencing gravity in the spacetime warped by
masses, which in turn sense accelerations in time.

Identifying quantum physics as basis for classical phenomena while quantum effects becoming real
only when suitably framed by classical events, then only seems appropriate. Similarly, understanding
space and time as emergent from an underlying microscopic substrate, dovetails with real irreversible
time being established only in interactions and always involving some type of records and classical
entropy generation. It is no deficiency that the highlighted derivations of General Relativity leverage
ideas, which had been developed from observations and models of gravity before [81,82]; one has to
iteratively use the material, which is available (at the time in question). The point is that the overall
picture is grounded, coherent, and consistent with all available, in particular experimental, evidence.

What applies to dark matter, i.e., giving up a fruitless search for whatever exotic particle and rather
accepting a view of emergence in the real universe might be applicable the same for dark energy. While
an increasing production of vacuum energy appears promising by attributing some repulsion to the

15
emerging number of possibilities with growing space [119], living in a relative empty local bubble might
also be worthwhile a consideration [92,109]. The proposal of non-linear self-interaction in General
Relativity appears to offer a promising avenue for research as it could even account for changes
(reductions) in dark energy over longer time scales as recently reported [95,96,110]. This conspires
with new findings when modelling the universe as adiabatic fluid [97].

Running against the fundamental human wish for simple explanations, there is no reason why nature
should not have settled with a constellation combining many diverse effects and contributions, on the
contrary.

A compound conceptualization with growth plates (“Wachstumsfugen”, the German word is better by
highlighting the malleable space between more solid parts) instead of smooth and seamless uniformity
might be the best way to describe our many-faceted universe. The overall picture is more like a mosaic
than a smooth and continuous canvas. In restricted specific contexts (in praxis, with different
approximations and associated ranges of applicability) if --> then causal dependencies can be sought
for and often successfully delineated. Different perspectives corresponding to different models and
approximations can be most useful and effective in some contexts but detrimental for addressing other
problems [95, 96]. In an effective web of concepts and relations, more than one path between any two
points can be expected. Actually, the denser the web and the finer the mesh the more complete is the
picture, the deeper and encompassing the understanding, which then effectively unites many diverse
perspectives [121]. This does not fundamentally exclude an underlying “plan of a watchmaker”;
actually, nothing inside the universe could to this, just the same as for confirming one.

The author hopes that with this very rough sketch a thicket of intricate formalisms could be recast in
an emancipated, enlightened, and “democratic” perspective, and the whole somewhat ordered in a
self-consistent, coarsely systematic, at least not completely haphazard way (although some measure
of uncertainty or chaos appears indispensable in order to do justice to a full model of the universe).
The “three pillars” in the end are abstractions themselves in a web of manyfold dependencies and
(abstractable) regularities. Bending trajectories to straight as suggested with the Alena Tensor, offers
unexpected new perspectives and links [130]. “Time” in this picture appears as a most versatile
throughgoing abstraction related to the order of events.

There is nothing like “substance”, which would obey the definition of Baruch de Spinoza, i.e.,
something that is “in itself and is conceived through itself, that is, that whose concept does not require
the concept of another thing, from which it must be formed” [131]. Recent investigations in quantum
reference frames lead to similar conclusions regarding localization and time leaving no ground for
“absoluteness” [6]. The concept of substance like that of physical laws are abstractions, i.e., Platonic
figures, grounded in, but detached from many details of a braided underlying fabric of reality. Reality
is everything together, emerging from the interplay of many diverse strands and relations.
Unquestionably reachable from the inside, there is nothing like one fundamental particle, or one
Theory of Everything, or one formalism, or one basic eternal truth, and neither any one God. There is
nothing like an Archimedean point.

Facts are not relative/private other than described by Relativity and inherent limitations for
communication, even if there can be many diverse perspectives. A detailed formalism allows for the
full reconciliation of relativistic and quantum notions of causality. Experiments performed in classical
spacetime can be explained in terms of a definite and acyclic causal order at a fine-grained level
[51,52,53].

