Ask A Genius 1440: Is the Universe Algorithmic or Contextual? Quantum Logic, Non-Contradiction, and Emergent Time
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/02
Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss whether the universe operates in a purely algorithmic fashion or allows for non-algorithmic, contextual, or indeterminate behaviour. They explore quantum mechanics, contextual truth, intuitionist logic, temporal logic, and the foundational role of non-contradiction in shaping reality, arguing for a mostly stable, logic-grounded universe.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I have been trying to rephrase something in more precise informational terms, so here is a preparatory question: Are there any contexts in which aspects of the computational mechanics of the universe are non-algorithmic?
Rick Rosner: Could you please define “algorithmic” for me?
Jacobsen: For instance, is there any scenario in which, within a quantum field, events unfold without a definable calculation, something that does not involve explicit probabilities or binaries?
Rosner: The answer is yes. Quantum mechanics—if I am understanding it correctly, and I admit I could be more confident here—may function as a one-size-fits-all theory. A single framework that accounts for all scales of the universe.
Whether you are dealing with a universe of just two particles, or one like ours—which may contain on the order of 10⁸⁵ particles—or even a hypothetical universe 500 quintillion times larger, the equations and matrices of quantum mechanics should, in principle, apply across all scales.
However, that raises a deeper question: why does quantum mechanics work?
I believe quantum mechanics is the mathematical embodiment of the principle of non-contradiction. That is, for some reason—though it may seem self-evident—it is foundational that something in the universe cannot 100% exist and 100% not exist at the same time.
This is logically equivalent to saying something cannot be 100% true and 100% false simultaneously. That kind of contradiction is as deep as it gets.
However, in quantum mechanics, we often deal with probability distributions. In an unresolved quantum event, the outcome might be 50% one result and 50% another, or 20%, 70%, and 10% across three possibilities. A particle’s state can exist in superposition—say, 50% in one configuration and 50% in another.
That is the logic behind Schrödinger’s cat: the cat in the box is 50% alive and 50% dead, not fully alive or dead. In quantum mechanics, states can be neither 100% true nor 100% false, so long as the total probability across all possible outcomes adds up to 100%.
Now imagine a proto-universe—a nascent universe emerging from a sparse soup of hazy particles. What those particles can do is constrained by what is not logically contradictory. However, because there are so few particles, their location and properties are highly undetermined. In this early, blurry soup, nothing is sharply defined.
Still, the principle of non-contradiction applies. Only non-contradictory configurations can unfold. Alternatively, because the proto-universe is so underdefined, a limited degree of contradictoriness is temporarily permissible because the structure is not yet coherent enough to eliminate all contradictions.
Until enough particles emerge to allow a more precise definition, everything remains vague. The laws, measurements, and even the concepts of position and quantity remain ill-defined. You could argue that what happens in a proto-universe is not primarily algorithmic—it is too soupy, too blurry, too underconstrained for algorithmic precision.
Is that a reasonable answer?
Jacobsen: Yes. Let me run through a few key points to ensure I cover everything in one take. What are your thoughts on contextual logic in linguistics, where truth depends on context? Is that reasonable?
Rosner: Yes, I read a quote—hang on, let me grab it. Hold on. This is from an old issue of The New Yorker I was flipping through. It was discussing the theory that emotions—traditionally thought to be inherent human traits, such as sadness, happiness, and anger—might be culturally constructed. Some researchers argue that emotions are not fixed or universal, but are somewhat shaped by the cultural contexts in which we grow up.
There was a quote in the article about meaning—let me see if I can find it. Damn it. I probably cannot. So, Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out a common fallacy. Highly abstract questions—such as “What is meaning?”—tend to produce what he called a mental cramp. We feel we ought to be able to point to something in response to such a question, but we cannot. However, we still feel compelled to try.
That is the same issue with defining meaning: it only makes sense within a specific context. Sure, you can define particular terms—like, “What was the War of 1812?” Moreover, you can reply, “It was a war between America and England that began in 1812.” Great. Done. However, if a philosopher starts to dig into it, suddenly you are unpacking all the underlying assumptions:
“What is war?”
“What is between?”
“What is America?”
“What is England?”
“What is 1812?
“What is time?”
Eventually, when you poke deeply enough into anything, you hit context. You reach the network of interrelated meanings—the web of associations that gives a thing its meaning within a particular conceptual space.
That is how AI fills in blanks. It does not “know” anything in the traditional sense. Still, it builds a Bayesian network of relationships between words, ideas, and linguistic structures. Based on that probabilistic framework, it predicts where items belong.
So yes, the truth is context-dependent. There are, of course, propositions that are nearly always true because we have tested them thoroughly and found them to hold consistently. “One plus one equals two,” for instance—that is about as reliable as anything can get.
Sure, you could construct some contrived context in which “one plus one” does not equal two—but in any reasonable or functional system, it does. That is a resistant truth.
More broadly, all truths are constructed from relationships—contextual connections to other truths.
Jacobsen: Now, onto intuitionist logic, which rejects the law of the excluded middle. That is, it allows for the possibility that a given proposition is not necessarily accurate or false—it can be indeterminate.
Rosner: So yes, quantum mechanics deals with states that are not definitively true or false, as long as the total probability adds up to 100%. These states remain indeterminate until the moment of resolution, typically through observation or interaction with the environment.
I am comfortable with logic systems that allow for indeterminate values. You can construct frameworks in which some components are unresolved or open-ended. In contrast, others remain indisputably true within the system’s internal rules.
So yes, I am comfortable with forms of logic where propositions do not have to be strictly one or the other. That is a compelling and flexible framework.
Jacobsen: Another system is dynamic logic, which models actions and their effects. Another is temporal logic, which deals with statements situated in time—past, present, and future. These two are closely related and intellectually rich.
Why? Because time is an emergent property. So, you frame things in terms of temporality and dynamism. In that case, you introduce a new layer of complexity—a kind of attack vector—against the idea that the universe is purely static.
A temporal or dynamic logic sees logical structure as embedded in an evolving universe. That is, logical systems or expectations might not be fixed. Still, they could emerge over time, shaped by prior states, evolving structures, or even contextual necessity.
Rosner: Another way of putting it: there is a kind of basic logic—what you might call intuitive logic—that is foundational. It is not built on hocus pocus values or magical propositions. It simply operates the way logic does: “if A, then B” reasoning—basic conditional structures.
So no, I do not buy the idea that there is some alternate, strange geometry or alien logic governing other universes—and we happen to live in the “non-wonky” one because the quantum dice landed this way at the beginning. I do not believe in wildly different logics defining other realms of existence.
Now, if we push traditional logic deeply enough—say, 300 years into the future—we might uncover underlying propositions that challenge our current understanding, much like how quantum mechanics appeared bizarre and unintuitive 120 years ago. However, even then, I believe there is a base logic—a logic of existence—rooted in the principle of non-contradiction.
Time, space, and matter—these macro structures—emerge most clearly in a mature universe. Once there are enough particles and a sufficient amount of history, the universe “settles” into a defined state: space becomes three-dimensional, time becomes linear, and matter becomes relatively stable. Within that framework, the intuitive picture of logic, time, and space we were taught becomes the default.
I believe we live in a fundamentally non-wonky universe, and I would wager that most universes—if they exist—are non-wonky as well.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 