Quantum SocioEconophysics is How You Should View the World

The concept of "freedom" is somewhat ambiguous, and I think that in language can be rhetorically manipulated. What I mean by that, is that it usually implies a sort of "choice" people have with "options." In a society that coerces people to work in order to meet their basic needs, that criminalizes or medicalizes homelessness and nonconformity, claims that humans are given inalienable rights, but then alienates them from them - requiring one to pay for an attorney to prove them when they have been violated, and forces people to have to choose between their social and material needs, can one really be said to be free, and making a choice? Well, in a sense, in such a framework, people are free - they are free to die, go somewhere else, or to accept their repression, and they are also free to forfeit all of their autonomy, play along, and do as they are told - but

is that the sort of freedom that we all had in mind?

A new way of thinking is needed for the 21st century that moves beyond the ideologies of the 20th century, with all of their baggage and limitations, which has some room for subjectivity and that you, the reader, can take part in developing. On one hand, neoliberal capitalism and belief in "free markets" describes just that there is a presence of capital, but we have seen that distributions of capital as a formal mechanism of value abstraction becomes distorted, especially over time as power, wealth, and income can concentrate, requiring ever-more complex and nuanced feedback loops to maintain. Votes are one feedback loop (though increasingly less so after the state has effectively

legalized bribery with the Citizen’s United ruling which allowed endless campaign contributions - decoupling the will of the voter and what their elected representatives are incentivized to do), and flows of capital are another - but still, that is not enough over time to maintain, which is why more sophisticated tools of surveillance have been developed.

Then there is communism, or socialism. Communism and socialism largely frames history through the lens of class struggle, primarily in the presence of economic institutions and capital, and that the government is a necessary tool to maintain harmony and order which distinguishes it from anarchy. This is an insightful philosophy, but still does not fully capture the challenges of the 21st century. A

more precise way of looking at our conditions is needed, to fully understand the causes and effects of mass surveillance, artificial intelligence, information siloing, misinformation, political polarization, "mental" health problems and destabilization of agents, and an analysis or understanding of why horseshoe theory (the theory which claims that near a societal reformation or collapse the far-right

and far-left are the same) is not technically correct. Just like systems based on capitalism can be repressive, so can systems based on government bureaucracies.

The way that we think about society is often a march towards freedom - like as though we as a society are progressing towards a perfected "end of history" as the philosopher Hegel once put it. This can be seen as a sort of cycle that occurs every 80-120 years or so (and is reaching its head if

you believe economist Ray Dalio), where a society reaches some sort of tipping point and needs to be re-evaluated that we are rapidly approaching. This thinking was echoed also in a recent timely report by the RAND corporation called "The Sources of Renewed National Dynamism." Free-

dom at the micro-level (individual agency) often leads to unpredictable or chaotic behavior at the macro-level (society). To maintain social order, hierarchies, institutions, or narratives are developed to prune these freedoms — reducing complexity to preserve stability by making models more predictable by central planning elites.

So there is a trade-off. In social systems, freedom must be bounded, in a sense. Right after WW2, the average age of an American was around 24 years old - now it is over 40, and so there was a lot less overhead pressure for young people to maintain at that time enforced upon them in the past, freeing them up and allowing them to become more dynamic. Agents in highly complex, information-rich environments that often come with aging populations become less free, because their cognitive load increases and available options become intractable, which can also cause them to become destabilized - which can manifest in severe impairments or even mental disorder. Aging populations put more pressure on the young to prop things up, creating more restrictions on dynamicism and expansion (like with NIMBYism) as dependency ratios increase and fertility rates decrease. Immigration is one solution to increase the labor supply, but can create sociocultural anxiety and alienation, which can reduce collective bargaining power.

We see how that can be used in a nefarious way like a new form of class warfare - certain groups of people can be subjected to complexity injections (like hoops they have to jump through or sociocultural fragmentation) in social and economic institutions to slow them down and "prove" the legitimacy of their humanity and their identity. This is by design. However, on the flip side, societies must impose semiotic abstractions, narratives, or institutional rules to reduce informational entropy, acting like a gravitational field that structures society and keeps people working together. Thus, just as quantum gravity limits geometry through spectral or entropic mechanisms, socioeconophysical systems limit freedom through information constraints, narrative coding, and institutional complexity. Central elites manage societal entropy through strategic feedback loops, described by Luhmann’s self-reference autopoiesis principle (which is similar to the idea of space-

time looping in on itself). In chaos magick, apotheosis at the other extreme would be the inverse, exemplifying how agents can introduce chaos or entropy into systems by nonconformity. The feedback loops we have discussed

are:

Votes: legitimacy and symbolic consent.

Capital flows: economic control, resource allocation. •

Mass surveillance: informational dominance, predictive control, and behavioral nudging.