16
Ultimately, overall consistency with all accessible boundary conditions at a time and including
developments is the touch stone for “truth”, i.e., fully convincing models, which allow to explain known
facts and to formulate interesting predictions.

An ontology like the one by Nicolai Hartman is demanded, latest as soon as (self-) interactions and
combinations begin to build up higher-order phenomena [54]. While a certain reaction between two
entities interacting might be the only possible one in a certain context, a lot of development and time
might have been necessary in order to arrive at that particular state. Gestation of an embryo and a full
bird inside an egg need very little input in terms of external energy/heat but the process starts from a
most peculiar point with a tremendous history to draw effective information from. Synergetics as
developed by Hermann Haken and emphasizing time offers the best chances to describe how different
levels of organization can interact and make novel features and structures emerge [132]. Hermann
Haken and Philipp Warren Anderson realized amongst others the importance of sheer quantity of any
constituent [133]. The very concept of emergence can be traced at least to Nicolai Hartmann, and
probably much longer back [54]. Long ignored, it recently received some interest with the advent of
new mathematical formalisms with causation going bottom up as well as top down [134,135,136,137].

Following this line of thinking, it is tried here to sketch that a self-organizing approach with mutual
dependencies, constraints and promotions, leading to the unfolding emergence of our one reality, can
form a suitable basis for the existence of the universe and our understanding of it. Starting from any
one chosen “cornerstone”, the others can be found, explained, and understood iteratively; in the
triskelion symbol: tracing one uninterrupted line through its full length and through all turns.

The overall encompassing picture is claimed to be one of (“mutually induced”) emergence. As “more
is different” holds already in the context of quantity of one part alone, it should come as no surprise
that this principle is valid when many diverse contributions are effective together [133]. The main focus
of attention related to emergence usually is on attempts to explain some higher level of organization
on the basis of the involved constituents. In valid examples, the other side of the coin is obvious but
often neglected; any overarching emerged structure will somewhat inevitably be undermined as soon
as one delves into specific deep details. The grand big picture can easily get out of sight, and it might
in fact even be destroyed by too limited myopia.

Transformations involving energy or information in the real world are inevitably associated with losses
for a source and with entropy production. Some principal uncertainty alone and, especially, adhering
to some type of energy/time (entropy/time) uncertainty relations, forbids 100 % efficiency and
perfectly sharp demarcations. Even beyond that, Quantum Mechanics is not necessary for the
unpredictability of the future of any sufficiently complex system. Entropy is not the same as
information or a simple lack thereof. Entropy is relative and information is information only for a
prepared (suitably knowledgeable) recipient; coarse graining prevails, and it is most often the case that
only fractions of the total content can be transmitted and decoded. A most stupid guy, probably not
even able to read a single word, knows that burning a (holy) book hurts the targeted audience.
Collecting all photons emitted in the process could not bring back the meaningful content.

Even if still striving for some type of unification, a non-hierarchical lay-out of physical theory has to
some extent been proposed before by Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker in the format of a “Kreisgang”
(walking in a circle) through a web of relations and dependencies [138]. By establishing records at
disruptions, the unitary evolution of quantum states, which is information-preserving and time-
reversible, can be reconciled with the global evolution of the universe following the second law of
thermodynamics, which, in general, is neither. Poincaré recurrence is a mathematical construct not
applying to the real non-conservative world; even inside the quantum realm, ergodicity can be broken
because of destructive interferences [139].
17
Emphasizing a braided lay-out in a dynamic “process-view”, self-referring and with high
interconnectedness, could be seen as an attempt of combining Eastern and Western traditions, which,
amongst others, have repeatedly been found to put different weights on context as part of the
respective cultures [140].

