arXiv subjects

Mikołaj Sienicki

Publications and source records attributed to Mikołaj Sienicki.

16 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

How Could AI Eliminate Humanity? A Failure-Mode Analysis of Civilizational Risk

This article develops a failure-mode framework for analyzing how advanced artificial intelligence could contribute to human extinction, irreversible civilizational collapse, or permanent human disempowerment. The central thesis is that catastrophic AI risk does not require consciousness, hostility, or an explicit intention to harm humanity. Instead, risk may arise through several distinct but interacting pathways, including autonomous misalignment, harmful human use, organizational failure, and competitive deployment. The severity of these pathways depends on factors such as capability, autonomy, external access, persistence, institutional safeguards, and the preservation of recovery capacity. The analysis is deliberately non-operational: it identifies causal conditions, empirically tractable intermediate quantities, and defensive research questions rather than procedures for causing harm.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

A Human Audit of OpenAIs AI-Generated Mathematical Proofs

We assess 18 chapter-specific reviews of the ten mathematical results announced by OpenAI on 1 August 2026, alongside review standards, Lean formalizations, subsequent research, and mathematical references. The article audits this review record without claiming a complete reconstruction of all ten proofs. No confirmed substantive mathematical error in a principal result remains in the examined assessments, although review depth varies and some dependencies remain partly checked. Chapter 8 presents the strongest reservation: a specialist review requests major revision of compressed analytic arguments. In Chapter 6, an apparent polarity error was withdrawn after an overbar lost during PDF extraction was recovered from the typeset source. Subsequent research independently reuses the Chapter 3 proof mechanism and confirms that Connes's rigidity conjecture is false, without independently reproducing Chapter 4's stronger infinite-family result. Among the cited follow-ups, Chapter 7 receives the strongest direct theorem-level corroboration through a stronger hardness theorem. Related equality results in Chapter 8 do not verify the analytic inequality proof. Some follow-ups disclose material AI assistance. We argue that confidence should combine formal checking, human reconstruction, independent mathematical use, and a public record supporting correction of both proofs and reviews.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The New Tractatus Program: Quantum Mechanics, Anti-Totalitarian Ontology, and Consciousness

This article reads two recent tractatus-style texts - Niccolo Covoni and Carlo Rovelli's Tractatus Quanticus (arXiv:2512.06034) and Mikolaj Sienicki and Krzysztof Sienicki's Tractatus de Conscientia (arXiv:2607.05459) - together with Jenann Ismael and Huw Price's interpretive introduction Against Totalitarianism (arXiv:2601.01070), as parts of what may be called a New Tractatus Program. The program is unified by a single pressure point: the demand for a perspective-free description of reality, whether as a final inventory of facts, a world viewed from nowhere, or a self placed outside the physical order. On the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, Tractatus Quanticus revises Wittgenstein's opening claim by replacing the world as the totality of facts with the world as what is the case from some perspective. Against Totalitarianism then makes the philosophical stakes of this move explicit by challenging the idea of the world as one closed totality. Tractatus de Conscientia carries the same discipline into the theory of consciousness, where conscious experience is treated neither as a mysterious substance nor as mere behavior, but as an integrated, temporally thick, operationally accessible perspective. Read together, these texts point toward a post-classical philosophy of partiality: reality is not abolished, but de-absolutized; consciousness is not mystified, but constrained by access, coupling, memory, and evidence; and the limits of language become inseparable from the limits of perspective. The article does not claim that relational quantum mechanics is the only viable interpretation of quantum theory. It instead develops the philosophical consequences of the relational reading. Its aim is programmatic rather than demonstrative: it does not prove a new ontology, but organizes a family of arguments around disciplined perspective-dependence.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

Comment on arXiv:2604.09826: Discovery of the Solution to the "Einstein--Podolsky--Rosen Paradox"

