Topics — What a work is about. Nucleation holds whatever reading the owner files here, whether or not an Anthology of the SOTA topic could also hold it; instruction for ML practice belongs to the anthology (ADR-048). The words are seeded from the clusters the reading-time triage of 2026-09-25 found, and grow by decision.
Quantum foundations — what quantum theory says about the world — contextuality, epistemic restrictions, interference, reconstructions and toy theories, quantum thermodynamics.
9 of 371 QUESTION documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| QUESTION-055 v4 | If communicative categories form a non-Boolean lattice, and the communicative object is a presheaf over contexts, over which base category is it one, and does some probe family split it into sectors that no probe connects? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-119, CLAIM-038, CLAIM-044, QUESTION-025 and QUESTION-031. Given a presheaf over contexts, the negation is the Heyting pseudo-complement, and that part is QUESTION-247, Answered. That the communicative object is a presheaf over contexts is QUESTION-332, Answered by CLAIM-038. Over which base, and whether probes split it into sectors, is open. THEORY-041 and THEORY-042 bear on it; the body gives each one’s limit. | Open |
| QUESTION-067 v4 | For a test of pragmatic judgements, under what probe families do renderings count as operationally equivalent, so that a test of Spekkens’s generalized noncontextuality applies and not only one of the sheaf or Kochen–Specker kind? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-009, CLAIM-037, CLAIM-044, CLAIM-046, CLAIM-142 and QUESTION-001. What each kind of noncontextuality failure refutes, and that the generalized kind is broader, is QUESTION-246, Answered. Whether a pragmatic test’s probes make renderings operationally equivalent, so that the generalized kind applies, is open. | Open |
| QUESTION-142 | For unital JB-algebras, is the existence of a dynamical correspondence exactly what makes observables generate symmetries of what they conserve, as Alfsen and Shultz’s theorem, quoted by Baez, states? | The Alfsen–Shultz clause of THEORY-160’s former promote_when, moved here on 2026-10-19, when THEORY-160 was narrowed to the bracket equivalence and promoted. Baez quotes the theorem (his Theorem 12) without proof, and the record has not read Alfsen and Shultz. | Open |
| QUESTION-146 | Is there a map from an empirical model’s signed global sections to a quasiprobability or frame representation of the corresponding GPT fragment, and if so does it preserve positivity both ways? | The promotion condition formerly on THEORY-014, moved here unchanged when THEORY-014 was promoted on 2026-10-19. THEORY-014 sets the sheaf, GPT and Contextuality-by-Default results side by side and claims no map between them. This question asks for the map, or a proof that none preserves positivity. | Open |
| QUESTION-156 | Which published models of concept combination reproduce overextension by dropping conjunction-as-meet, and which by dropping an order-preserving membership weight? | What remains of THEORY-255’s former promote_when after its promotion. In any lattice with an order-preserving membership weight, conjunction as meet cannot overextend. So every model that reproduces Hampton’s guppy-type items drops one of the two. Aerts drops the meet with an emergent subspace. Which assumption the other models drop, Busemeyer and Bruza’s (LIT-316, unavailable) and Franco’s among them, has not been read. | Open |
| QUESTION-197 | Is there a variant of the Döring–Isham rules, or of the context category, under which tensor-product composites of quantum systems satisfy the translation condition? | Filed when the promotion audit (batch 044, ADR-047 v2) proved, for finite dimensions, the failure that THEORY-585 had held as asserted: along a tensor product the pull-back of a non-scalar quantity disagrees with the composite’s quantity at some context, and no operator realises it. The former promote_when’s refutation route, a variant of the rules that repairs the composite, is held here. | Open |
| QUESTION-246 | In quantum theory, what does a failure of Kochen–Specker noncontextuality refute, as against a failure of Spekkens’s generalized noncontextuality, and which of the two notions is broader? | The conceptual part of QUESTION-067, split off under ADR-049 and answered by THEORY-011, THEORY-015, THEORY-016, THEORY-231 and THEORY-559. A Kochen–Specker proof refutes measurement noncontextuality together with outcome determinism, and so universal generalized noncontextuality. A generalized no-go refutes a positive quasiprobability representation, and Leibnizian representations within classical realism. The generalized notion is strictly broader. Which notion a test of pragmatic judgements can reach stays with QUESTION-067. | Answered |
| QUESTION-247 v2 | If the communicative object is a presheaf of propositions over a category of contexts, is the negation its topos logic gives an orthocomplement or a Heyting pseudo-complement, and what fixes it? | The conditional part of QUESTION-055, split off under ADR-049 and answered by THEORY-516 and THEORY-037. Over a presheaf of contexts the truth values are sieves, and negation is the Heyting pseudo-complement that the base category fixes, not an orthocomplement. That the communicative object is such a presheaf is QUESTION-332, Answered by CLAIM-038. Over which base, and whether probes split it into sectors, stays with QUESTION-055. | Answered |
| QUESTION-285 | What organization turns an interaction into a measurement, a measurement into a record that something uses, and observation into inquiry, without a conscious investigator; and what keeps an apparatus that revises its own discriminations answerable to what it did not produce? | The owner’s U19 of the exchange of 2026-10-27: “let’s double click on the relationship between inquiry and interaction, since this might elucidate (or connect us to) a generic notion of observation/measurement that doesn’t require the presence of a conscious investigator … maybe I’m connecting us back to apparatus here?” A19 answered with a ladder of separable achievements (interaction, correlation, measurement, record, use, revision) and found the record already holding Rovelli, Pattee and the judgement–observation loop (CLAIM-341, CLAIM-342). The question asks for criteria at each rung, and for the condition that keeps the top rung from confirming itself. TERM-089 names the apparatus whose functions the rungs are. | Open |