To what extent the widespread search for one theory of everything (like earlier: the philosopher’s
stone) can be traced to a preference for monocausal thinking (probably grounded in monotheism or
following from the same roots) would be another interesting topic; ‒ for history, cognitive science, and
sociology. “Beauty” and “elegance” ascribed to (mathematical and physical) theories (as well as to
pieces of art) are hypothesized to follow from the same roots in human cognitive processes [1,121].

Letting go of any form of unique metaphysical goal-directedness, the here suggested lay-out and path
forward is probably but one of several or many possibilities to approach an overall consistent picture
(each emphasizing different constituents and relations). This should be seen as encouraging and as
genuine witness of possibly achieving some comprehensive understanding covering many facets and
including various diverse chains of arguments.

(Physical) theories (conceptualizations, models) are not all equal; they can self-reflectively and -
consistently be ranked according to criteria including how big their “diameter” is, i.e., whether or not
they cover a large range extending over many layers in an ontological hierarchy, how widely applicable
and accurate their results are, how solid they appear, how deeply grounded and based on well-
established facts without leaving large gaps, how important their field of application actually is,
whether they are open to progress or better even promote improvement and growth, and many more;
‒ with some of the demanded attributes and their weights most likely changing (mostly slightly) with
the accumulation of sound knowledge over time. Identified grounding layers with many (causal) links
emanating are in a privileged position. Uncertainty relations / trade-offs appear to be essential as one
can never be sure to have taken all potentially relevant parameters in interesting contexts into account
properly, ‒ except in very restricted cases.

For a very first shot aiming at a really big scientifically fully grounded and coherent picture without
appealing to supranatural powers, the author took the liberty to suppress many details leaving a lot of
room for serendipity. Attempting a coarse but encompassing view, how it all could fit together,
hopefully helps to turn attention and effort to promising directions [121].

Acknowledgments: Very insightful and supportive comments by Časlav Brukner on [11] via private
email are gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks go to some colleagues for their inspiring comments.

References

[1] Thomsen K. The Ouroboros Model in the light of venerable criteria. Neurocomputing 1, 121,
2010, [Link]
[2] Bohr, N. (1935). Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered
Complete? Reprinted in J. Faye and H. J. Folse (1998) (eds.), The Philosophical Writings of Niels
Bohr, Vol. IV: Causality and Complementarity. Woodbridge: Ox Bow press UK.
[3] W.E. Lamb, An operational interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, Physics Today
22, 23-28, 1969, [Link]

18
[4] A. Di Biagio, P. Donà, and C. Rovelli, The arrow of time in operational formulations of quantum
theory, Quantum 5, 520 (2021), [Link]

[5] G. Aubrun, et al. Entangelement and superposition are equivalent concepts in any physical
theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 160402, 2022, [Link]

[6] V. Kabel et al., Identification is Pointless: Quantum Reference Frames, Localisation of Events,
and the Quantum Hole Argument, [Link]

[7] V. Baumann and Č. Brukner, Wigner’s friend’s memory and the no-signaling principle,
[Link]

[8] C. Rovelli, Memory and entropy, entropy 44, 1024, 2022, [Link]
[9] R. Landauer, Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process (PDF), IBM Journal
of Research and Development, 5 (3): 183–191, 1961, [Link]
[10] C.H. Bennett, Notes on Landauer’s principle, reversible computation, and Maxwell’s Demon,
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 34, 501-510, 2003.
[Link]
[11] W.C. Myrvold, Shakin’ All Over: Proving Landauer’s Principle without neglect of fluctuations (
2020) eprint: arXiv:2007.11748, [Link]
[12] K. Thomsen, Timelessness Strictly inside the Quantum Realm. Entropy 23, 2021, 772,
[Link]

[13] R.P. Feynman and A.R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, New York, McGraw-Hill,
1965.

