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

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.02412
• Title: Comment on Marek Czachor article entitled "On Relativity of Quantumness as Implied by Relativity of Arithmetic and Probability"
• Authors: Mikołaj Sienicki, Krzysztof Sienicki
• Classification: quant-ph (Quantum Physics), physics.hist-ph (History and Philosophy of Physics)
• Publication Date: October 30, 2025 (arXiv v2: October 29, 2025)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02412

Abstract

This paper presents a critical commentary on Marek Czachor's theory regarding the relativity of hierarchical arithmetic and probability. The authors argue that although Czachor's model begins with a formally valid premise, its crucial probability mapping function g is determined by introducing the Born rule and Fubini-Study metric from standard quantum mechanics. This g is subsequently applied within a non-Newtonian hidden variable setting, yielding a hybrid framework. The consistency of this framework with quantum correlations is built in by design rather than derived from new physics, and therefore does not constitute a genuine counterexample to Bell's theorem. Furthermore, the construction modifies the standard premises used in the precise formulation of Bell's theorem (classical Kolmogorov probability), placing it outside the original scope of that theorem.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Problem to be Addressed

This paper provides critical analysis of the "hierarchical arithmetic" framework proposed by Czachor, which claims to explain quantum phenomena by modifying the underlying arithmetic structure and purports to circumvent the constraints of Bell's theorem.

2. Importance of the Problem

Bell's theorem is a central result in the foundations of quantum mechanics, proving that any hidden variable theory satisfying local realism cannot reproduce all predictions of quantum mechanics. If Czachor's framework genuinely provided a counterexample, this would represent a major breakthrough in the foundations of physics. Consequently, rigorous examination of such claims is essential.

3. Limitations of Existing Approaches

Czachor's framework claims to transcend the limitations of classical probability theory by introducing non-Newtonian arithmetic and probability. However, the authors identify:

• The framework conflates Kolmogorov and non-Kolmogorov probability structures
• The choice of the critical probability mapping g lacks uniqueness
• Consistency with quantum correlations is achieved by introducing quantum mechanical structures rather than being independently derived

4. Research Motivation of This Paper

The authors aim to expose logical circularity and conceptual confusion in Czachor's framework, clarifying that it is not a genuine counterexample to Bell's theorem but rather a reinterpretation of probability modeling.

Core Contributions

1. Demonstrated non-uniqueness of the probability mapping g: Proved that Czachor's "complement-preserving assumption" (Assumption 1) permits infinitely many distinct mapping functions g, providing two explicit alternative examples.
2. Identified the hybrid nature of the framework: Explicitly argued that Czachor's construction simultaneously employs non-Kolmogorov hidden variable layers and Kolmogorov observable layers, forming an inconsistent hybrid framework.
3. Analyzed the circular introduction of the Born rule: Demonstrated that Czachor "calibrates" g by introducing the Born rule and Fubini-Study metric, which effectively borrows structure from standard quantum mechanics rather than deriving it independently.
4. Clarified the relationship to Bell's theorem: Argued that the framework circumvents Bell's theorem by modifying its premises (classical Kolmogorov probability) rather than refuting its conclusions, and therefore does not constitute a genuine counterexample.
5. Critically evaluated claims of "paradigm shift": Through analysis of Czachor's public statements and broader work, demonstrated that the analogy of the framework to Einstein's general relativity is overstated.

Detailed Methodology

Task Definition

The task of this paper is to conduct logical analysis of Czachor's hierarchical arithmetic framework, specifically including:

• Input: Czachor's formal framework, including hierarchical arithmetic, probability mapping g, and the complement-preserving assumption
• Output: Critical evaluation of the logical consistency, uniqueness, and physical significance of this framework
• Constraints: Analysis must be based on rigorous mathematical reasoning and foundational principles of physics

Analytical Architecture

The paper employs a step-by-step deconstruction method, analyzing Czachor's framework through seven steps:

Step 1: Pure Formal Setup

Czachor assumes the existence of arithmetic systems A₁, A₂, ..., each with its own operations ⊕ₖ, ⊗ₖ, etc., related through isomorphic mappings fᵢⱼ : Aᵢ → Aⱼ. Since probability theory depends on arithmetic to combine events, each Aₖ induces a (potentially different) probability model.