These loops maintain societal encryption stability, ensuring predictable agent behavior and preventing genuine dialectical coherence or collective action. This is exactly the insight of entropic gravity and asymptotically safe quantum gravity, where gravity emerges from the statistical suppression of microscopic degrees of freedom (entropic gradient or RG fixed point) due to holographic constraints on the background, and social order (or stability) likewise emerges when freedom is constrained through symbolic, narrative, or institutional complexity pruning.

In physics you have two mutually incompatible theories, one is a top down general view of general relativity, and the other is a microscopic bottom up view of quantum field theory - they are fundamentally different, but in order for a unified field theory of everything, they must somehow be compatible to describe our universe and what we observe. To have a society stable and organized, you need to converge on a point where things are safe and free from divergences and information cascades, balancing the incompatible interests of the workers and the central planners, and avoid bifurcation/tipping/catastrophe points (which can be investigated with the Nash equilibrium or Riemann Zeta critical line).

In quantum gravity theories like entropic gravity or asymptotic safety, degrees of freedom are not fundamental—they are projected, constrained, or coarse-grained via the holographic principle or entropy bounds, much like we are bound in a sort of invisible system of chains by our institutions. High energy (UV) behavior causes dimensional reduction (e.g. spacetime becomes 2D near Planck scales) to remain coherent and renormalizable - a 2-dimensional space almost like information imprinted on the 2-dimensional page or screen that you are reading now. At equilibrium, the UV behavior (high evergy, small scales, stochastic) and IR behavior (low energy, long distance, smooth and deterministic) are duals. These scales are connected by renormalization group flow, which tells you how a system’s behavior changes as you zoom in or out.

The UV contains fine-grain details like individual agent behaviors while the IR describes emergent bulk phenomena. The paradox of freedom arises from the need to constrain UV freedoms to stabilize IR structures, just as gravity “emerges” by integrating out microscopic degrees of freedom in physics. The bulk IR spacetime emerges from a lower-dimensional boundary theory - the UV microstates

are encoded on the boundary. So, in a sense, we really are living in a type of simulation. Institutions and metanarratives (IR) are projections of agent-level information (UV), but centralized systems impose a noncommutative boundary, or a kind of firewall that scrambles UV agency while presenting a coherent IR structure. Central planners are information brokers that agents go through to facilitate flows between organization in social and economic systems, and even each other. In this way, cognitive overhead can be engineered by social planners to drive groups apart or slow them down, or to promote cooperation or restrict it.

The origins of the idea of ownership can be problematic, or from an inverse perspective, seem liberating. In relationships, do you "own" somebody that you love? Do they "belong" to you? In reality, the whole concept of private property itself originated from the psychological concept of intimate partners and family members "belonging" to members of tribes in early human societies, and was

later appropriated to extend to and personify nonhuman objects under capitalism. For me personally, technically the idea of "sexual objectification," doesn’t make sense, (especially in programming terms) because everything is an object, including people, and so therefore I think people also are in a sense sex objects and "objectifying" them is just what nature has designed to get things going with initial attraction.

The issue becomes when relationships are mediated and formed contractually through central institutions rather than laterally between individuals, or consent and autonomy are violated. The American Dream is an infinitely deferred promise - always seemingly attainable, yet kept exponentially out of reach. This "dangling carrot" keeps agents motivated, productive, and compliant, perpetuating economic flows upward to elites. No alternatives are given. Agent entanglements (families, communities) are thus strategically managed—strong enough to motivate productivity, yet weak enough to prevent collective action. Elites and central planners employ a delicate strategy: promoting entanglements between agents and agents and institutions just enough to drive societal participation and economic productivity, but preventing full cognitive or informational transparency between classes, agents, or institutions which approach critical points (tipping points or catastrophe points deviating from Nash equilibria or critical points defined by the critical line of the Riemann zeta function) which could cause information cascades and collapse structures. This involves sophisticated techniques, including sublimation of sexual and familial desires, tapping into primal human motivations (family formation, partnership, status attainment) to maintain persistent socioeconomic engagement.

However, they continuously recalibrate incentive structures—keeping these goals as we have discussed before exponentially "just out of reach"—which fuels perpetual striving and consumption, akin to an exponentially large complexity gap. Analyzing this perspective also explains a larger per-

cent of anxiety about roles, fluidity, and LGBTQ affiliation in later stage societies, and why LGBTQ affiliation is not much of a "choice." Do you "choose" if you are attracted to a person or not? Do you "choose" if a relationship works out or not, or if you have the ability to maintain the long term

socioeconomic stability for it? Stable attachment, dating, and family formation require high degrees of agent-to-agent entanglement, or agents and institutions of the dynamics of a connection require going through them, which in most cases, they do. Entanglement here means strong interpersonal connections, trust, and information sharing, or even identifying with symbolic structures like gender or sexual orientation categories, which in experiments has been shown to correspond with inter and intra brain synchrony. We can see that other models of understanding our human psychology fail to capture and answer essential questions - like why do some people "feel" they identify with a gender opposite than the sex they were assigned at birth, or why one might "feel" attracted to somebody?