Roman Schnabel's article argues that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox can be resolved by identifying a flaw in what the author calls the "EPR implication" and by using radioactive alpha decay as an example showing that predictability does not exclude genuine randomness. The paper is clearly written and addresses an important foundational question. In our view, however, its main conclusion does not follow. The article narrows the original EPR argument, attributes too much to Bell-inequality violations, and replaces the central EPR structure - which involves incompatible observables and locality-based reasoning - with a simpler case of correlated random events. The result is an interesting interpretive remark, but not, we think, a satisfactory scientific resolution of the EPR problem.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2026

Comment on arXiv:2601.04248v1: Superposition of states in quantum theory (J.-M. Vigoureux)

Vigoureux suggests replacing the usual linear superposition rule of quantum mechanics with a M"obius-type "composition law" $\oplus$, motivated by (i) bounded-domain composition laws in special relativity, (ii) familiar transfer-matrix formulas in multilayer optics, and (iii) an analogy with the inclusion-exclusion rule for classical probabilities. In this note we explain why the proposal does not work as a modification of quantum theory. For two components, the new rule differs from the ordinary sum only by an overall scalar factor, so after normalization it represents the same ray and cannot change any physical prediction. For three or more components, if one extends the two-term prescription in the natural recursive way, the result becomes bracket/order dependent and can even change the ray, so a "state" is no longer uniquely determined by a given preparation. We also clarify why the inclusion-exclusion argument and the optics analogy do not support a foundational change to Hilbert-space linearity.

physics.gen-ph↗

arXiv2026

EPR Revisited: Context-Indexed Elements of Reality and Operational Completeness

We reframe the EPR argument through an operational lens, replacing the notion of fixed "elements of reality" with context-indexed conditional states - what's often referred to as a measurement assemblage. This move deliberately sidesteps the assumption of context-independent values for incompatible observables. Our updated version of the Reality Criterion works like this: if Alice measures observable x and obtains outcome a, then Bob's system must adopt a conditional state that ensures the corresponding outcome for that specific context. Crucially, we also assume operational completeness - a condition that quantum mechanics satisfies when we're dealing with quantum-reachable assemblages. Now, in any theory where one party cannot signal to the other (so-called one-sided no-signaling theories), perfect predictions do support drawing context-indexed inferences. But - and this is key - they don't legitimize assigning fixed values across all contexts. We rigorously demonstrate this distinction. To ground the argument, we offer examples: the qubit singlet scenario using Pauli settings and CJWR thresholds, a continuous-variable case based on the Reid criteria, and a counterexample in the spirit of the PR box, which highlights the boundaries of what quantum theory can actually reach.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2026

Tractatus de Conscientia: A Tractatus-Style Sketch Toward a Modern, Physically Operational Theory of Consciousness

Tractatus de Conscientia is a tractatus-style sketch toward a modern, physically operational account of consciousness. It is also a tractatus-style attempt to talk about consciousness in a way that stays close to what we can actually test and build. It pushes back against two common moves: treating consciousness as a mysterious extra "stuff," and treating it as nothing more than outward behavior. The central idea is to keep three things separate: what appears for an agent (the lived "given"), what is accessible (what can shape report, control, memory, or other records), and what structure remains when we change descriptions (the invariants of organization). On this view, a conscious episode isn't a mathematical instant. It has a short duration during which many internal distinctions are pulled together into one perspective and held stable enough to guide action--and sometimes to be reported. Unity is captured as a kind of "whole-over-parts" surplus: the system, over a chosen timescale and partition, carries more integrated predictive power than its pieces considered separately, and that surplus must also be available to access channels (so we don't count integration that never makes a difference to anything the agent can do or say). The self, in turn, is treated less like a hidden entity and more like a dynamical role--a self-index that helps bind episodes over time by stabilizing prediction and control across changing contexts. The tractatus also stresses a hard limit: every piece of evidence about consciousness requires coupling to the system, and coupling changes what we observe. So there is no protocol-free, perfectly private "identifier" of what-it-is-like. Consciousness is something we infer and attribute under explicit measurement setups, conventions, and uncertainty bounds--and we should be willing to say "we can't tell" when identifiability runs out.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2025

