Part 1 is a story about emergence. It is intended to demonstrate that analysis and reductionism alone are not sufficient to comprehend the world. Dataism falls short. Additional methods are needed that take coherence into account.

Part 2 is for enthusiasts of philosophy and theoretical physics. It serves as an invitation to the reader to consider relations as an alternative to the customary focus on particles. An attempt to render coherence visible and work with it. And yes, it is still a clumsy hodgepodge of thoughts, undoubtedly with errors. But will it aid in unraveling paradoxes? We invite you to participate in a relentless thought experiment.

When writing Part 1, we had a clear goal. In a society obsessed with analysis and data, greater emphasis on coherence is needed. Thanks to our experience with the solution-focused approach, there was ample material with sufficient starting points. However, Part 2 was a different story. It started with a blank sheet of paper. There was a vague goal: to better substantiate the paradigm of synthesis, but where to begin? The right words and concepts were missing. Something new needed to materialize. Part 1 already anticipated this by not considering the physical and philosophical paradoxes, on which the paradigm of analysis grinds to a halt, as problems, but as clues pointing toward new possibilities. Therefore, we implore you to gather questions and embrace an attitude of not-knowing. Cast off unnecessary baggage, as in conventions. Follow William Faulkner’s advice and “Kill your darlings”. Begin with a limited number of assumptions and let them grow organically.
When one thinks about the concept of emergence, one naturally arrives at the conclusion that there must be coherence. So, don’t be afraid to ask the naive or bold question: If isolation doesn’t exist, what is that coherence? We are setting sail to a land unknown. And everybody is invited to come on board. In fact, we encourage it!

What is the relationship between our macroscopic world and the quantum world?
The Discovery of Coherence, Part 1, as mentioned, focuses on the concept of ‘emergence’. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Such a description may feel illogical, and indeed, it is. After all, this qualification does not follow the rules of cause and effect. But then again, is everything truly logical? Where does it falter? What paradoxes are we actually talking about? At its core, it boils down to apparent contradictions between the discrete values and predictability of classical physics and the unpredictability of the quantum world, which may be analogous. How can we reconcile that?

Assumptions
Part 2 makes choices: seven assumptions. They are ruthlessly applied. Brace yourself!

1. There are physicists who advise thinking in terms of information. Space, time, mass, charge, energy: everything is information. Information is not discrete data but a probability density, described, for example, by the Schrödinger equation.
   Assumption: Information is the fabric of everything.
2. Everything changes. Information changes, but cannot be lost.
   Assumption: When information changes, the no-hiding theorem applies.
3. Everything is interconnected. Nothing is isolated. This can only occur when there is overlap. Well, that’s fortunate because we already know quantum superposition and quantum entanglement. Discrete values (and discrete mathematics) are only applicable at the macroscopic level. They are emergent phenomena that appear where a lot of information is interconnected.
   Assumption: Coherence is fundamental. Nothing is isolated.
4. Assumption: Superposition, the possession of two or more values/states simultaneously at one point, is fundamental. “It is this and also that”.
5. Assumption: Entanglement, the distribution of a value/state over two points, is universal. “It is here and also there”.
6. Information is not homogeneously distributed. There are different forms of overlap. Entanglement and superposition can be simple (qubits) or complex (qudits) shared information.
   Assumption: There are differences in the degree of complexity of coherence.
7. When superposition and entanglement collapse (the redistribution of information), the outcome is unpredictable, following the Copenhagen interpretation. Of all values in superposition, only one will be shared with the observer upon collapse. But what about the other candidates? These get redistributed with the environment, and the probabilities for this redistribution are not all equal. This is where entropy comes into play.
   Assumption: Entropy, a measure related to probability, is always applicable. The universe evolves from a state of low probability to a state of high probability. This allows patterns to emerge. Emergence occurs. Entropy is the bridge between the quantum level and the macroscopic level. We call this superentropy.

When discussing quantum mechanical matters, unless specified otherwise, we refer to the Copenhagen interpretation.

The pitfall of familiar macroscopic concepts
The most challenging task in writing this book was the constant need to remain vigilant about thinking differently. Even when it’s perfectly clear that thinking in macroscopic terms doesn’t apply at the quantum level, there are frequent moments of carelessness where you can get entangled in a muddle of concepts, formulas, and images that don’t match up. You just can’t seem to figure out why it doesn’t work, until you wake up from this nightmare and realize, “Okay, that’s right, these concepts and formulas don’t belong here at all”. It’s probably normal that when difficulties arise, our familiar reflexes are the first to kick in. Thinking frameworks instilled during upbringing and education aren’t easily shed. Countless pieces of information that come our way every day are written in those same familiar codes. And if we seek help from scientific sources, we automatically end up in classical models and patterns. No matter how well we know it should be different, it keeps happening to us over and over again. There’s nothing more challenging than thinking differently.

Dear reader, may we offer you some advice? When things get difficult, consider asking yourself the question: Do the concepts, models, and formulas align with the subject at hand? Many macroscopic concepts are fundamentally unsuitable for use at the quantum level. We tend to extrapolate concepts that work perfectly in classical physics to the quantum world. But is that the right way to do? Keep in mind that discrete values, space, time, mass, spin, and charge are emergent phenomena that, like all emergent phenomena, only arise within a larger context. For example: Is the macroscopic concept of fluidity applicable to a single molecule? Is one water molecule fluid? Or take the concept of temperature. What is the temperature of a single hydrogen atom? One may even wonder whether the famous Schrödinger equation, which was designed for quantum systems, is applicable to all aspects of quantum information. The equation contains concepts like time and the reduced Planck constant. The latter is a discrete value. Both are derived from classical physics. Challenge yourself to think in terms of information, relations, superposition, and probability. In other words, think in terms of superentropy. We’re laying down a preemptive apology because we’ll be revisiting this a lot more in this book. Why? Because we believe it’s a crucial component in conducting our ruthless thought experiment.

Well, that’s about it. Let’s see what happens when you rigorously apply these assumptions. Will paradoxes still be paradoxes?