Author's Commentary: At this abstract stage, no specific g is fixed; many choices are possible. This step is formally correct.

Step 2: Connecting Hidden Variable and Observable Layers

Two layers are selected: the hidden variable layer Aₕ (HV) and the observable quantum mechanical layer Aᵩ (QM), connecting their probabilities through a bijection:

$P_{QM} = g(P_{HV})$

Assumption 1 (Complement-Preserving): Explicitly assumes that regrading respects complements: $g(p) + g(1-p) = 1$

Direct Implication: From Assumption 1, $g(\frac{1}{2}) = 1 - g(\frac{1}{2})$, therefore $g(\frac{1}{2}) = \frac{1}{2}$.

Acceptability Conditions:

• g is continuous
• Strictly increasing on 0,1
• Satisfies boundary conditions g(0)=0, g(1)=1

Step 3: Calibrating the Observable Layer with Standard Quantum Mechanics

Standard quantum mechanics is employed on the observable side. The Born rule gives: $P_{QM}(b|a) = |\langle b|a \rangle|^2$

For pure states, the Fubini-Study distance is: $d_{FS}(a,b) = \arccos|\langle b|a \rangle| \Rightarrow P_{QM}(b|a) = \cos^2 d_{FS}(a,b)$

For qubits, using Bloch sphere angle θ where $d_{FS} = \theta/2$: $P_{QM}(b|a) = \cos^2\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)$

Author's Key Observation: This calibration imports structure from standard quantum mechanics into the observable layer; in particular, within a fixed measurement context, Born probabilities are Kolmogorovian. The hidden variable layer, by contrast, employs non-Newtonian calculus. The result is inherently hybrid.

Step 4: Selecting a Specific Linking Function g

Czachor makes an ansatz, linearly relating the Bloch angle θ to the hidden probability p: $\theta = \pi(1-p)$

Substituting into $P_{QM} = \cos^2(\theta/2)$ yields: $P_{QM} = \cos^2\left(\frac{\pi}{2}(1-p)\right) = \sin^2\left(\frac{\pi p}{2}\right)$

Therefore: $g(p) = \sin^2\left(\frac{\pi p}{2}\right) = \frac{1-\cos(\pi p)}{2}$

Author's Critique: The linear relationship θ = π(1-p) is an illustrative modeling choice, not a necessary consequence of Assumption 1. Many other choices would yield different g functions.

Technical Innovations (Author's Contributions)

1. Proof of Non-Uniqueness of g

The authors provide two explicit examples satisfying all constraints but differing from Czachor's choice:

Example 1 (Polynomial Form): $g_1(p) = 3p^2 - 2p^3$

Verification:

• $g_1(0) = 0, g_1(1) = 1$
• $g_1'(p) = 6p - 6p^2 = 6p(1-p) \geq 0$, strictly increasing on (0,1)
• $g_1(p) + g_1(1-p) = 3p^2 - 2p^3 + 3(1-p)^2 - 2(1-p)^3 = 1$ (verifiable)

Example 2 (Nested Sine Form): $g_{alt}(p) = \sin^2\left(\frac{\pi}{4}\left[1 + \sin\left(\pi\left(p-\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)\right]\right)$

Defining auxiliary function $s(p) = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}\sin(\pi(p-\frac{1}{2}))$, then $g_{alt}(p) = \sin^2(\frac{\pi}{2}s(p))$.

Verification of symmetry: Since $s(1-p) = 1-s(p)$, $g_{alt}(p) + g_{alt}(1-p) = \sin^2\left(\frac{\pi}{2}s(p)\right) + \sin^2\left(\frac{\pi}{2}(1-s(p))\right) = 1$

The authors present in Figure 1 a comparison of these three functions, clearly demonstrating that Czachor's choice is merely one among many possibilities.