[14] P. Faist, Welcome to the entropy zoo, [Link]

[15] D. Šafránek, et al., A brief introduction to observational entropy,

[Link]

[16] P. Strasberg and J. Schindler, Comparative Microscopic Study of Entropies and their
Production, [Link]

[17] L. Herrera, Modified Landauer Principle According to Tsallis Entropy, Entropy 26, 931, 2024,
[Link]

[18] E.Y.S. Chua and C. Callender, No Time for Time from No-Time,
[Link]

[19] L.P. Garcia-Pintos, et al., Unifying quantum and classical speed limits on observables, Phys. Rev.
X 12, 011038, 2022, [Link]

[20] L. Mertens, et al., Inconsistency of linear dynamics and Born’s rule, Phys. Rev. A104, 052224,
2021, [Link]

19
[21] V. Shevchenko, Quantum measurements and Landauer’s principle, EPJ Web of Conferences
95, 03034, 2015, [Link]
[Link]/articles/epjconf/abs/2015/14/epjconf_icnfp2014_03034/epjconf_icnfp2014
_03034.html

[22] Tai Hyun Yoon and Minhaeng Cho, Quantitative complementarity of wave-particle duality, Sci.
Adv. 2021, 7: eabi9268, [Link]
[23] Seongjin Hong, et al. Demonstration of complete information trade-off in quantum
measurement, [Link]. 128, 2022, 050401,
[Link]
[24] M.J. Kewming and S. Shrapnel, Entropy production and fluctuation theorems in a continuously
monitored optical cavity at zero temperature, Quantum, 2022-04-13, volume 6, page 685,
[Link]
[25] P. Coles, J. Kaniewski, S. Wehner, Equivalence of wave-particle duality to entropic uncertainty,
nature communications, 2014, [Link]
[26] D. Spegel-Lexne, et al., Experimental demonstration of the equivalence of entropic uncertainty
with wave-particle duality, Science Advances 10, 2024,
[Link]
[27] R.W. Spekkens , Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp
measurements, Physical Review A. 71 (5): 052108,
[Link]
[28] T. Matsushika and F. Hofmann, Dependence of measurement outcomes on the dynamics of
quantum coherent interactions between the system and the meter, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 2023,
033064, [Link]
[29] D. Frauchiger, R. Renner, Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Nat.
Commun. 2018, 9, 1–10, [Link]
[30] J.R. Hance, Ming Ji, and H.F. Hofmann, Contextuality, coherences, and quantum Chesire cats,
New. J. Phys, 25, 2023, 113028, [Link]
[31] M. Kupczynski, Contextuality or nonlocality: what would John Bell choose today?, entropy 25,
280, 2023, [Link]
[32] A. Khrennikov, Ist the devil in h? entropy 23, 632, 2021, [Link]
[33] A. Khrennikov, Contextuality, complementarity, signaling, and Bell tests, entropy 23, 632,
2021, [Link]
[34] D. Rauch, et al. Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift,
Phys. Rev Lett. 121, 080403, 2018, [Link]
[35] A. Schlatter, On the reality of quantum collapse and the emergence of space-time, entropy 21,
323, 2019, [Link]
[36] U. Lucia and G. Grisolia, Thermodynamic Definition of Time: Considerations on the EPR
Paradox, Mathematics 10, 2711, 2022, [Link]
[37] S. Tanaka, Appearance of thermal time, Foundations of Physics, 51, 34, 2012,
[Link]