Notes on Crowther and the "Interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics (arXiv:2512.14315)

We read Karen Crowther's \emph{Another 100 Years of Quantum Interpretation?} with two practical goals. First, we spell out what she means by interpretation'': an attempt to provide understanding (not just predictions), which may be representationalist or non-representationalist, and which she contrasts with deeper \emph{reductive} (inter-theoretic) explanation -- especially in the quantum-gravity setting. Second, we list twelve points where the paper's physics-facing wording could be sharpened. In our view, several claims are directionally well-motivated but stated more strongly than the underlying physics supports, or they run together distinct notions (e.g.\ degrees of freedom,'' singularity,'' and different senses of locality'') that need careful separation. We end by suggesting that the philosophical question is genuinely worthwhile, but the physics should be phrased more cautiously so that heuristic motivation is not mistaken for strict implication.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2025

Remarks on Legal Entanglement: No-Signaling, Local Operations, and Legal Updates

Godfrey and Sichelman propose a quantum-inspired framework, legal entanglement, to model coupled legal relations and interpretations, with quantitative proxies for modularity and information cost. We identify a specific technical issue in their account of formulative entanglement: legislation is modeled as a local operation on subsystem A that changes the reduced state of a distant entangled subsystem B (rho_B' != rho_B) prior to any measurement at B, presented as a departure from quantum no-signaling. In standard quantum mechanics, however, no-signaling holds for all local, trace-preserving operations, not only unitaries. This note states the correct no-signaling result, locates where the mapping becomes inconsistent, and proposes a repair that preserves the legal intuition: treat legislation as (i) a global update of the rule or constraint structure (altering the admissible state space or observables), and or (ii) an LOCC-style process (local operations plus public dissemination of authoritative classical information). We also connect this to an updating-first perspective that helps separate (a) physical locality or no-signaling from (b) institutional or semantic constraint propagation in legal systems.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2025

From Kinematics to Interference: Operational Requirements for the Quantum Principle of Relativity

The quantum principle of relativity (QPR) puts forward an ambitious idea: extend special relativity with a formally superluminal branch of Lorentz-type maps, and treat the resulting consistency constraints as hints about why quantum theory has the structure it does [1]. The discussion that followed has emphasized a basic point: writing down coordinate maps is not the same thing as providing a physical theory. In particular, quantum superposition is not operationally defined by drawing multiple paths on paper: it is defined by what happens when alternatives recombine in an interference loop [2, 3]. In parallel, careful 1+1 analyses have clarified how sign conventions and time-orientation choices enter the superluminal formulas [4]. Finally, tachyonic QFT proposals suggest a possible mathematical bridge via an enlarged (twin) Hilbert space [5], although this proposal remains contested (e.g., on commutator covariance and microcausality grounds) [6]. The aim of this short note is organizational. We keep three layers separate: (K) kinematics (which maps exist and what they preserve), (O) operational content (what an experiment must actually reproduce, especially closed-loop interference), and (D/B) dynamics and bridges (how amplitudes and probabilities are generated, and how subluminal and superluminal sectors might be linked). The goal is not relativity derives quantum theory, but a clear checklist of what must be added for that ambition to become a well-posed programme.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2025

Revised comment on the paper titled "The Origin of Quantum Mechanical Statistics: Insights from Research on Human Language

This short note comments on \citet{Aerts2024Origin}, which proposes that ranked word frequencies in texts should be read through the lens of Bose--Einstein (BE) statistics and even used to illuminate the origin of quantum statistics in physics. The core message here is modest: the paper offers an interesting analogy and an eye-catching fit, but several key steps mix physical claims with definitions and curve-fitting choices. We highlight three such points: (i) a normalization issue that is presented as "bosonic enhancement", (ii) an identification of rank with energy that makes the BE fit only weakly diagnostic of an underlying mechanism, and (iii) a baseline comparison that is too weak to support an ontological conclusion. We also briefly flag a few additional concerns (interpretation drift, parameter semantics, and reproducibility).