2. Formalization of Symmetry Requirements

To satisfy Assumption 1, the parameterization must obey the symmetry: $\theta(1-p) = \pi - \theta(p)$

Equivalently, one can arbitrarily define g on $[0, \frac{1}{2}]$ (subject to continuity/monotonicity constraints, $g(0)=0$ and $g(\frac{1}{2})=\frac{1}{2}$), then extend via $g(1-p) = 1-g(p)$.

3. Identification of the Hybrid Framework

The authors explicitly identify the hybrid nature of the construction:

• Hidden Variable Layer: Employs non-Kolmogorov probability calculus
• Observable Layer: Uses standard quantum mechanics (Kolmogorovian within fixed measurement context)
• Connection: Through quantum-calibrated g, which imports structure from the Born rule and FS geometry

This hybrid nature prevents the framework from claiming a clean break from Kolmogorov structure.

Experimental Setup

This paper is purely theoretical analysis, involving no experimental data or numerical simulations. The analysis is based on:

1. Mathematical derivations and proofs
2. Logical consistency checks
3. Conceptual analysis

Experimental Results

Main Analytical Results

1. Regarding the Relationship to Bell's Theorem

Step 5 Analysis: The authors note that after employing non-Kolmogorov probability calculus on the hidden variable side, the standard Bell inequality derivation no longer applies. However, on the observable side, g is chosen to match quantum statistics.

Important Observation: Matching complete singlet correlations $E(\phi) = -\cos\phi$ (and CHSH violation) requires a joint model—rules for how settings and hidden variables λ combine. A single-parameter mapping g only fixes marginal distributions; without an explicit joint distribution (how a, b, λ combine), $E(\phi)$ is underdetermined.

2. Identification of Framework Hybridity

Step 6 Conclusion:

• The abstract hierarchy (Step 1) is independent of Kolmogorov assumptions
• However, the specific g used to match quantum mechanics (Step 4) is calibrated via the Born rule and FS geometry
• Therefore, the construction simultaneously modifies the hidden variable calculus while importing quantum-calibrated g at the top level
• This is where the hybridity lies

3. Logical Implications

Step 7 Conclusion: If one truly abandons Kolmogorov structure on the observable layer, there is no special reason to prefer $g(p) = \sin^2(\frac{\pi p}{2})$; Assumption 1 leaves infinitely many choices. Therefore, the close fit with quantum correlations is primarily achieved through construction rather than new physical derivation.

In this sense, the proposal is not a counterexample to Bell's theorem within its original scope. It modifies the standard premises (classical Kolmogorov probability), then reuses quantum-calibrated g, so consistency with quantum mechanics is built in rather than emergent.

Case Study: Example of Non-Physical Results

The authors provide a cautionary example from Czachor's broader work, illustrating how arbitrary choice of bijection f can lead to non-physical results:

Consider relativistic velocity addition using $f(\beta) = \beta^3$ rather than the physically correct $f(\beta) = \text{artanh}(\beta)$:

Taking $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = 0.9$:

• $f(\beta_i) = 0.729$
• $f(\beta_1) + f(\beta_2) = 1.458$

Problem: 1.458 lies outside Im(f) = (-1,1), so $\beta_1 \oplus \beta_2$ is undefined. If one forcibly extends $f^{-1}$ to $\mathbb{R}$, one obtains $(1.458)^{1/3} \approx 1.134 > 1$, a non-physical "superluminal sum."

This example illustrates: the same formal approach can produce both physically acceptable and unacceptable results, highlighting the absence of internal selection criteria—a major limitation when claiming to provide fundamental reform of physics.

Related Work

Relevant Literature Cited in This Paper

1. Czachor's Main Work 1: The original paper being commented upon, proposing hierarchical arithmetic and relativity of probability
2. Authors' Previous Comments 2,3,6: Critical commentary on Czachor's other work on hierarchical arithmetic and generalized calculus
3. Einstein's General Relativity 4: Reference point for Czachor's analogy
4. Public Interview 5: Czachor's statements regarding "paradigm shift"

Research Context

This field involves several important directions in quantum mechanical foundations:

1. Bell's Theorem and Its Generalizations: The classical result showing that local hidden variable theories cannot reproduce quantum correlations
2. Non-Standard Probability Theories: Attempts to explain quantum phenomena using modified probability frameworks
3. Non-Newtonian Calculus: Mathematical framework developed by Grossman and Katz, applied to physics by Czachor
4. Alternative Interpretations of Quantum Foundations: Including many-worlds, pilot-wave theory, etc.