20
[38] P. Erker, et al. Autonomous quantum clocks: does thermodynamics limit our ability to measure
time?, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031022, 2017, [Link]
[39] A.N. Pearson, et al., Measuring the thermodynamic cost of timekeeping, Phys. Rev. X 11,
0210299, 2021, [Link]
[40] Y. Guryanova, N. Friis, and M. Huber, Ideal projective measurements have infinite resource
costs, Quantum 4, 222, 2020, [Link]
[41] T. Gold, The arrow of time, Am. J. Phys. 30, 403-410, 1982, [Link]
006-0007-y
[42] D.N. Page and W.K. Wootters, Evolution without evolution: Dynamics described by stationary
observables, Phys. Rev. D 27, 2885, 1983, [Link]
[43] I.L. Paiva, A.C. Lobo, and E. Cohen, Flow of time during energy measurements and the resulting
time-energy uncertainty relation, Quantum 6, 683, 2022, [Link]
07-683
[44] N. Shettell, F. Centrone, and L.P. Garcia-Pintos, Bounding the minimum time of a quantum
measurement, Quantum 7, 1182, 2023, [Link]
[45] Y. Kuramochi et al. Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem for continuous and unbounded conserved
observables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 210201, 2023,
[Link]
[46] K. Jacobs, Quantum measurement and the first law of thermodynamics: The energy cost of
measurement is the work value of the acquired information, Phys. Rev. E 86, 040106, 2012,
[Link]
[47] A. Zeilinger, A foundational principle for quantum mechanics, Foundations of Physics 29, 631-
643, 1999, [Link]
[48] G. Rubino, G. Manzano, and Ć. Brukner, Quantum superposition of thermodynamic evolutions
with opposing time’s arrows, Comm. Phys., 4:251, 2021, [Link]
00759-1
[49] G.J. Milburn, The thermodynamics of clocks, Contemporary Physics 61, 2020,
[Link]

[50] C. Rovelli, How causation is rooted into thermodynamics, Philosophy of Physics 1, 11, 2023,
[Link]

[51] V. Vilasini and R. Renner, Fundamental Limits for Realizing Quantum Processes in Spacetime,
[Link]. 133, 08201, 2024, [Link]

[52] V. Vilasini and R. Renner, Embedding cyclic information-theoretic structures in acyclic space-
time: No-go results for indefinite causality, Physical Review A110, 022227, 2024,
[Link]

[53] M. Salzger, Connecting indefinite causal order processes to composable quantum protocols in
a spacetime, [Link]

[54] Hartmann, N., Die Erkenntnis im Lichte der Ontologie, mit einer Einführung von Josef
Stallmach; Felix Meiner Verlag: Hamburg, Germany, 1982.

21
[55] R. Riek and A. Chatterjee, Causality in discrete time derived from Maupertuis reduced action
principle, entropy 23, 1212, 2021, [Link]
[56] Guoxu Feng and Jun Huang, A heuristic resolution of the Abraham–Minkowski controversy,
Eur. J. Phys. 136:520, 2021, [Link]

[57] M. Koivurova, C.W. Robson, and M. Ornigotti, Time-varying media, relativity, and the arrow of
time, Optica 10, 1398, 2023, [Link]

[58] J. Paczos et al., Covariant quantum field theory of tachyons, Phys. Rev. D 110, 015006, 2024,
[Link]

[59] Y. Aharonov, P.G. Bergmann, and J.L. Lebowitz, Time Symmetry in the Quantum Process of
Measurement, Phys. Rev. 134, B1410–B1416, 1964.

[60] Planck Collaboration, Planck 2013 results. XIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB,
Astronomy&Astrphysics 571, A23, 2014, [Link]
[61] L.S. Schulmann, Source of the observed thermodynamic arrow, J. of Physics: Conference Series
174, 2009, [Link]
[62] R. Penrose, Before the Big Bang: an outrageous new perspective and its implications for
particle physics, Proceedings of EPAC 2006, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2006.
[63] C. Rovelli, Where was past low-entropy?, entropy 21, 466, 2019,
[Link]
[64] L. Boyle and N. Turok, Thermodynamic solution of the homogenity, isotropy and flatness
puzzles (and a clue to the cosmological constant), [Link].B 849, 138442, 2024,
[Link]
[65] J.D. Bekenstein, Universal upper bound on the entropy-to-energy ratio for bounded systems,
Phys. Rev. D. 23, 287, 1981, [Link]
[66] M.L.W. Basso, J. Mazeiro, and L.C. Céleri, The irreversibility of relativistic time-dilation, Class.
Quantum Grav. 40, 195001, 2023, [Link]