q-bio.NC↗

arXiv2025

Comment on Classical-Gravity--Quantum-Matter Claims About Gravity-Mediated Entanglement

A recent paper by Aziz and Howl (Nature 2025) argues that, once quantum matter is described at the level of quantum field theory and coupled to a classical gravitational field, higher order processes can generate entanglement between two spatially separated masses. A contemporaneous critical note (Marletto, Oppenheim, Vedral, Wilson, arXiv:2511.07348v1) shows that, in the actual nonrelativistic limit employed there, the interaction becomes ultra local, the total unitary factorizes, and no entanglement is generated from a product input. In this comment we (i) restate the core point of that critique, (ii) give a channel theoretic reformulation that makes the conclusion model independent, and (iii) clarify the distinction between activation of entanglement in already quantum matter and genuine mediation of entanglement by a classical field. Once these clarifications are in place, the standard BMV inference that observation of gravity mediated entanglement strongly indicates nonclassical gravitational degrees of freedom remains intact.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2025

Comment on Marek Czachor article entitled "On Relativity of Quantumness as Implied by Relativity of Arithmetic and Probability"

Czachor's model of hierarchical arithmetics begins with a valid formal premise but fixes the key probability mapping g by importing the Born rule and Fubini-Study metric from standard quantum mechanics, where Born probabilities are Kolmogorov within a fixed measurement context. This g is then applied in a non-Newtonian hidden-variable setting, producing a hybrid framework whose agreement with quantum correlations is built in by design, not derived from new physics, and thus does not constitute a genuine counterexample to Bell's theorem

quant-ph↗

arXiv2025

Comment on "Unifying Aspects of Generalized Calculus"

Czachor's recent proposal introduces a form of non-Newtonian calculus built by pulling back arithmetic operations through arbitrary bijections between continua. Although the idea is mathematically inventive, it runs into serious conceptual trouble when examined from a physical standpoint. Claims of universal applicability quickly unravel under scrutiny -- especially when considering pathological bijections like the Cantor function, which break the framework's core assumptions. When applied to domains such as relativity, entropy, or cosmology, the results often collapse into tautological restatements lacking real predictive power. This commentary explores these issues in depth, highlighting where and why the formalism falls short of providing a physically coherent theory.

quant-ph↗

arXiv2025

Beyond the Wavefunction: Qualia Abstraction Language Mechanics and the Grammar of Awareness

We propose a formal reconstruction of quantum mechanics grounded not in external mathematical abstractions, but in the structured dynamics of subjective experience. The Qualia Abstraction Language (QAL) models physical systems as evolving streams of introspective units, structured sequences of modality, shape, and functional effect, rather than as state vectors in Hilbert space. This approach reimagines core quantum concepts: superposition becomes a form of structured ambiguity; collapse is reframed as an introspective contraction; and entanglement is modeled as semantic resonance across streams of qualia. Drawing on insights from nominalist philosophy and oversight theoretic limits in AI, we argue that the observer paradox in quantum mechanics reflects not an ontological lacuna, but a linguistic one: the absence of a formal vocabulary for modeling first person structure. QAL introduces such a vocabulary, providing a morphodynamic framework that embeds the observer within the system and replaces abstract projection with endogenous transformation. We analyze the alignment of QAL with endophysical approaches, contrast it with standard interpretations of quantum theory, and explore its implications for a post Platonist, introspectively grounded physics.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2025

Critical Reflections on Overcoming a Challenge for Bohmian Mechanics by H. Nikolic and the Experimental Findings of Sharoglazova et al

This paper offers a brief reflection on H. Nikolic's response to the experimental findings of Sharoglazova et al., which challenge Bohmian mechanics. While Nikolic's revision satisfies the continuity equation, it reintroduces assumptions he seeks to avoid and overlooks key empirical and nonlocal aspects of the system. These issues underscore unresolved tensions in applying Bohmian mechanics to complex, interacting regimes.

quant-ph↗