Positioning of This Paper

This paper belongs to the literature of critical analysis of alternative theories in quantum foundations. Rather than simple rejection, the authors conduct detailed mathematical analysis, revealing specific logical problems and circular reasoning.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Formally Correct but Physically Insufficient: Czachor's hierarchical arithmetic starting point is formally coherent, but the specific framework does not withstand closer scrutiny.
2. Non-Uniqueness of g: Assumption 1 (complement-preserving) leaves the mapping g substantially underdetermined, but Czachor uses the Born rule and Fubini-Study metric to anchor it—both derived from standard quantum theory.
3. Hybrid Framework: What emerges is not a clean break from classical probability but a Kolmogorov/non-Kolmogorov hybrid model—an uneasy mixture where core mechanisms depend on principles it ostensibly rejects.
4. Not a Counterexample: The emergence of quantum singlet correlations is not a surprising result but an engineered one—an artifact of how g is chosen. Because this choice is made rather than derived, the model cannot serve as a counterexample to Bell's theorem.
5. Outside Scope: Because it modifies the standard probability premises (based on Kolmogorov) in the theorem's usual derivation, it falls outside that scope; the approach reconstructs premises rather than refuting them.

Critique of "Paradigm Shift" Claims

The authors cite Czachor's statement from a public interview 5:

"...I am changing the paradigm of physics. I propose that, just as Einstein incorporated geometry into physics, making geometry no longer an abstract, Kantian a priori but a branch of physics—which is the essence of general relativity—at this moment I claim that arithmetic structures apply similarly. They should not be viewed as a priori given but used in the most general way, then let experiment decide what is concretely valid. In this sense, this is a new paradigm, and science theorists say that revolution occurs when paradigms change. Relativity theory is such a paradigm shift...I am incorporating arithmetic into physics...perhaps the natural addition and multiplication are different from what we imagine..."

Author's Rebuttal:

1. Analogy Overstated: Unlike general relativity, which resolved empirical anomalies and led to testable predictions, the hierarchical arithmetic framework has yet to yield new insights or experimental implications.
2. Repackaging Rather Than Breakthrough: The framework repackages known results in new formal clothing.
3. Lack of Selection Criteria: As the non-physical velocity addition example demonstrates, the approach lacks internal standards to distinguish physically acceptable from unacceptable cases.
4. Philosophical Ambition vs. Scientific Breakthrough: The concluding statement in paper 1, Section 14—"A new scientific paradigm is coming"—currently reads more like philosophical aspiration than scientific breakthrough.

Limitations

Limitations of this paper include:

1. Absence of Alternative Framework: The authors criticize Czachor's approach but do not propose their own interpretation of quantum foundations
2. Narrow Focus: Primarily concerns problems with probability mapping g; other technical issues may remain unexplored
3. Dependence on Specific Formulation: Critique targets the specific version of Czachor's paper; revised versions might address some issues

Future Directions

Although primarily critical, the paper implicitly points to several constructive directions:

1. Finding True Selection Criteria: If non-Newtonian calculus is to be seriously applied in physics, physical principles are needed to select specific bijections
2. Testable Predictions: Any theory claiming paradigm shift should produce testable predictions differing from standard theory
3. Consistent Probability Framework: Either employ consistent probability calculus at all levels or explicitly justify why mixing is appropriate