[67] V. Papadopoulos, J. Wenger, and C. Hongler, Arrows of Time for Large Language Models,
[Link]

[68] A.G. Riess et al., A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant
with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, The
Astrophysical Journal Letters 934, 2022, [Link]
8213/ac5c5b

[69] W.L. Freedman et al., Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Three
Independent Astrophysical Determinations of the Hubble Constant Using the James Webb
Space Telescope, [Link]

[70] A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Cosmology For Grand Unified Theories With Radiatively
Induced Symmetry Breaking, Physical Review Letters 48, 1220, 1982,
[Link]

22
[71] A. Iijas, A. Loeb, P. Steinhardt, Inflationary Paradigm in trouble after Planck 2013, Phys. Lett. B.
723, 261–266, 2013, [Link]
[72] B. Dittrich and P.A. Höhn, Canonical simplical gravity, Class. Quantum Grav. 29, 115009, 2012,
[Link]
[73] J. Cotler and A. Strominger, The Universe as a quantum encoder,
[Link]
[74] R. C. Tolman, On the Weight of Heat and Thermal Equilibrium in General Relativity, (1930)
Phys. Rev. 35, 904–924, 1930, [Link]
[75] J. Santiago and M. Visser, Tolman temperature gradients in a gravitational field, Eur. J. Phys.
40, 025604, 2019, [Link]
[76] E.K. Anderson, et al. Observation of the effect of gravity on the motion of antimatter, Nature
621, 716, 2023, [Link]
[77] D. Blas, Theoretical aspects of antimatter and gravity, Phil. Trans R. Soc. A376, 20170277,
[Link]
[78] Stefan Meyer Institute for subatomic Physics Austrian Academy of Sciences,
[Link]
0of,atom%20consisting%20purely%20of%20antimatter
[79] Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland, [Link] (retrieved 23 October 2024)
[80] T. Jacobson, Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state, Phys. [Link]. 75,
1260, 1995, [Link]
[81] E. Verlinde, On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton, JHEP04, 029, 2011,
[Link]

[82] K. Ourabah, The other way round: from alternative gravity to entropy, Class. Quantum Grav.
41, 015010, 2024, [Link]

[83] T. Jacobson, Entanglement Equilibrium and the Einstein Equation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 201101,
2016.

[84] J.D. Bekenstein, Black Hole and Entropy, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333–2346, 1973,
[Link] 0.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333

[85] ChunJun Cao and S.M. Carroll, Bulk entanglement gravity without a boundary: Towards finding
Einstein’s equation in Hilbert space,
[Link]

[86] K.G. Begeman, A:H: Broeils, and R.H. Sanders, Extended rotation curves of spiral galaxies: dark
haloes and modified dynamics, Mon. Not. Astr. Soc. 249., 523, 1991,
[Link]
[87] Lin Wand and Da-Ming Chen, Comparison of modeling SPARC spiral galaxies‘ rotation curves:
halo models vx. MOND, RAA 21, 271, 2021, [Link]

[88] T. Mistele et al., Indefinitely Flat Circular Velocities and the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation from
Week Lensing, [Link]

23
[89] Kyu-Hyan Chae, Robust evidence for the breakdown of standard gravity at low acceleration
from statisically pure bienaries free of hidden companions, The Astrophysical Journal 960, 114,
2024, [Link]

[90] X. Hernandez, Kyu-Hyun Chae, and A. Aguayo-Ortiz, A critical review of recent Gaia wide binary
gravity tests, MNRAS 533, 729–742, 2024,
[Link]