Large scale macroscopic quantumlike behaviors and sociocultural entanglements form between agents, and between agents and institutions, from which personal and collective meaning emerges.

Interpersonal entanglements create social cohesion, emotional security, and collective purpose necessary for sustained fertility rates, "traditional" stable family units (where what is considered "traditional" is set at the onset of a society, like immediately after WW2), and functional

societal institutions. This can be a double-edged sword, however, because while interpersonal entanglement stabilizes society and facilitates pair bonding and stable attachment styles, it poses a fundamental threat to central elites.

Class consciousness emerges when strong interpersonal networks realize their collective bargaining power against centralized control. Entanglements enable horizontal information sharing, breaking down the intended one-way top-down informational flows (institution-to-agent). Finally, These entanglements carry the potential to collapse institutional complexity, destabilizing the carefully constructed hierarchical and informational structures maintained by elites, especially in late stage societies. By exponentially increasing complexity — cognitively overloading agents with information, isolating them, or inserting layers of abstraction(encryption/paywalls/distractions/cost of living and stagnant wages)—elites ensure stable, satisfying attachment remains perpetually elusive, driving continuous economic and social engagement. Quantum systems operate on constructive, positive logic ("intuitionistic logic"), unlike classical logic, which often relies on proof by contradiction (which enforced in a society would include measures like "banning" queerness). Relationships and emotional attachments form organically through positive interactions and shared experiences ("constructive logic").

However, one might ask if it really is appropriate to understand human behaviors as a "quantumlike" phenomenon at all, since that seems to open the door to pseudoscientific thinking. It has been shown that human behaviors have inherent uncertainty, can be shown to exhibit decision making that would be expected by systems operating with quantum decision trees, and exhibit quantum chaos - a macroscopic quantumlike description. Gravity itself as we have discussed can be understood as an entropic force arising from entanglement entropy at macroscopic scale, which has been proposed to be implicated in consciousness itself.

It isn’t really possible to build genuine intimacy or authentic entanglements by starting with contradiction, suspicion, or central encoding that imposes abstraction or commodification. Classical logic—analogous to overly serious or contractual relationships—relies on predefined conditions, restrictive terms, and as its name implies, verification by contradiction ("you’re either loyal or disloyal," "you’re serious or casual"). This logical stance fractures genuine interpersonal entanglement because it prevents authentic relational "quantum states" from emerging spontaneously - filtering them out. Information paywalls and encoding complexity in sociocultural norms or roles to pre-

vent agent entanglements from forming coherent "quantum states" are used, ensuring relationships remain fragmented, isolated, and manageable within capitalist systems. This contributes to anxiety individuals feel about their gender expression or fear, guilt, and shame surrounding nonconformity or sexual orientation.

In a sense, it doesn’t really matter if you want to try socialism, or communism, or theocracy, or neoliberal system. The consequence of entropy in the social and economic systems is the same, and what is most important is how far along a societal’s social and economic systems have

been accruing entropy, and thus how dynamic and reactive a framework is to the desires and needs of the people. Increased societal entropy and complexity affect individual psychology, manifesting as gender and sexual nonconformity where instability leads to fluid, non-traditional identities due to less stable attachments and uncertainties in social roles, alienation due to higher environmental complexity which reduces individual degrees of freedom (cognitive overload, paradox of choice), creating anxiety and mental health destabilization, and identity formation failure where agents struggle to form stable identities amidst rapidly shifting symbolic/metanarrative conditions, reducing social coherence.

Looking at society from a top-down view is much like looking through a portal, or a wormhole. Societal stability involves managing complexity (information) and ensuring individual identities ("information") remain coherent and recoverable, similar to how quantum gravity theories

attempt to ensure black hole information can, in principle, be retrieved. Maintaining information flows in one direction but not the other conceptually resembles the idea of asymmetries in flows of information and resources seen in societies - resources flow one way and information about them is scrambled but escapes on encoded hawking radiation as information on the other.

Some Naive Sketches

One way in which I like to draw out ideas in the form of sketches. At times what comes to the imagination carries more information about an underlying problem than can be detailed by words alone, and even the process of developing naive sketches of mathematical or physical ideas can assist in providing further insights, especially for abstract concepts like a "worldsheet," or a "noncommutative torus," or the "minotaur" or "centaur" geometries. While not quite as rigorous as publishing, sketches can be a naive intermediary step for sussing out ideas and analogies, both containing information that might not be exactly accurate, but which also might contain hidden insights.