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Mathematical Rigor:
   • Provides two explicit, verified alternative g functions
   • Formalizes symmetry requirements analysis
   • Mathematical derivations are clear and verifiable
2. Logical Clarity:
   • Employs systematic 7-step deconstruction method
   • Explicitly states assumptions and implications at each step
   • Clearly identifies where problems arise (Steps 4 and 6)
3. Constructive Critique:
   • Acknowledges formal correctness of Czachor's starting point (Step 1)
   • Not mere negation but revelation of specific logical problems
   • Provides concrete counterexamples and alternatives
4. Conceptual Clarity:
   • Distinguishes between "formally possible" and "physically meaningful"
   • Clarifies "Kolmogorovian within fixed measurement context"
   • Identifies the essential nature of the hybrid framework
5. Academic Integrity:
   • Cites Czachor's public statements
   • Objectively assesses "paradigm shift" claims
   • Acknowledges scope limitations of own analysis

Weaknesses

1. Potentially Overcritical:
   • Critique of Czachor's "paradigm shift" claims may be overly harsh
   • Interview statements perhaps should not be treated identically to formal papers
2. Absence of Alternatives:
   • While effectively criticizing Czachor's approach, offers no constructive alternative
   • Provides no guidance on proper use of hierarchical arithmetic (if possible)
3. Limited Technical Depth:
   • Focuses primarily on probability mapping g; analysis of joint distributions and CHSH violation is shallower
   • Does not detail hybrid framework predictions for specific quantum experiments
4. Possible Misinterpretation:
   • Czachor might argue the hybrid framework is intentional, not a defect
   • The distinction between "modifying premises" vs. "refuting conclusions" may involve philosophical disagreement

Impact Assessment

Contribution to the Field:

• Provides important critical analysis for quantum foundations community
• Helps clarify common misconceptions about Bell's theorem "loopholes"
• Provides methodological example for evaluating alternative theories

Practical Value:

• Important reference for quantum foundations researchers
• Alerts researchers to risks of circular reasoning and conceptual confusion
• Emphasizes rigorous standards required when claiming foundational breakthroughs

Reproducibility:

• All mathematical derivations are verifiable
• Provides specific alternative function examples
• Argument logic is clear and independently checkable

Applicable Scenarios

The analytical methods and critical thinking in this paper apply to:

1. Evaluating Alternative Theories in Quantum Foundations: Particularly those claiming to circumvent Bell's theorem
2. Reviewing Non-Standard Mathematics in Physics: Such as non-Newtonian calculus, non-standard probability theory
3. Identifying Circular Arguments: In theoretical physics, identifying hidden assumptions and circular reasoning
4. Philosophy of Science Discussion: Regarding what constitutes genuine "paradigm shift"
5. Teaching Applications: As case study in critical thinking and rigorous argumentation

Overall Assessment

This is a high-quality critical commentary paper demonstrating:

• Solid mathematical analytical ability
• Clear logical thinking
• Deep understanding of quantum foundations
• Balance between academic honesty and constructive criticism

Its primary value lies in exposing hidden problems in seemingly innovative theoretical frameworks, providing important quality control for the field. While primarily critical, its rigorous methodology has positive significance for the entire field.

References

1 M. Czachor, "On Relativity of Quantumness as Implied by Relativity of Arithmetic and Probability", arXiv:2510.00637

2 M. Sienicki and K. Sienicki, "Comment on Czachor's 'A hierarchical structure of isomorphic arithmetics'", unpublished manuscript, 2024

3 M. Sienicki and K. Sienicki, "Comment on: 'Unifying Aspects of Generalized Calculus'", arXiv:2508.06596v1, 2025

4 A. Einstein, "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie", Annalen der Physik, 49, 769–822, 1916

5 YouTube Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9BdHJTiKrM&t=1643s

6 Sienicki, Mikołaj, and Krzysztof Sienicki, "Comment on 'Non-Newtonian Mathematics Instead of Non-Newtonian Physics'", 2025

Summary of Key Points:

Through rigorous mathematical analysis, this paper reveals the core problem with Czachor's hierarchical arithmetic framework: the critical probability mapping g is not derived from theory but borrowed from standard quantum mechanics. This results in a hybrid Kolmogorov/non-Kolmogorov framework whose consistency with quantum predictions is a designed outcome rather than discovery of new physics. Therefore, the framework does not constitute a genuine counterexample to Bell's theorem, and its "paradigm shift" claims lack substantive support. The paper provides important critical perspective and methodological exemplar for quantum foundations research.