[91] C. Skordis and T. Zlośnik, New relativistic theory for modified newtonian dynamics, Phys.
[Link]. 127, 161302, 2021, [Link]
[92] S. Mazurenko, I, Banik, P. Kroupa, and M. Halsbauer, A simultaneous solution to the Hubbel
tension and observed bulk flow within 250h -1 Mpc, MNRAS 527, 4388, 2023,
[Link]
[93] J.D. Bekenstein, Relativistic gravitation theory for the modified Newtonian dynamics paradigm
Phys. Rev. D 70, 083509, 2004, [Link]
[94] J.D. Bekenstein, Relativistic MOND as an alternative to the dark matter paradigm, Nuclear
Physics A 827, 555c, 2009, [Link]
[95] A. Deur, An explanation for dark matter and dark energy consistent with the standard model
of particle physics and General Relativity, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 883, 2019,
[Link]
[96] A. Deur, Comment on "Does gravitational confinement sustain flat galactic rotation curves
without dark matter?'' [Link]
[97] L. Squillante, et al. Exploring the expansion of the universe using the Grüneisen parameter,
Results in Physics 57, 2024, 107344, 2024, [Link]
[98] C. Rovelli and M. Smerlak, Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 075007, 2011,
[Link]
[99] C. Rovelli, The order of time, Penguin Random House, 2018.
[100] C.R. Stephens, G. ’t Hooft, B.F. Whiting, Black hole evaporation without information loss,
Classical and Quantum Gravity. 11, 621–648. 1994, [Link]
9381/11/3/014
[101] B. Swingle, Spacetime from entanglement, Ann. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 9, 345-359, 2018,
[Link]
[102] C.N. Watson, Theory of gravity dependent on entropy, Reports in Advances of Physical
Sciences7. 2350006. 2023, [Link]
[103] A. Schlatter and R.E. Kastner, Gravity from transactions: fulfilling the entropic gravity program,
J. Phys. Commun. 7, 065009, 2023, [Link]
[104] S.S. McGaugh, J.M. Schombert, F. Lelli, and J. Franck, Accelerated Structure Formation: The
Early Emergence of Massive Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies, The Astrophysical Journal 976,
[Link]
[105] R. Gupta, JWST early universe observations and ɅCDM cosmology, MNRAS 524, 3385, 2023,
[Link]

24
[106] Z.A. Le Conte, et al. A JWST investigation into the bar fraction at redshifts 1≤ z≤ 3, MNRS 530,
1984-2000, 2024, [Link]

[107] Bingjie Wang et al., RUBIES: Evolved Stellar Populations with Extended Formation Histories z
∼ 7–8 in Candidate Massive Galaxies Identified with JWST/NIRSpec, The Astrophysical Journal
Letters 969, 2024, [Link]

[108] Xuejian Shen et al., Early galaxies and early dark energy: a unified solution to the hubble
tension and puzzles of massive bright galaxies revealed by JWST, Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society 533, 3923–3936, 2024, [Link]

[109] A. Seifert, Z.G. Lane, M. Galopp, R. Ridden-Harper, and D.L. Wiltshire, Supernovae evidence for
foundational change to cosmological models, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society 537, 2025, L55–L60, [Link]
[110] DESI collaboration, [Link] (retrieved 23 October 2024)
[111] B. Schumacher and M.D. Westmoreland, Interpretation of quantum theory: the quantum
„grue-bleen“ problem, entropy 24, 1268, 2022, [Link]
[112] F. Giacomini and Č. Brukner, Quantum superposition of spacetimes obeys Einstein´s
equivalence principle, AVS Quantum Science 4, Special Collection: Celebrating Sir Roger
Penrose's Nobel Prize, 2022, [Link]
[113] C. Henkel and R. Folman, Universal limit on spatial quantum superpositions with massive
objects due to phonons, [Link]

[114] Litao Yan and Xiaohu Ge, A Thermodynamic Study on Information Power in Communication
Systems, entropy 26, 650, 2024, [Link]

[115] O.C.O. Dahlsten, R. Renner, E. Rieper, and V. Vedral, Inadequacy of von Neumann entropy for
characterizing extractable work, New Journal of Physics 13, 053015, 2011,
[Link]

