Talk:Quantum foundations

Major rewrite

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

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

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

Major Rewrite Complete?

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

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

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

Language Level

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

Lack of examples contributes to the problem.

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

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

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

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

Some questions aren't asked.

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

The axioms of mathematics would disperse without making a universe.

Physics requires entangled program-like axiomatics.

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

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

______

internal contextualization = endocontextualization