[116] K.V. Hovhannisyan and A. Imparato, Energy conservation and fluctuation theorem are
incompatible for quantum work, [Link]

[117] J. Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical gravity? Phys. Rev. X 13, 041040, 2023,
[Link]
[118] J. Oppenheim, C. Sparaciari, B. Šoda, and Z. Weller-Davies, Gravitationally induced
decoherence vs space-time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity, Nature Comm 14,
7910, 2023, [Link]
[119] A. Tkatchenko and D.V. Fedorov, Casimir self-interaction energy density of quantum
electrodynamic fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 041601, 2023,
[Link]
[120] E.P. Wigner, The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences, Richard
Courant lecture in mathematical sciences delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959,
Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics. 13 (1): 1–14, 1960,
[Link]

25
[121] K. Thomsen, A challenge in A(G)I, cybernetics revived in the Ouroboros Model as one algorithm
for all thinking, Artif. Intell. Auton. Syst. , 2024, [Link]
[122] Wikipedia article titled „Liar Paradox“, accessed 11 March 2024.
[123] B. Brubaker, Complexity theory’s 50-year journey to the limits of knowledge,
Quantamagazine17 August, 2023, [Link]
year-journey-to-the-limits-of-knowledge-20230817/
[124] K. Thomsen, Is Quantum Mechanics Needed to Explain Consciousness?, NeuroQuantology 6,
43-45, 2008, [Link]

[125] J. Kwisthout and [Link], Computational Resource Demands of a Predictive Bayesian Brain,
Computational Brain & Behavior, 3, 174–188, 2020,
[Link]

[126] J.I. de Vicente, Maximally Entangled Mixed States for a Fixed Spectrum Do Not Always Exist,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 050202, 2024,
[Link]

[127] A. Bakshi, A. Liu, A. Moitra, and E. Tang, High-Temperature Gibbs States are Unentangled and
Efficiently Preparable, [Link]

[128] S. Filatov and M. Auzinsh, Unitarity of decoherence implies possibility of decoherence-like

dynamics towards macroscopic superpositions, entropy 24, 1546, 2022,
[Link]
[129] Wikipedia article titled „Triskelion“, image downloaded 25 February, 2024.
[130] P. Ogonowski and P. Skindzier, Alena Tensor in unification applications, Physica Scripta 100,
2024, [Link]
[131] B. Spinoza, Opera, Ethics, Part 3, Carl Winters, Heidelberg, 1925.

[132] H. Haken, Synergetics, An Introduction: Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions and Self-

Organization in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, 3rd ed.; Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, USA,
1983.

[133] P.W. Anderson, More is Different, Science 177 (4047) 393–396, 1972, [Link]
[Link]/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf

[134] R. Comolatti and E. Hoel, Causal emergence is widespread across measures of causation, 2022,
[Link]

[135] F.E. Rosas et al., Software in the natural world: A computational approach to hierarchical
emergence, [Link]

[136] J. Harte, K. Umemura, and M. Brush, DynaMETE: a hybrid MaxEnt-plus-mechanism theory of

dynamic maroecology, Ecology Letters 24, 935–949, 2021,
[Link]

26
[137] J. Harte, M. Brush, K. Umemura, and E.A. Newman, Dynamical theory of complex systems with
two-way micro-macro causation, PNAS 121, e2408676121, 2024,
[Link]

[138] C.F. von Weizsäcker, Aufbau der Physik, dtv, Carl Hanser Verlag, München, Wien, 1988.
[139] F. Thiel, I. Mualem, D. Kessler, and E. Barkai, Uncertainty relation between detection
probability and energy fluctuations, entropy 23, 595, 2021,
[Link]
[140] D. Memmi, Comparative foundations of Eastern and Western thought, AI & Soc 32, 359–368,
[Link]

27